The
3 most costly mistakes with problem employees. Separation notice
help.
Whether you are firing your problem employee or laying off workers
because of downsizing, you must give each worker a formal separation
notice. It is a crucial part of the termination process. And while
every termination is different, all separation notices should follow
a similar format. This is not to say you do not have to tailor each
separation notice, you do. But you can use a basic template and change
it depending on your circumstances.
What a Separation Notice should contain
First, a separation notice should have basic employee information.
You should include the employee's name and social security number.
Then list the dates the employee started work and date last worked
and the reason that they were separated from employment. Be careful
when giving reasons for termination. Get rid of any discriminatory
language or unprofessional wording.
You must make sure your employee clearly understands the reasons
for the separation. Also you must have documented evidence to support
those reasons. If you have collected this information properly, the
employee will not be surprised by his or her current predicament.
Finally there should be an area for both you and the employee to
sign off on the separation notice. This gives you legal evidence
the employee knew why you were letting him or her go.
Needing
to separate an employee from your company? This is how I terminate.
RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION TOUGHER TO PROVE IN NJ New Jersey state courts are notoriously indulgent to plaintiffs claiming sexual or racial discrimination and will almost never dismiss a sex or race based discrimination case, no matter how meritless.
The New Jersey Supreme Court has held that the state anti-discrimination statute (the “NJLAD”) is not meant to be a “civility code” and was not enacted to combat words that are merely discourteous or rude. Instead, it is only supposed to apply to genuine acts of discrimination—where an employee is singled out for bad treatment due to his or her race, gender or religion.
Moreover, in cases where the employee/plaintiff has not been terminated, and instead claims to have been subjected to a “hostile work environment,” the plaintiff is required to prove a pattern of improperly-motivated acts (such as sexual comments, racial slurs or jokes) that are so “severe or pervasive” in the workplace that they “alter the conditions of employment.”
The logic behind this sentiment makes sense, however, subsequent Supreme Court and Appellate Division decisions seem to have ignored these principles in practice and effectively nullified them.
For example in Taylor v. Metzger, 152 N.J. 490 (1998), the State Supreme Court held that a single patently racist slur spoken by a supervisor to a subordinate was enough to warrant a trial for a hostile work environment case.
In the wake of Taylor, trial courts in New Jersey have been increasingly reluctant to throw hostile work environment cases out of court where an employee/plaintiff only alleges that they were subjected to just a few (or even one) racial or sexual comment.
Without the ability to nip cases based upon arguable trivialities in the bud on a summary judgment motion, employers are increasingly faced with the prospect of having to defend cases of little or no ultimate value all the way to trial in order to prevail. The high costs of trial can turn these “nuisance” cases into expensive undertakings.
One area, however, where the State Courts are still willing to grant summary judgment, in the absence of real evidence of discrimination, is religion. In Mandel v. UBS/PainWebber, Inc., 373 N.J. Super. 55 (2004), the Appellate Division affirmed the grant of summary judgment against two plaintiffs who alleged a religiously hostile work environment.
One plaintiff alleged that a supervisor made the following remark about a fantasy football league being conducted in the office: “This is the gentiles versus the Jews and the plaque should never hang in anybody’s office that doesn’t celebrate Christmas.”
The other plaintiff said that she was referred to as a “Jew b**ch” on one occasion, although the plaintiff was not present when the phrase was uttered and did not learn about it until after she quit to take a job elsewhere.
In Mandel, both plaintiffs left to take other jobs that paid similarly to the ones they left. In addition, the comments that were allegedly made were isolated and clearly were not so severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of the plaintiffs’ employment.
The Mandel Court cited to Heitzman v. Monmouth County, 321 N.J. Super. 133 for an example of what a religiously hostile work environment really is - namely one in which the harassing conduct is truly substanial (Heitzman’s boss made repeated inquiries into what Heitzman was doing on Friday nights, his dietary restrictions, made comments about a country club that excluded Jews, commented on a “Jewish mile”, and called Hietzman’s vacation destination the “Jewish Alps,” among other comments).
The Mandel court got it right and correctly dismissed a suit in which there just was no real evidence that the employees were actually the victims of a continuing pattern of discrimination that transformed their working environment into a hostile one—rather were only demonstrated that there were one or two stray comments.
The Mandel court, however, did note that under Taylor, an employee’s allegation of a single racial comment would normally preclude granting summary judgment.
The rationale is that a single racial comment can evoke centuries of cruelty and discrimination, such as when the “N” word is directed toward an Africn-American.
As for gender or sex related comments, it is unclear as to whether or not a plaintiff’s allegation of a single offensive remark will be sufficient to preclude an employer from obtaining summary judgment and avoiding trial.
Thus, following Mandel, Heitzman and Taylor, the following sliding scale can be applied to predict the likely behavior the New Jersey State Courts when faced with different types of hostile work environment cases:
1. Nearly every case in which a plaintiff alleges that a patently offensive racial slur was directed towards him will overcome summary judgment and go to trial (even if it is only a single comment).
2. Where a plaintiff alleges to be the victim of a religiously hostile work environment, he will need actual evidence of a true “pattern.” Allegations of isolated or sporadic comments will be unlikely to warrant a trial.
3. Where a plaintiff alleges to been subjected to a sexually hostile work environment, the behavior of New Jersey’s courts cannot be predicted. More conservative judges will likely dismiss cases that seem to be based on infrequent or trivial bases. More permissive judges should still be able to let virtually any plaintiff get to trial.
© 2005, Jonathan Meyers, Esq.
About the author:
About the author: Jonathan Meyers, Esq. is an employment litigation attorney with the law firm of Grotta Glassman & Hoffman, P.C., a national law firm whose practice is limited to representing management in employment and labor related matters. He is an experienced trial and appellate advocate. He can be reached at EmploymentLawyer@Lawyer.com
Circulated by Article Emporium
Needing
to separate an employee from your company? This is how I terminate.
How to Deal with Work-Related Accidents
Having been involved in a personal injury in your workplace can really be embarrassing. It can bring you psychological stresses which are truly hard to deal with. Among the most difficult effect of these incidents is mental distress. In this case, it may be hard for you to calculate the exact amount that you’ll ask for compensation for the psychological trauma that you have suffered from a work-related accident. Therefore, it is recommended that you contact a lawyer who can protect you from tricky plans of your employer especially when your case is still in the court.If you’ve been physically injured in your workplace, your first priority is to rest well and recover faster. Regardless of . . .
|