SALES & MARKETING MANAGER, Page 29 Tag

Recruiters and hiring managers don’t always see eye to eye and cause roadblocks in the hiring process. Hear what 1,000 recruiters & hiring managers revealed were the biggest roadblocks in their day and how talent acquisition technology optimized their hiring process. Also, learn how some of iCIMS’ top clients have leveraged the talent acquisition software to break through bottlenecks and expedite the hiring process!

Click here to learn more!  

For more HR News, please visit: 3 Methods to Improve Your Recruiter & Hiring Manager Relationship

Source: News from HR Morning

If an employee smacks a manager she claims is sexually harassing her, a company is justified in firing her, right? 

Maybe not.

That’s the question being asked in a retaliation lawsuit involing WES Health System and a former employee.

‘I want some of that …’

Sameka Speed, an employee at WES, complained several times about her supervisor, Macon Garway, making sexual comments and gestures toward her.

According to her complaint, Garway would often do things like ask her for sex, point to Speed’s crotch and say he wanted “some of that,” or point to his own crotch and say he wanted to give her “some of this.”

Speed made several oral and written complaints to Garway’s supervisor about the inappropriate conduct. But even though Speed wasn’t the first woman in the office to protest his behavior, WES never investigated her claims or punished Garway.

Over time, Garway’s harassment became more physical. One day, he began to rub Speed’s leg. She asked him to stop, and warned if he ever tried to touch her again, she would defend herself.

But Speed’s warning fell on deaf ears, and Garway reached out to touch her again.

That’s when Speed clocked him.

That finally got the C-suite’s attention. WES investigated, and soon after, fired Garway for his actions. But it also fired Speed for slapping her manager.

Lost protections? Not quite

Speed sued for retaliation.

The company tried to get the suit tossed, saying slapping Garway during an isolated harassment incident negated any protection normally given to victims.

But the judge is sending the case to jury, saying:

Speed does not contend that she struck Garway to protest his conduct, but rather that she struck him to defend against his conduct. She does not contend that he deserved to be struck, but rather that she deserved to be protected against his unwanted physical advances

In other words, evidence could lead a jury to reasonably conclude Speed was fired as retaliation for defending herself from the harassment her employer chose to ignore.

Now, WES is facing a costly lawsuit â€” win or lose â€” or an expensive settlement.

The case is a good reminder to other employers and managers that they can’t brush off complaints of harassment. Be sure your company has a thorough investigation process in place to objectively review complaints and follow up with victims in a timely manner.

You also want to reach out to your workers and make sure they understand they won’t be punished for coming forward with complaints.

Cite: Speed v. WES Health System.

For more HR News, please visit: Can a worker claim retaliation after she slapped her harasser?

Source: News from HR Morning

Employers know they need to comply with the ADA when a worker is disabled. But not everyone knows that also can hold true when an employee’s relative is disabled.

Case in point: A technical school recently learned about associational ADA bias the hard way â€” with a lawsuit.

‘Your daughter or your job’

Elizabeth Manon was a receptionist at 878 Education LLC, also known as the Globe Institute of Technology. Manon also had an infant daughter who often experienced medical issues due to an asthma-like condition called Reactive Airway Disease.

That meant Manon often came late, left early or missed whole days of work to attend to her daughter. Over the six months she worked for 878, Manon left early 54 times, came late 27 times and was absent for 17 days, total.

Manon did her best to give notice of when she would be absent to her manager, Alphonso Garcia.

Garcia knew about her daughter’s condition, and despite Manon’s pattern of absenteeism, only reprimanded her once for being late.

But finally enough was enough. Garcia fired Manon after she returned from unexpectedly being out several days to care for her daughter.

During the termination meeting, Garcia told her he needed someone “who does not have kids who can be at the front desk at all times.” He also asked her, “How can you guarantee me that two weeks from now your daughter is not going to be sick again … So, what is it, your job or your daughter?”

‘Smoking gun’ comments

Manon then sued for associational ADA bias, claiming she was fired because of caring for her disabled daughter.

The company tried to get the case thrown out on summary judgement. It claimed that Manon’s absenteeism was the main reason for her termination.

But a judge ruled the case should go to trial for two reasons:

1. A jury could reasonably believe the manager’s comments were the “smoking gun” showing that Manon was indeed fired because of her daughter’s illness.
2. Manon’s frequent communication about her daughter’s condition could also lead a jury to conclude that Garcia knew about her disability when he fired Manon.

Plus, despite claiming absenteeism as the main reason for terminating her, the court noted there was no evidence to show that anyone had discussed these performance issues with her other than one passing warning about being late.

Now, 878 is facing a costly lawsuit or settlement.

But there are some good lessons for other employers that come out of this case.

The school could have saved itself a lot of trouble by taking to time to address Manon’s absences earlier on. That could have prompted a more thorough conversation about limitations due to her daughter’s disease, and possible accommodations to fix the issue.

It’s an important reminder to other employers that they may have to approach work issues related to an employee’s disabled relative with the same tact and sensitivity as a typical ADA case.

The case is Manon v. 878 Education LLC.

For more HR News, please visit: Case illustrates how to get yourself sued for ‘associational ADA bias’

Source: News from HR Morning

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) just released the final regs on 2016 out-of-pocket maximums under the Affordable Care Act.
But the information the agency tucked away in the reg’s preamble is something employers are really going to want to take note of.

Each covered family member

For 2016, the out-of-pocket maximum for self-only coverage will be $6,850; and for non-self-only (family) coverage it will be $13,700.

Despite the clear distinction between self-only and family coverage, HHS said that all plans will now have to have “embedded” out-of-pocket limits for each individual covered under a family plan.

In other words, each member in the family plan would only be subject to the individual cost-sharing limit for his or her expenses instead of the higher family limit of $13,700.

With the 2016 limits in mind, here’s an example of how the embedding rule would apply to family plan with a $10,000 out-of-pocket maximum, courtesy of at Bryan Cave Benefits and Executive Compensation Blog: If one person in the plan racked up $20,000 in medical expenses, that individual could only be asked to pay the self-only $6,850 max – and the plan would be responsible for the other $13,150.

Because the family max in this example is $10,000, other family members should be responsible for the remaining $3,150 under the family cap but this wasn’t spelled out in the HHS preamble.

In terms of compliance, the HHS said that “2016 plans must comply with this policy” – although the final regs take effect on April 28, 2015. So it’s not entirely clear whether plans have to comply with the embedding clarification for the 2015 plan year.

Different high-deductible limits

Firms should also keep in mind the different limits agencies have for HDHPs. For 2015, the HHS’ limits under Obamacare are $6,600 for self-only coverage and $13,200 for family coverage, whereas the IRS’ 2015 high-deductible limits are $6,450 self and $12,900 family.

Currently, the IRS don’t require family plans to apply the embedded out-of-pocket limit approach, and it hasn’t released its 2016 limits.

For more HR News, please visit: Feds unveil final Obamacare out-of-pocket limits

Source: News from HR Morning

Remember how the DOL earmarked a ton of money to  help states root out businesses that misclassify their employees to avoid paying fringe benefits and payroll taxes?  
Well, at least one of these states has made good use of those funds – and you can bet the rest will soon follow.

New York’s Joint Enforcement Task Force on Employee Misclassification  discovered 133,000 workers who were misclassified as independent contractors or “off-the-books” workers in 2014.

Regulators conducted over 12,000 audits uncovering $316 million in unreported wages and over $40 million in unpaid unemployment insurance contributions.

New York is not alone in its efforts.

Eighteen other states have partnered with the DOL in its misclassification initiative.

What does all this mean?

For one thing, businesses can no longer afford to casually issue 1099s and hope an investigator does not come knocking.

Here are some tips to avoid misclassifying workers:
•    Employers should audit their labor pool. It’s important to remember that independent contractors will generally be free from supervision, direction and control.
•    Other indications of an
employee-employer relationship include setting the rate of pay and hours of work, requiring attendance at meetings and evaluating job performance.
•    If you want to make sure your company is on the same page with the IRS, ask the agency to determine whether your worker is an employee or independent contractor.
•    Excuses like, “He works only a few days a week,” “I have him use his own tools” or “He’s been doing this work so long he doesn’t need my supervision,” won’t fly with investigators.

For more HR News, please visit: So it begins: Can your business survive an IC audit?

Source: News from HR Morning

The face of corporate learning has changed. It is no longer possible to develop your human capital with a single approach. Today’s corporate environment calls for out-of-the-box thinking, incorporating the advantages of many types of learning to benefit your company’s single biggest investment: your people. This handy guide will help you navigate the growing number of learning solutions and equip you with eight must-ask questions as you develop your learning program.

Click here to learn more!  

For more HR News, please visit: Getting Started with Elearning: Eight Questions to Consider

Source: News from HR Morning

When employers grant accommodation requests, those accommodations should always be made on a temporary basis. Unfortunately, many firms unknowingly turn these temporary accommodations into permanent ones.

Preventing employers from trapping themselves in permanent accommodation situations was one of the major themes of Building a Better Mousetrap: Trends in FMLA & ADA Administration, a presentation by Ophelia W. Galindo at the Mid-Sized Retirement & Healthcare Plan Management Conference in San Diego.

Act early to prevent confusion

Ms. Galindo stressed the importance of making sure employers act early to prevent any confusion about the nature of the accommodation.

Here’s why that’s so important: Say an employee’s accommodation has been in place for a long period of time. The company decides the arrangement is no longer working out and tells the worker.

The worker then sues under the ADA, and the court sides with the employee. Its reason: The accommodation has been in place for this long without it impacting the company, so there’s no reason why it should all of sudden be an undue hardship.

In any communication about the reasonable accommodation during the interactive process and/or hardship analysis, it should be clearly stated that the accommodation is being made on a temporary basis.

From there, employers should revisit the accommodation regularly to see if the circumstances are still the same or if changes have taken place that could alter the accommodation.

How regularly? A 30-day increment usually works well, so HR pros should shoot for check-ins every 30 days, 60 days, 90 days, etc.

Another area that should be reviewed regularly: Job descriptions. Many job descriptions are poorly written, so “essential job functions” are difficult to pin down, says Galindo.

For example, if a job requires a high stress tolerance that should be listed in the description because it would impact the accommodation process.

Galindo also offered what she called “The Reasonable Test,” which is a very simple test to determine whether or not an accommodation is reasonable. If the accommodation will have a negative impact on the company as a whole, chances are it’s not a reasonable accommodation.

And chances are, the smaller the company, the easier it’ll be to prove the accommodation negatively impacts the entire workforce.

Of course, this test should never be used to make actual employment-based decisions. When the ADA is in play, the interactive process is always the way to go.

6 forms accommodations take

Galindo’s presentation also touched on the six major types of accommodation types employees generally request under the ADA, which include:

1. Physical (a different chair, a special keyboard, etc.)
2. Functional (being temporarily relieved of certain job functions, providing “sheltered” work environments for staffers with anxiety issues, ADHD, etc.)
3. Environmental (Moving the employee to a different work environment, limiting his or her exposure to hot or cold)
4. Work Hours (modified or reduced hours, alternate shift assignments, etc.)
5. Time Off (intermittent absences, continuous leave), and
6. Other (work aides, coaching, respite from attendance or discipline or attendance, service dogs).

Based on “Building a Better Mousetrap: Trends in FMLA & ADA Administration,” by Ophelia W. Galindo, the national leader of absence and productivity solutions at Buck Consultants, as presented at the Mid-Sized Retirement & Healthcare Plan Management Conference in San Diego.

For more HR News, please visit: Don’t let temporary ADA accommodations turn into never-ending perks

Source: News from HR Morning