This is the second of a 4-part posting concerning recommendations an employer should consider before, during, and after an employment investigation to resolve any lingering bitterness by employees.
Teachable Moment
Suppose an employee complains that her supervisor has exposed her to racial harassment. The investigation determines that while inappropriate remarks were likely made, the remarks
This is the first of a 4-part post concerning what steps an employer and/or investigator can take to heal the bitterness in a workplace before, during, and after an employment investigation.
Employers often think that the most important part of a workplace investigation is deciding whether a complaint of harassment or discrimination is valid
Over the years, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") has vacillated on the issue of whether "Weingarten rights" apply to nonunion employees. Weingarten rights derive from the 1975 US Supreme Court case NLRB v. Weingarten, where the Court announced that unionized employees have the "right" to have a union representative present during
"Neutrality" is the name of the game. In the recent California case of Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc., the court gave strong cautionary advice about choosing the right workplace investigator.
The Nazir court raised the point that this particular employer (United Airlines) had extensive rules and policies about the investigation of employee
The California Supreme Court in Cotran v. Rollins Hudig Hall International, Inc. established what constitutes "good cause" to terminate an employee under an implied contract that requires "good cause" to terminate. The Court held that in such cases an employer does not have to prove that allegations of misconduct are true, just that the employer