Neumann & Associates, Inc.Neumann & Associates, Inc.2023-11-29T05:57:59Zhttps://www.neumannbusinesslaw.com/feed/atom/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/sites/1203597/2022/06/cropped-ID-image-32x32.jpgby Sara Bradleyhttps://www.neumannbusinesslaw.com/?p=471832023-08-10T21:45:45Z2023-08-10T21:45:45Z[1] Retaliation complaints account for more than half of all charges filed with the EEOC.[2]
Background & Lawsuit
Employer Keystone Foods LLC (“Keystone”) extended a job offer to a former employee to work in an Alabama food processing plant.[3] Upon reviewing the former employee’s records, Keystone retracted the job offer when it discovered she previously filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC for pregnancy discrimination against Keystone.[4] The EEOC is the government agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including discrimination based on a job applicant’s or employee’s race; color; religion; sex; including pregnancy, related conditions, and gender and sexual orientation; national origin; age; disability; or genetic information.[5]
After failed settlement discussions between Keystone and the former employee via the EEOC’s voluntary conciliation process, the EEOC sued Keystone in Alabama federal court for discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (“Title VII”), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.[6] Keystone and the EEOC ultimately agreed to settle the lawsuit and resolve the issues arising out of the former employee’s charge according to a 2-year consent decree issued by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.[7]
The Penalty
In addition to what was surely unwanted attention surrounding the EEOC’s publication of the press release, under the consent decree, Keystone had to pay the former employee $60,000 ($30,000 as backpay and $30,000 for “alleged emotional distress, mental anguish, and punitive damages”); properly separate and maintain the former employee’s confidential and non-confidential records, including providing a neutral reference to future employers; disseminate to plant employees a statement that it will not violate Title VII by retaliation and its policy on harassment and discrimination; train and educate employees on anti-discrimination laws including Title VII’s anti-retaliation provisions; post a workplace notice about discrimination and the consent decree; and maintain all records as specified in the consent decree for its duration.[8]
Conclusion
The EEOC wanted to make a point through its publication of this press release: employers should be wary of making adverse employment decisions based on an applicant’s or employee’s legally protected rights including the right to file a discrimination complaint with the EEOC. If you want more information or have questions regarding best employment practices, please contact Neumann & Associates or your local employment law attorney.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
[1]KEYSTONE FOODS LLC TO PAY $60,000 TO SETTLE EEOC PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Bulletin published November 16, 2022, available at https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USEEOC/bulletins/33850d8 (hereinafter the “Keystone EEOC Bulletin”).[2]Id.[3]Id.[4]EEOC v. Keystone Foods LLC, No. 2:21-cv-00629-MHT (M.D. Ala. Nov. 16, 2022).[5]https://www.eeoc.gov/overview (retrieved May 3, 2023); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.[6] Keystone EEOC Bulletin; EEOC v. Keystone Foods LLC, No. 2:21-cv-00629-MHT (M.D. Ala. Nov. 16, 2022). After an EEOC investigation and the EEOC finds there is reasonable cause that the employer discriminated, the EEOC issues a “Letter of Determination” inviting the parties to join the agency to settle the charge through an informal and confidential process called conciliation. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/what-you-should-know-eeoc-conciliation-and-litigation (retrieved July 20, 2023). If conciliation fails, the EEOC must decide whether to sue the employer in federal court. Id. In deciding to file a charge, the EEOC considers “the seriousness of the violation, the type of legal issues in the case, the wider impact the lawsuit could have on the agency’s efforts to combat workplace discrimination, and the resources available to litigate the case effectively[;] . . . Filing a lawsuit is a last resort [.]” Id. (emphasis added). “The EEOC files suit in less than 8 percent of the cases where it believes discrimination occurred and conciliation was unsuccessful.” Id.[7] Keystone EEOC Bulletin. A consent decree is a court-approved settlement agreement between the parties to a lawsuit.[8]EEOC v. Keystone Foods LLC, No. 2:21-cv-00629-MHT (M.D. Ala. Nov. 16, 2022). The parties paid their own costs and attorneys’ fees. Id.]]>On Behalf of Neumann & Associates, Inc.https://www.neumannbusinesslaw.com/?p=471712023-06-14T12:43:49Z2023-06-02T16:47:20ZChanging employment laws
California employers have not been able to include non-compete agreements in their contracts for some time, but employers across the country continue to do so. Now that there has been discussion at the federal level of banning non-compete agreements, quite a few organizations may eventually need to completely rework their contracts to comply with those new rules. Anytime significant employment laws change, companies may need to review their contracts and consider whether updates or addendums are necessary.
Changing employment arrangements
Has the company just offered a significant promotion to someone who has done exceptionally well in middle management? Will someone who's previously worked in production end up moving to product development where they will have access to trade secrets and other valuable intellectual property? A boilerplate agreement may not be sufficiently protective. Businesses may need to fine-tune their employment contracts to specifically address the unique risks and challenges inherent in different roles, including engineering, sales and executive positions.
Claims brought by employees
Sometimes, companies only realize that they do not have adequate contractual protection from worker misconduct after an employee brings a lawsuit or initiates an internal claim about some kind of dispute. Realizing that the company's policy on sexual harassment or bonuses has become outdated may force revisions or addendums to the contract. Typically, employers will need to negotiate each contract change or addendum with their existing workforce, which may lead to some hiccups during the process and could potentially lead to the loss of some talent as well if people oppose the proposed changes that the business deems necessary.
Periodically reviewing and occasionally updating employment contracts with legal guidance can prove to be crucial for a company that is hoping to avoid liability and other complications related to its staff.]]>On Behalf of Neumann & Associates, Inc.https://www.neumannbusinesslaw.com/?p=471642023-08-10T21:47:15Z2023-04-17T20:17:49Z[1] The case, Moehrl v. NAR et al., centers on the payment of commission to buyers’ brokers by residential home sellers.
The case could have far-reaching effects on broker earnings as well as real estate listing prices. In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Andrea Wood said over $10 billion is at stake involving home sales from 2015 to 2020 if the commission rule is deemed an anti-competitive practice.
Case background
In the United States, most multiple listing services (MLSs) are owned by local associations of REALTORS® affiliated with NAR. Those MLSs are required to implement NAR’s mandatory rules, including a rule which requires participants of the MLS to make a blanket unilateral offer of compensation to a buyer’s broker. When the property sells, a portion of the sale price is paid to the seller’s broker and buyer’s broker as commission.
The Moehrl lawsuit was filed in early 2019 on behalf of home sellers who paid broker commissions during the previous four years for properties offered on MLSs covering much of the United States. The suit targets NAR and the four largest real estate broker franchises: Realogy Holdings Corporation, RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., Keller Williams Realty, Inc., and HomeServices of America, Inc.
Plaintiffs’ Argument
Plaintiffs allege these companies and NAR have conspired to force sellers to pay inflated commissions to buyer brokers.[2] According to the lawsuit, buyer broker commissions remain steady due to the conspiracy, despite the diminishing role of buyer brokers due to homebuyers identifying properties through online services. Buyer brokers steer buyers to properties where the listing broker is offering higher cooperating commissions.[3] In turn, listing brokers offer higher buyer broker commissions to increase attention and sell properties faster. In a competitive market, buyers would pay their brokers directly, and buyer brokers would compete for clients by offering lower commissions or rates. Therefore, the plaintiffs argue that by requiring listing brokers to offer commission to buyer brokers, NAR and the franchises have inflated commissions and restrained price competition. Plaintiffs seek (1) monetary damages, which plaintiffs’ expert witness estimates at an overpayment of 1.55% in buyer broker commission, for a total of approximately $13.7 billion,[4] and (2) a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from requiring home sellers to pay buyer brokers’ commission.[5]
What are the possible ramifications?
If the court decides for the plaintiffs, listing brokers would no longer be required to offer compensation to buyer brokers. Sellers could choose whether to pay commission to the buyer’s broker or whether to require the buyer to negotiate payment directly with his or her broker. As competition for buyer clients increased, commission rates may become more competitive. Real estate commissions in the United States are among the highest in the world.[6]
According to NAR, the current commission structure ensures efficiency, equity, and equality. Agent commissions cannot be financed as part of a residential mortgage. If plaintiffs are successful, buyers would be forced to compensate their agents out-of-pocket, decreasing the funds available to purchase the home. With the added costs, many first-time and low-income buyers could get priced out of the market.[7]
Judge Wood’s ruling does not affect the merits of the case; however, it allows other home sellers who have been impacted by the alleged conspiracy to join the lawsuit as class members. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently denied a petition by NAR and other defendants to appeal the class certification, allowing the case to proceed as a class action.
________________________________
[1]Moehrl v. The Nat'l Ass'n of Realtors, 19-cv-01610 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 29, 2023).[2] Complaint at 1, Moehrl v. The Nat’l Ass’n of Realtors, 19-cv-01610. (N.D. Ill. March 6, 2019).[3]Id. at 4.[4]Moehrl v. The Nat'l Ass'n of Realtors, 19-cv-01610 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 29, 2023).[5] Complaint at 90F, Moehrl v. The Nat’l Ass’n of Realtors, 19-cv-01610. (N.D. Ill. March 6, 2019).[6]Real Estate Agent Commissions Around the World, Wall. St. J., https://graphics.wsj.com/table/commish_1016.[7] Charlie Oppler, How the Agent Commission Structure Benefits Everyday Americans, Inman News (Mar. 18, 2021), https://www.inman.com/2021/03/18/how-the-agent-commission-structure-benefits-everyday-americans/.]]>by Sara Bradleyhttps://www.neumannbusinesslaw.com/?p=471632023-04-10T16:56:50Z2023-04-10T16:44:35Z[1]
Background
American Pacific Printers College, Inc., a subsidiary of Comprehensive Print Group LLC (collectively, “Comprehensive Print”), hired Eleanor Malloy (“Malloy”) in 2018 as an assistant to Comprehensive Print’s Chief Executive Officer, Stanley Spencer (“Spencer”) at its Orange County office.[2] In March of 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Comprehensive Print allowed Malloy to start working remotely from her home in Los Angeles County.[3]
In September of 2020, Malloy told Spencer she was pregnant, and he said she could continue working remotely during and after the pregnancy due to health concerns surrounding the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.[4] On March 3, 2021, however, at 37 weeks pregnant, Malloy sought emergency medical treatment for pregnancy-related conditions.[5] Malloy sent Spencer and a Comprehensive Print payroll representative a doctor’s note authorizing her leave from work until May of 2021.[6] On March 14, 2021, Malloy gave birth to her son and told Comprehensive Print she planned to return to work in May.[7]
In April before Malloy’s scheduled return to work date, Spencer called Malloy to discuss returning to work in person, but Malloy said she could not for at least a month.[8] Spencer demanded she immediately return to work in person, and the next day, April 13, 2021, called and fired her because she refused.[9] Malloy received a termination letter listing March 3, 2021, as the separation date.[10]
The Lawsuit in Los Angeles County
Thereafter, Malloy filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court against Comprehensive Print for pregnancy and gender discrimination and sex- and gender-based harassment in violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”);[11] interference with leave rights and retaliation under California’s Pregnancy Disability Leave Law (“PDLL”) and California’s Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act (“CFRA”); failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of FEHA; and wrongful termination.[12] Malloy sued Spencer for sex- and gender-based harassment. [13]
The FEHA Venue Statute
A special FEHA venue statute controls in a “mixed” lawsuit when causes of action under FEHA are brought along with non-FEHA causes of action arising from the same facts as was the case here.[14] FEHA’s venue statute allows plaintiffs to file a lawsuit “in any county in the state in which the unlawful practice is alleged to have been committed, in the county in which the records relevant to the practice are maintained and administered, or in the county in which the aggrieved person would have worked . . . but for the alleged unlawful practice.”[15]
Request for Change of Venue to Orange County
Spencer responded to Malloy’s complaint and requested a change of venue to Orange County[16] because he argued, per the FEHA venue statute, the alleged unlawful practices occurred in Orange County, all lawsuit-related records were in Orange County, and Malloy’s employment was in Orange County where she would have continued to work but for her separation of employment.[17] Malloy asserted proper venue was in Los Angeles County because the unlawful employment practices occurred in Los Angeles County while she worked from home or where she was on protected pregnancy disability leave, and she would have continued working in Los Angeles County at least until June of 2021 if not for the FEHA violations.[18] The Superior Court in a very brief order sided with Spencer and granted his motion for a change of venue to Orange County and also allowed joinders by Comprehensive Print.[19]
Malloy Petitions California Court of Appeal for Review
Subsequently, Malloy filed a writ of mandate with the California Court of Appeal to review the Superior Court’s order granting Spencer’s motion for change of venue to Orange County.[20]
Issue before the Court of Appeal
The issue before the Court was whether any of the alleged unlawful employment practices occurred in Los Angeles County within the meaning of California Government Code Section 12965(c)(3), the special FEHA venue statute, or whether termination of Malloy’s employment before she returned to remote work from her home qualified Los Angeles County as the county Malloy would have worked but for the unlawful practices.[21]
Court of Appeal’s Analysis
1. In What County Did the Unlawful Practice Occur?
In analyzing the FEHA statute, the Court found the alleged unlawful employment practices, sex-, gender-, and pregnancy-based discrimination occurred in Orange County, because that is where Malloy’s employment status evaluations occurred, including the decision to fire her.[22] Interference with Malloy’s PDLL rights, however, occurred in Los Angeles County.[23] Because of her pregnancy-related condition, Malloy’s doctor ordered her on March 3, 2021, not to work through May 9, 2021; Malloy was on leave at her home in Los Angeles County where she worked on March 3, 2021, when Spencer demanded she immediately return to work in Orange County and then fired her when she refused.[24]
The Court said the FEHA venue statute should be construed “broadly to effectuate its purpose” to permit venue in a county most appropriate and convenient to a plaintiff.[25] Thus, it concluded that Malloy properly filed her cause of action for interference with her PDLL rights, and therefore all of her causes of action “arising from the same set of operative facts[,]” in Los Angeles County.[26]
2. Where Would Malloy Have Worked But For the Unlawful Employment Practices?
The Court addressed the remaining arguments and continued analyzing where Malloy would have worked but for the unlawful employment practices, again finding in Malloy’s favor that Los Angeles County was the correct location to have filed the lawsuit; Los Angeles County was where Malloy would have worked but for Spencer’s termination of Malloy’s employment, resulting in interference with her leave rights and retaliation for exercising them.[27]
Conclusion
Ultimately, the Court held in favor of Malloy, ruling that proper venue was in Los Angeles County. [28] For an employer with any remote employees, this highlights the importance of knowing the state and local laws applicable within the employee’s remote location as well as having a thorough understanding of an employee’s rights under federal and state law. California’s FEHA venue statute may sound inconsequential, but its implications are far reaching: if an employee alleges any violation of a FEHA-protected right alongside any other cause of action arising from the same set of facts, that FEHA statute will control, and your remote employee’s location will suddenly become very important and possibly determinative of the outcome of a potential lawsuit. Please reach out to Neumann & Associates, Inc. for questions regarding the analysis of this case as well as to answer any other legal questions you may have.
______________________________________________________________________
[1]SeeMalloy v. Superior Court, 83 Cal. App. 5th 543 (Sept. 19, 2022).[2]Id. at 547. Malloy alleges at the Orange County office Spencer “routinely made offensive comments to and about her, including denigrating her because of her gender, expressing an inappropriate interest in her personal life and suggesting they could become a couple.” Id. at 548.[3]Id.[4]Id.[5]Id. [6]Id.[7]Id.[8]Id.[9]Id.[10]Id.[11] Cal. Gov’t Code Section 12900 et seq.; Malloy, 83 Cal. App. 5th at 547.[12]Malloy, 83 Cal. App. 5th at 547.[13]Id.[14]Id. at 549 (citing Brown v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. 3d 477 (1984)). The Supreme Court in Brown realized that employment discrimination victims are “frequently unemployed—many times as the result of the alleged discrimination” and routinely lack financial resources. Id. at 546 n.3 (citing Brown, 37 Cal. 3d at 486).[15]Id. at 546; Cal. Gov’t Code § 12965(c)(3)(emphasis added). Section 12965(c)(3) further provides that “if the defendant is not found within any of these counties, an action may be brought within the county of the defendant’s residence or principal office” which parallels California’s general venue statute found in California Civil Code Section 395. Id. at 546 n.2.[16] The Court notes that “for whatever reason” Spencer is the only defendant in the case who moved to change venue even though the only cause of action alleged against him was for sex- and gender-based harassment. Id. at 553 n.12.[17]Id. at 549 (quoting Cal. Gov’t Code Section 12965). Spencer alternatively urged the Superior Court to exercise its discretion to order a change of venue to Orange County based on the convenience of witnesses and to promote the ends of justice under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 397(c), but the Superior Court did not rule on that motion. Id. at 549, 560.[18] And wrongful termination. Id. at 549.[19] Id. at 550.[20]Id.[21]Id. at 553.[22]Id. at 554. The Court noted that because Malloy learned about the termination via e-mail or phone and not in person did not mean the unlawful practices were committed wherever Malloy was when she received the information; the FEHA venue statute is not that expansive. Id.[23]Id. at 554-55.[24]Id. at 555.[25]Id.[26]Id. (citing Brown, 37 Cal. 3d at 487)(emphasis added).[27]Id. at 556-58. Venue is proper where Malloy would have worked but for that demand (Los Angeles County), not where she would have worked had she complied with it (Orange County). Id. at 556.[28]Id. at 555-56.]]>On Behalf of Neumann & Associates, Inc.https://www.neumannbusinesslaw.com/?p=471622023-06-22T12:57:33Z2023-04-04T21:25:21ZWhat constitutes an emergency condition?
The law defines an “emergency condition” as a hazardous situation arising from natural forces, such as earthquakes, forest fires, and other natural calamities, or criminal acts in the workplace, like an active shooter situation. An order to evacuate the worksite, employee’s home, or their children’s school because of crime or natural disaster also qualifies as an emergency condition. A health pandemic does not fall within this definition.
If your employees reasonably believe they are in the presence of an emergency condition, the law allows them to leave the worksite or refuse to go to work until the danger ceases. They must, however, inform you of the situation and that they are not reporting to work in advance when feasible. If not feasible, they must provide notice of their reason as soon as possible.
The law also states employers cannot stop their employees from using their mobile devices to confirm the safety of others, evaluate the current risks, or contact emergency services. Employers may face penalties for violating these terms.
Does the law apply to everyone?
There are notable exceptions; examples include:
First responders and employees of fire prevention services
Employees providing primary patient care in healthcare facilities
Employees in military bases and defense industrial base facilities
Employees who play critical roles in nuclear plant operations
Employees tasked with aiding in emergency evacuations
A professional specializing in California laws can help if you want further clarification on what constitutes an emergency condition and how employers can cure alleged violations.]]>On Behalf of Neumann & Associates, Inc.https://www.neumannbusinesslaw.com/?p=471612023-04-06T12:15:09Z2023-03-29T19:32:53Zissued guidance in 2022 explaining how AI and algorithms can lead to discrimination against applicants with disabilities, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). California has drafted proposed amendments to employment standards over these automated-decision systems.
How employers use AI and algorithms
The DOJ says many employers use these tools to help them select new employees. The technology can be used in a variety of ways, including:
Distributing computer-based aptitude and personality tests
Holding online interviews with applicants
Scoring applicants’ resumes
Many of these actions are taken before a human resources person or hiring manager views an application.
Two examples of potential discrimination
Businesses that want to utilize advanced technology should address these essential considerations before automating any level of their hiring practices:
Aptitude and skills testing can punish applicants with disabilities: Studies have shown that aptitude tests administered online do not take a person’s disability into account. Candidates with disabilities are routinely dismissed during the first stage of the hiring process.
Personality testing can adversely affect applicants with autism: Personality tests are often used to identify candidates with specific qualities employers want. But some candidates with autism do not process and respond to these questions like other applicants.
Bottom line? While advanced technology can be cost-effective and streamline many processes, relying on automated systems to narrow a list of job applicants can put employers at risk of unfair hiring practices. Before implementing AI or other technologies, it’s advisable to consult with an experienced employment law attorney to review your policies and procedures to make sure you comply with all applicable rules.]]>On Behalf of Neumann & Associates, Inc.https://www.neumannbusinesslaw.com/?p=471592023-03-08T15:16:16Z2023-03-10T08:00:46Znational origin discrimination when it pertains to non-work-related conversations between employees or when an employee is on a personal phone call.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) states that this type of policy is "a burdensome term and condition of employment.” It also violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
When can you require English to be spoken?
It’s usually necessary for workplaces to have a common language, and that language is typically English. Employers have the right, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, to require employees to speak English when:
They’re involved in “cooperative work assignments.”
They communicate with employees, customers and others who only or primarily speak English.
There’s an emergency or other safety issue.
A supervisor needs to assess or monitor an employee’s work.
It’s not uncommon for employees to complain that they feel “left out” if employees are speaking to each other in a language other than English in the lunchroom or hallway. Some people automatically assume they’re being talked about when the conversation likely has nothing to do with them.
Employees have a right to have a personal conversation in their native language or to speak with a parent, grandparent or another family member in that person’s native language on the phone while on a break. Your managers, supervisors and all employees need to be aware of this. That’s why it’s essential to have experienced legal guidance to establish and periodically review and revise company policies and procedures.]]>On Behalf of Neumann & Associates, Inc.https://www.neumannbusinesslaw.com/?p=471522023-03-08T15:14:27Z2023-03-08T08:00:47ZTypes of breaches
Contract breaches are generally considered minor or material:
Minor breach example: Failing to deliver or receive a product or service by the due date.
Material breach example: Receiving or providing a different product than what was promised.
Breaches also usually fall under one of two categories:
Anticipatory: The party in breach of contract notifies the other party in advance they cannot fulfill the terms of the agreement.
Actual: One party refuses to live up to the agreement’s terms.
Unfortunately, breaches of contract are common. They happen for several reasons, including relying on third parties to deliver goods and services, poor communication between parties, and the inability of businesses to track their obligations.
Steps for avoiding a breach of contract
Contracts are essential for businesses to ensure that employees, suppliers and other parties live up to requirements and promises. Disputes can be costly. That’s why it’s advisable to have experienced lawyers draft or review these agreements. A business law attorney can assess contracts and ensure that they contain these vital elements:
The language is clear, accurate and complies with state, federal and municipal laws
The agreement outlines expectations, and remedies for breaches
The contract is a legally-binding document
Drafting clear legal documents is the best way to protect yourself and your customers. Lawyers specializing in business contracts can protect you from minor and material breaches and, ultimately, help you avoid costly litigation.]]>On Behalf of Neumann & Associates, Inc.https://www.neumannbusinesslaw.com/?p=471502023-03-01T19:37:13Z2023-03-06T16:00:42ZThe bill accomplished a rare feat
Advocacy groups representing minority-owned small businesses had fought for decades for increased inclusion in state contracting opportunities. Their dedication paid off with unanimous victories in the Assembly (74-0) and Senate (34-0) before Newsom signed the bill.
The bill also received widespread support from various groups and organizations, including the California Chamber of Commerce, the California African American Chamber of Commerce, the California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Women Business Owners and the California State Controller. Together, these groups represent hundreds of thousands of small businesses in the state.
The law provides opportunities and demands accountability
Under the new requirements, minority-owned small businesses will be able to compete for billions of dollars under the procurement process for state contracts. Supporters say it not only lifts up small, diverse entrepreneurs but will benefit underserved communities that have faced systemic barriers to economic opportunities.
Gov. Newsom says the law helps the state build a more inclusive economy while supporting growth and innovation for the nation’s largest community of small businesses. He and others believe it will encourage women and minority entrepreneurs to realize their dreams of owning a business. AB 2019 holds the state accountable by mandating that 25% of contracts are awarded to minority businesses.]]>On Behalf of Neumann & Associates, Inc.https://www.neumannbusinesslaw.com/?p=471572023-03-01T19:33:42Z2023-03-01T19:33:42Zwhy you are terminating them.
However, the reasons that these experts give are often emotional. They may note that it is frustrating for an employee to be fired and not told why this happened. They may say that it can improve the morale in the workplace if people know what’s expected of them, or it can at least make them more productive. And all of this may be true, but are you legally required to tell the employee why you’re letting them go? What is your obligation here?
Are they an at-will employee?
It depends on the type of employee that you’re firing. If they’re an at-will employee, that means that you don’t even have to have a reason to let them go. You certainly don’t have to tell them anything more than you’d like. You can simply inform them that you’ve decided the working relationship is over, and that’s the end of it.
If the person has a contract, however, that contract may provide other stipulations that go beyond at-will employment laws. For instance, the contract could say that the person can only be fired for cause and must be told what that reason is to confirm that it is legitimate. But at-will employees do not have this right without a contract.
If your situation gets complicated, be sure you know about all the legal options you have.]]>