Walcheske & Luzi, LLC

We see you rolling your eyes. “Oh, go figure, 2 employment attorneys preaching about the ‘dangers’ of not being represented by an employment law firm. Shiver me timbers!” Okay, so that last part got a bit pirate-y, but all we ask is that you please hold your presumptions about what we’re going to say here and why, at least until you’ve finished reading this. Now, BRING ON THE PULPIT!

Under a “no-fault” attendance policy, an employee accrues one point per absence, regardless of the reason for the absence. After an employee accumulates a pre-designated number of absences, the employee is usually subject to increasing levels of discipline (a “progressive disciplinary policy”), ending with termination.

In our previous articles about the Family & Medical Leave Act, we noted that covered employers must grant eligible employees up to a total of 12 work weeks of unpaid leave during a 12-month period (the “12” in the title). There are 4 (yup, the title again) methods for determining that 12-month period. The constant, regardless of the method chosen, is that the method used must, must, must be communicated to employees.

For those of you paying attention, that title rhymed. In any event, as we touched on in a previous article, certification is an important concept to understand in the FMLA process. It can be the difference between an absence being covered or not covered by the Family & Medical Leave Act.

We spent the last article providing an overview of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) – who’s covered, who’s not, and where to find additional resources made available by the Department of Labor. But as an employer, what are your basic responsibilities when your company is covered by the Family Medical Leave Act?

Although we discuss the Family & Medical Leave Act on our website, we thought we would provide a second source of quick facts on the FMLA and provide links to some quick and easy-to-understand resources for anyone looking for more FMLA information.

The attorneys at Walcheske & Luzi, LLC are continually surprised by the number of people who believe workplace discrimination could never happen to them. It is important to protect yourself and not assume others always have your best interest at heart. We’ve compiled workplace discrimination examples that demonstrate it can and does happen, and sometimes with a surprising twist. This one’s for the non-believers.

Not handling the background check process correctly or misusing the information contained within the background check, also called a consumer report, can lead to liability for employers. Some potential background check pitfalls employers could face include:

For Wisconsin employers, a common question is "what happens if the job applicant refuses to sign the background check authorization form?" The obvious answer is, the employer cannot run a background check on the potential employee without a signed background check authorization form.

A natural segue from our last article regarding conviction records is to briefly touch on background checks and the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). For the truly ambitious, the you can read the complete FCRA text. Background checks are most commonly encountered during the hiring process. For that reason, we will focus on a scenario involving an employer and an applicant.

Like arrest record discrimination, conviction record claims are not under federal law, but rather only under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. Also like arrest record discrimination, the same “substantial relationship” exception can be applicable.

Arrest record claims in Wisconsin are full of twists and turns, loopholes, and caveats. For this reason, they can easily get screwed up if you are not careful. We recommend that you always, always talk to an attorney about these situations.

In January, Pepsi Beverages entered into a pre-litigation settlement of $3.13 million to resolve race discrimination charges that were filed with the Minneapolis EEOC. Through its investigation, the EEOC found reasonable cause that the criminal background check policy previously utilized by Pepsi had an adverse impact African Americans based on their race, in violation of Title VII.

Sometimes leaving the TV on for background noise can yield results. About 2 weeks ago, I caught a brief teaser for an upcoming story about a former Indiana Catholic school teacher, Emily Herx, who was fired by her diocese after they learned she was trying to have a baby. More specifically, after they learned she was trying to conceive using fertility treatments. Here’s what happened:

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court gave religious organizations more freedom in hiring and firing by expanding the “ministerial exception” to anti-discrimination laws, meaning that churches and religious employers cannot be sued for discrimination by employees who qualify as a “minister.” According to the Supreme Court, a minister is anyone who conveys or promotes the religious organization’s message. That’s a very broad and flexible standard, but that is as specific as the Court would get.

Recently in Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker repealed 2009 Wisconsin Act 20, which allowed victims of employment discrimination in Wisconsin to seek compensatory and punitive damages in state court. There has been a lot of talk about this Act and its repeal recently (the vast majority politically slanted one way or another). We thought we’d provide you with the straight facts about Governor Scott Walker’s repeal and the practical effects it will likely have.