|Feb. 21, 2019 | www.fisherphillips.com|
For new parents, time at home to bond with their newborn child during the first few months after birth or adoption is very important. This small window is also important for fathers, as they did not have a chance to bond with the child during pregnancy. So if this time is critically important, why are fathers – on average – taking much less time off from work to bond with their newborn children than are mothers?
Some courts have read a safeguard into federal wage and hour law that can protect employers from liability for working-off-the-clock claims, believing you should not be responsible for unpaid overtime or minimum wage if you didn’t know, and should not have known, that an employee was working off the clock. But what does it mean under the law whether an employer knew or should have known? And how is this analysis affected if you have a policy requiring employees to report all time worked, even if outside of normal work hours and while not clocked in? There is no single definitive answer, but several courts around the country provided valuable guidelines on how you might increase your chances of successfully defending against an-off-the-clock lawsuit.
Today’s workplace is fraught with legal traps for well-intentioned but unwary managers. But one issue stands out far above the rest as perhaps the single biggest employee challenge in today’s workplace: malingering employees attempting to “game the system” with leave and accommodation requests.
The 2016-17 Supreme Court term was truly a mixed bag for employers. The Court limited presidential power, reined in the appellate courts’ authority to review and overturn trial court decisions regarding EEOC subpoenas, increased procedural burdens for the certification of class actions, and provided a favorable ruling for plaintiffs bringing claims under the WARN Act.