Journal of Individual Employment Rights最新文献

{"title":"1992 State-by-State Update Survey of Developments in Legislative Proposals on \"Just Cause\" Employment Termination Law for Private Nonunionized Employees","authors":"S. Henry","doi":"10.2190/56KW-5FDK-58HM-T7LP","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/56KW-5FDK-58HM-T7LP","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this article is to update the ten year survey of bills proposing employment termination law for private non-unionized employees (JIER vol. 1: pp. 93-104) with the data for 1991-1992 and to focus that data on the extent and nature of \"just cause\" provisions in proposed employment termina­ tion legislation. The results of the survey of 50 state legislatures found that 42 percent had seen the introduction of bills relating to termination and that eleven states (22%) considered bills that included a \"just\" or \"good\" cause standard. Of these seven states, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massa­ chusetts, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania had bills that were based on a version of the Uniform Law Commissioners Model Employment Termination Act. This article reports the preliminary findings of a follow-up study of fifty states and five territories concerning developments in proposed legislation on employment termination protection for employees of privately owned, nonunionized employers during the period January 1991 to June 1992. The survey was designed to determine whether there had been developments in state legislatures relating to just-cause provisions contained in the Uniform Law Commissioners' Model Employment Termination Act (META). © 1993, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc. 263 doi: 10.2190/56KW-5FDK-58HM-T7LP http://baywood.com","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"78 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123721152","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Above and Beyond the Call of Duty: Enhanced Tax Obligations of the Public Employee","authors":"Kenneth H. Ryesky","doi":"10.2190/GQJK-5P4M-QRPW-5Y3X","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/GQJK-5P4M-QRPW-5Y3X","url":null,"abstract":"Like other members of the public, those employed by the federal and state governments have personal tax filing and payment obligations. Government agencies seem to hold public employees and officers to enhanced standards in the discharge of their personal tax obligations. The degree and extent to which the tax obligations are so enhanced is dependent on several factors, including the government agency to which the employee reports, the employee's duties, the employee's rank within the agency, and other circumstances relevant to the employee in question. Tax collection agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service generally impose the most stringent tax compliance stand­ ards on their employees. The enhanced tax obligations must be viewed in light of the employees' personal rights. As the tax law grows increasingly complex, the tax obligations of public employees can be expected to be called to question with increasing frequency, raising concerns for public employer and employee alike. The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) clearly and unequivocally requires individuals whose income exceeds a relatively low threshold to file their federal income tax returns in a timely manner [1, 2]. Failure to do so can lead to significant conse­ quences, both civil [3] and criminal [e.g., 4-5]. Most states have analogous requirements [e.g., 6-8]. The American system of income taxation is based on self-assessment in the initial filing of the return and calculation of the tax [9]. Such a system can operate only through the enforcement of \"strict filing standards\" [10]. Truthfulness on the part of the taxpayer is most imperative [11-13].","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126268825","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Elements of Industrial Democracy","authors":"P. Staudohar","doi":"10.2190/27R7-P69K-EN6U-3URG","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/27R7-P69K-EN6U-3URG","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the concept of industrial democracy as it applies to individual rights in the workplace. Although emphasis is placed on the development of rights, it is necessary to develop also the notion of job duties and obligations. Just as a citizen under a politically democratic system is expected to fulfill certain duties, so is an employee expected to perform at a reasonable level of competence. The difficulty of reconciling fairness with efficiency is recognized in the article. Participative management, a modern example of industrial democracy, is discussed as having potential for creating a more egalitarian workplace while at the same time increasing work output and quality. Beginning a new journal is an exciting venture, especially when its area of coverage is so important to working people. The editors should be applauded for their conception of the Journal of Individual Employment Rights and for carefully planning this inaugural issue. It will be interesting to see the Journal evolve. My sense is that it will become an increasingly valuable resource to both scholars and practitioners. It seems likely that in the years ahead new topics will be explored which we have little if any notion of today. Such is the dynamic nature of laws and institutional arrangements affecting the employment field. In considering topics that might be addressed in this and future issues of the Journal, I tried to envision the ballpark of individual employment rights. What are the areas about which authors might be concerned? How can contrasting views of appropriate policies be reconciled? Who stands to gain and lose as a result of the application of rights? The following remarks are brief but hopefully stimulative of thought about the philosophical and research directions that authors might pursue.","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126446890","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Emerging Issues in Title vii and Employment Appearance Codes","authors":"C. F. Cohen, A. Balfour","doi":"10.2190/D3XU-6LBE-43HR-KRKJ","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/D3XU-6LBE-43HR-KRKJ","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Although employers have considerable rights to regulate employee appear­ ance, their policies must comply with Title VII. Emerging fashion trends in tattoos, hairstyles, and body piercing present potential challenges to such codes. An analysis of Title VII challenges to employer dress codes is presented. Differences between the application of Title VII to appearance codes and other equal employment issues are noted. The effect of current law on emerging issues is discussed and recommendations for legal compliance are made.","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126456519","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Sexual Harassment: Winning the War, but Losing the Peace?","authors":"Suzanne Butler","doi":"10.2190/ME2C-8GUE-JP1T-R4B0","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/ME2C-8GUE-JP1T-R4B0","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129828069","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: A Legal Review of Recent Statutory, Administrative, and Case Law","authors":"B. Heshizer, Michael Owendorff","doi":"10.2190/EAY6-A7WP-GG80-HBHT","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/EAY6-A7WP-GG80-HBHT","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the concept of sexual harassment and traces significant legal developments that have occurred. These issues are illustrated with reference to Supreme Court cases and cases in the Sixth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Recent tort issues that have been raised in sexual harassment cases in the Sixth Circuit are discussed. Sexual favoritism as a form of sexual harassment discrimination is discussed in relation to EEOC Guidelines and relevant case law. Finally, the issues of employer liability and defenses are covered. Sexual harassment is a serious workplace concern that can cost employers large sums o f money and severely damage employee morale. The law firm o f Baker & M c K e n z i e , for example, found this out on September 1, 1994, when a former secretary w h o had al leged she was sexually harassed by a partner was awarded $50,000 in compensatory damages and $7,125 million in punitive damages [ 1 ] . The fact that the organization where this occurred was a law firm points out that even firms that should be clearly aware o f the danger are not immune from sexual harassment problems. This article discusses the legal concept o f sexual harassment, the significant case law, and the employer ' s tort liability for sexual harassment with attention to developments in the Sixth Federal Appeals Circuit. The standing o f \"sexual favorit ism\" [2 ] as a form o f sexual harassment discrimination is also addressed. © 1998, Bay wood Publishing Co., Inc. 199 doi: 10.2190/EAY6-A7WP-GG80-HBHT http://baywood.com 200 / HESHIZER AND OWENDORFF Finally, employer defenses and the components o f a legally effect ive pol icy to deal with sexual harassment discrimination are covered. WHAT IS SEXUAL HARASSMENT? Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that can be defined as a \"type o f employment discrimination, [which] includes sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct o f a sexual nature prohibited by Federal law . . . and commonly by state statutes\" [ 3 ] . Under federal law, sexual harassment is prohibited by Ti t le V I I o f the Civ i l Rights A c t o f 1964 [ 4 ] , This act forbids an employer \"to discriminate against any individual with respect to . . . employment, because o f such individual's . . . sex. . . . \" [ 5 ] . Initially, federal courts narrowly interpreted Tit le V I I and held that no cause o f action existed under the act for sexual harassing conduct [ 6 ] . H o w e v e r , the scope o f Ti t le V I I broadened after the landmark case o f Williams v. Saxbe [ 7 ] , where a federal district court held for the first time that sexual harassment was dis­ criminatory treatment within the meaning o f Ti t le V I I . Even after Saxbe, federal courts still needed guidance on what type o f conduct or behavior constituted \"sex\" discrimination. In an attempt to clarify the issue, the E E O C published interim guidelines on sexual harassment on November 10, 1980, and final guidelines were pu","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"381 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122928132","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Employee E-Mail: A Protected Right to Privacy","authors":"Brandy L. Scott","doi":"10.2190/E3JA-XKTQ-TX71-QHT1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/E3JA-XKTQ-TX71-QHT1","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121529510","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Kinder, Gentler Workplace for Lesbians and Gay Men","authors":"E. M. Wagner","doi":"10.2190/MQN6-6GQL-PMR6-PRMH","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/MQN6-6GQL-PMR6-PRMH","url":null,"abstract":"The 1991 decision by a federal district court in Kansas declaring that the homosexual classification is suspect is supported in this article [1]. The court's decision requires strict scrutiny of the homosexual classification with respect to employment. The treatment of the homosexual classification in other lower courts, and in the Supreme Court, which has declined to address the equal protection rights of homosexuals, is also discussed. Employment protection for lesbians and gay men, which exists in several states, is noted, and the possible impact of the evidence regarding a biological connection to sexual orientation on the individual employment rights is addressed. The article suggests that protection for sexual orientation could be effected with little disruption in the workplace through an amendment of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, extending the law against sexual harassment, and by apply­ ing the narrowly-defined bona fide occupational qualification. In its quarterly publication, Issues in Human Resources, the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) reported in January, 1991 that although dis­ crimination laws have historically sought to protect groups with immutable physical characteristics, \"The next wave of civil rights protections could be for what may be termed 'lifestyle disabilities.' \" [2, p. 8]. The article included sexual preference under this frontier umbrella. The inference was that homosexuality is not based on an immutable physical characteristic [2]. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and psychobiologists have long puzzled over the cause of homosexuality; there has been less agreement on its cause than on its 1 Some prefer the term sexual orientation because \"the word preference suggests a degree of voluntary choice . . . that has not been demonstrated in psychological research\" [3, p. 973].","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128811425","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Murky World of Due Process in Disciplining Public Employees: The Supreme Court's Ruling in Gilbert v. Homar","authors":"Robert D. Lee","doi":"10.2190/2K68-VHB3-5D8F-2F60","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/2K68-VHB3-5D8F-2F60","url":null,"abstract":"The Supreme Court ruled in Gilbert v. Homar (1997) that a public employer need not give an employee notice and hearing before suspending that employee without pay. The Court held three factors were to be considered in determining what due process was to be afforded: the employee's interest, government's interest, and the risk of erroneous deprivation through the procedures used. The Homar case raises issues of what constitutes procedural due process and substantive due process as pertaining to property rights and due process as it relates to the right of liberty. The implications of the Homar decision are explored. A s a result o f a Supreme Court decision in 1985, public employers have been required to afford their employees some due process when taking the first steps toward terminating the employees. A t the time o f the decision in Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill [ 1 ] , employers were concerned that the Court was tilting unfairly in the direction o f employees , that employers could not take decisive action when needed for fear that the action would be regarded by the courts as violating employees ' due process rights. In 1997, the Supreme Court handed down a major decision in this area, the first since 1985. In Gilbert v. Homar, the Court held unanimously that a public employer need not g i v e an employee notice and hearing before suspending that employee without pay [ 2 ] . The Court provided important guidance as to what due process is required in disciplinary action [ 2 ] . This article considers due process requirements when disciplining public employees . The discussion begins with a summary o f the events surrounding the 247 © 1998, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc. doi: 10.2190/2K68-VHB3-5D8F-2F60 http://baywood.com","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114917865","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Electromation v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters: Analytic Framework for NLRB Interpretation of Unlawful Employer Domination of Nonunion Employee Participation Programs","authors":"R. K. Robinson, E. Gillenwater, D. Terpstra","doi":"10.2190/GUNH-B34U-XDX0-JBTK","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/GUNH-B34U-XDX0-JBTK","url":null,"abstract":"In a recent decision, the NLRB has created a framework for legal analysis of unlawful employer domination allegations which threatens many employee participation or empowerment programs in nonunion places of employment. A marked incompatibility in the application of the 58 year old National Labor Relations Act and current accepted management practices has been noted. The most likely solution to this apparent dilemma in labor-management relations appears to be statutory reform of the labor code. On December 16, 1992, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a decision likely to have profound consequences for many employee participation programs (EPP) nationwide. In its Electromation, Inc. v. International Brother­ hood of Teamsters ruling [1], the NLRB upheld the decision of Administrative Law Judge George F. Mclnerny that the company's employee \"action com­ mittees\" were \"labor organizations\" within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) [2]. The administrative law judge had further held that these \"labor organizations\" (the aforementioned action committees) were unlaw­ fully dominated by the employer in violation of § 8(a)(2) of the NLRA. In affirming the decision of the administrative law judge, the NLRB was scrupulous","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116606589","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}