Cardenas v. Fanaian Firing Violated Public Policy Exception

November 11, 2015 by

public policy exceptionLast August we discussed California’s public policy exception for at-will employment – which prohibits employers from firing employees for reasons that contravene public policy. Since then, a California appeals court has ruled in favor of an employee who was fired for reporting a crime to the police, holding that her termination was in opposition to public policy.

Carcenas V. Fanaian – Facts of the Labor Law Case

In 2010, Rosa Lee Cardenas was working as a dental hygienist for a dentist named Masoud Fanaain. She realized one day that her wedding ring was missing and concluded that it had been stolen from Dr. Fanaian’s office. Cardenas and her husband filed a theft report with the police, and soon after, some police officers showed up at the dental practice and questioned employees.

After the police came to the office a second time, Fanaian terminated Cardenas’s employment. He told her that the presence of the police was making the staff uncomfortable. Cardenas filed a complaint against his practice in 2011, asserting that her firing was in violation of public policy.

Cardenas’s complaint also stated that her firing violated Section 1102.5 of the California Labor Code. 1102.5 prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for giving information to law enforcement, if the employee has reason to believe that the information pertains to a violation of the law. (It also protects employees who testify about legal violations and employees who give information to coworkers who have the authority to investigate legal violations.)

The Court’s Employment Law Holding

At trial, the jury sided with Cardenas regarding both causes of action and awarded her $117,768 in damages. Fanaian appealed the verdict to the Court of Appeal for California’s Fifth District, arguing that the firing did not contravene public policy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision. According to the opinion, Cardenas was engaging in protected behavior when she reported the theft of her wedding ring to the police because theft is a violation of the California Penal Code. Because there was a causal link between Cardenas’s police report and the decision to fire her, the termination was in violation of public policy.

Fanaian’s appeal asserted that that 1102.5 applies only when an employee discloses information about wrongdoing that is specifically related to the employer’s business activities. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, holding that the plain language of 1102.5 does not contain any requirement that the information be about business activities. According to the opinion, the statute reflects an intent by the legislature to encourage employees to report unlawful conduct in general, and not just unlawful conduct by their employers. [Read more…]

Filed Under: California Employment Law Tagged With: , , , , ,

New California Legislation Affects Employee Parental Activity Leave

October 26, 2015 by

parental leave activityNew California legislation affects employee parental activity leave. One of the many bills signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on October 11, 2015 was Senate Bill 579. This bill amended Section 230.8 of the California Labor Code, which allows employees to take leave from work each year to participate in activities related to their children’s schooling or day care. The section, as revised, now applies to foster parents and stepparents, and it allows employees to take leave for a wider range of activities.

The Specifics of the Parental Activity Leave Bill

The basic provisions of Section 230.8 include:

  • Requiring California employers with 25 or more employees at a particular location to allow any employee who is a parent (or a guardian or grandparent with custody of a child) to take up to 40 hours of leave per year in order to participate in activities at their children’s schools and/or day care facilities.
  • An employee may not take off more than eight hours in a calendar month for these school or daycare activities, and the employee must provide his or her employer with reasonable notice.
  • An employee who decides to take leave for these activities must make use of any vacation time, compensatory time off, or personal leave to which he or she is entitled. In addition, if the employee is entitled to time off without pay, then he or she may make use of it for these activities.
  • The employee must provide the employer with written documentation from the school or daycare facility if the employer requests it.

SB 579 has amended the section in a number of ways relating to parental activity, including the following:

  • The term “parent” can now apply not only to a parent or a grandparent, but also to a stepparent, a foster parent, or someone who stands in loco parentis to a child. (“In loco parentis” refers to someone legally standing in the place of a parent.)
  • The term “licensed child daycare facility” has been replaced with the term “licensed child care provider.”
  • The time off may be used to find a school or child care facility, or to enroll or reenroll one’s child in a school or child care facility.
  • The time off may also be used to address an emergency related to a school or a child care provider. The statute explains that the term “emergency” refers to when the child of the employee is unable to remain at his or her school or child care facility. (The possible reasons for this include closure of the facility, behavioral problems, natural disasters, and a request from the school or child care provider that the child be removed.)

[Read more…]

Filed Under: California Employment Law, California Labor Law, Employee Rights Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Employment Discrimination Based on Genetic Information

June 12, 2015 by

employment discrimination based on genetic informationEmployment discrimination based on genetic information. When you think of employment discrimination cases, you probably think about issues like race, gender and age discrimination. What you may not be aware of, though, is that employment discrimination based on genetics is illegal under both federal law, and California law.

In 2008, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), a federal statute, was signed into law. GINA makes it illegal for both employers and health insurance providers to discriminate on the basis of genetic information. Three years later, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the California Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (CalGINA), which amended the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. CalGINA is significantly broader than GINA, as it applies not only to employment and insurance coverage, but also to the realms of housing, public accommodations, and education.

Many California employers paid little attention to CalGINA, because they were aware that federal law already prohibited the use of genetic information as a factor in employment decisions. What many of these employers did not realize, however, is that CalGINA made a substantial change to the employment law landscape in California. Unlike GINA, CalGINA places no limits on the amount of damages that an employee can receive, if he or she has been the victim of genetic discrimination. This makes it significantly more important for employers to ensure that they are not using genetic information improperly.

What is Genetic Employment Discrimination?

If your employer (or a potential employer) obtains information about you, or a member of your family, that is related to genetic tests – and uses that information as a factor in any kind of an employment decision – then you have been the victim of genetic discrimination. The same applies if the employer obtains information about your family’s medical history, and uses it as a factor in an employment decision.

It is generally illegal under federal law for employers to even request genetic information. However, the EEOC acknowledges six exceptions to this rule:

  1. When an employer inadvertently acquires an employee’s genetic information.
  2. When an employer offers genetic services, and is offered the genetic information voluntarily (although this is only permissible in some situations).
  3. When an employee seeks FMLA leave in order to care for a family member.
  4. When an employer obtains genetic information through commercially and publicly available documents, such as newspapers. (However, it is impermissible for an employer to use these sources for the purpose of finding genetic information about employees. )
  5. When an employer obtains genetic information through certain voluntary genetic monitoring programs, if the programs are monitoring the effects of toxic workplace substances.
  6. When employers that conduct genetic testing for law enforcement purposes use employees’ DNA for quality control.

Legal Counsel for Employers and Employees

Now that California employers can face substantial damages in genetic discrimination lawsuits, it is well worth their effort to ensure that they have policies on the use of genetic information that are in compliance with both GINA and CalGINA. A skilled employment lawyer can help determine if a company’s policies need revision.

Employees, too, are advised to look into their employers’ practices regarding genetic information. If you believe your rights have been violated, you may wish to speak to an attorney.

Whether you are an employer or an employee, you can schedule a consultation today with the Sonoma County employment and labor law attorneys at Beck Law P.C., in Santa Rosa.

Filed Under: Genetic Discrimination Tagged With: , , ,

Big Win for California On-site On-call Employees

March 10, 2015 by

california on-site on-call employees, santa rosa employment lawyer, petaluma employment lawyer, ukiah employment lawyerBig win for California on-site on-call employees. CPS Security Solutions, Inc., a California employer was delivered a crushing blow when the California Supreme Court ruled that the company’s compliance with a federal employment law that permitted the exclusion of compensation for sleep time was irrelevant in determining CPS compliance with California employment law. In Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions Inc. the dispute was whether California’s Wage Order 4 was being adhered to by CPS. In determining that CPS’s wage policy violated the Wage Order 4, CPS and other California employer’s will now have to determine what retroactive effect if any the ruling will have on their compensation policy for employees.

The California On-site On-call Employees of CPS

The ruling in Mendiola requires that on-call security guards employed by CPS at different construction worksites are entitled to retroactive pay for 24 hours of work, despite the fact that their same employees only actively worked 8 hours per day. Originally, the on-call security guards employed by CPS had a written agreement with the company to reside in trailers provided by CPS. While residing at these trailers, the on-call/site security guards were allowed to rest and enjoy other leisure activities, though with some limitations. The guards were compensated at an hourly rate for all time spent patrolling their construction worksite. However, no compensation was received for time spent on-call at the worksite trailers unless an alarm went off or other circumstances required the attention outside of the trailer, or during the time spent waiting to be relieved from work by another guard. Ultimately guards were only paid for their time spent patrolling sites, and time spent in the investigation of disturbances occurring at the site.

The difficulty in this case is the fact that CPS did not intend to violate California state law when developing its compensation plan for on-site, on-call employees. In fact throughout the 1990s CPS worked with the California Labor Commissioner in order to ensure that the compensation policy in place, which excluded sleep time at the trailers, was in compliance with relevant federal and state law. The basis for this suit was a request by CPS for a declaratory relief action, requesting assistance from the California courts to review the compensation plan, and to also rule on its viability. Ultimately it was determined that though the federal law provided an express provision allowing the exclusion of sleep time in compensation, this fact was irrelevant in the determination of whether CPS was in compliance with state law because, as the court put it, California “is free to offer greater protection.” As a result, subject to Wage Order 4, CPS will be required to retroactively pay its employees for their rest time while on-site and on-call.

The ruling in the CPS case is interesting in that it does not involve an employer attempting to thwart labor employment law. In fact the unfavorable ruling was the result of CPS attempting to ensure their compliance with California state law. However, the holding means that other employers in California who do not pay compensation for rest time at on-site locations for on-call employees could be required to provide retroactive compensation to these employees. If you have any legal questions regarding California’s wage and compensation laws, and live in Sonoma County, Mendocino County or Lake County California contact the attorneys at Beck Law P.C. in Santa Rosa today.

Filed Under: Blog, California Employment Law, Wage and Hour Law Tagged With: , , , , ,

Workplace Harassment or Just Playful Conversation?

August 29, 2013 by

Workplace Harassment

Q: I’m an employer of a local business, and recently there’s been a problem between several employees. One of the employees claims the others are sexually harassing her. I’m not sure the conduct qualifies as harassment, and it seems like just playful conversation. What should I do?

A: A claim of harassment by an employee should be taken very seriously by the employer, as harassment of any type, sexual, discriminatory or otherwise, continues to be a common problem in the workplace in California. The California Code of Regulations is helpful in identifying several different layers of sexual harassment, but these principles may also be applied to other types of harassment as well:

  1. Where submission to harassment is a condition of employment;
  2. Where the choice to submit or not affects employment decisions;
  3. When the purpose or effect of the conduct alleged as harassment unreasonably interferes with the employee’s work performance;
  4. When the purpose or effect of the conduct alleged as harassment unreasonably interferes with the employee’s work performance; or
  5. When the conduct alleged to be harassment creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.

Fair Employment and Housing Act

2 Cal Code Regs §§7287.6(b), 7291.1(f)(1). These categories set the prohibitions on the variety of conduct by employers and co-employees. Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), California law defines two types of methods to prove sexual harassment in the workplace: conduct which establishes a quid pro quo, and conduct creating a hostile work environment. Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions (2006) 38 Cal.4th 264, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 2, 11.

Sexual Favoritism

Does your employee contend that the harassment is a result of some quid pro quo arrangement with another employee or manager? The California Supreme Court defined such quid pro quo harassment as conduct that leads to “sexual favoritism”, including the award of job benefits or bonuses if the employee submits to sexual advances. Miller v. Department of Corrections (2005) 36 Cal.4th 446, 461-462. However, this also incorporates the converse, such as a manager threatening to demote or take punitive action against an employee should they not submit to sexual advances or conduct requested, expressly or impliedly.

Your employee may also be referencing a claim of a hostile work environment. The California Supreme Court has also set forth the standards in Lyle in relation to what constitutes a hostile work environment sufficient to create harassment:

Under Title VII, a hostile work environment sexual harassment claim requires a plaintiff employee to show she was subjected to sexual advances, conduct, or comments that were (1) unwelcome (see Meritor, supra, 477 U.S. at p. 68, 106 S.Ct. 2399); (2) because of sex (Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. (1998) 523 U.S. 75, 80-81, 118 S.Ct. 998, 140 L.Ed.2d 201 (Oncale)); and (3) sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment and create an abusive work environment (id. at p. 81, 118 S.Ct. 998; Meritor, supra, 477 U.S. at p. 67, 106 S.Ct. 2399). In addition, she must establish the offending conduct was imputable to her employer. (Meritor, supra, 477 U.S. at pp. 69-73, 106 S.Ct. 2399.)

Lyle, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d at 12. Whenever an employee performs any type of investigation prompted by a claim of harassment, these three elements are necessary and essential questions to ask and conclusions to determine before taking any action. It may very well be that such “harassment” is in fact nothing more than workplace conversation which the employee has taken out of context, for the mere discussion of sex or vulgar, sexual language is generally insufficient to show the harassment was “because of sex”; the conduct must involve some treatment to the employee on the basis of sex itself.

In either sense, every employer should take a claim of harassment seriously. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Blog, California Employment Law, California Labor Law, Employment Law, Labor Law, News, Workplace Harassment Tagged With: , , , , ,

My Facebook is my Personal Life and no Business of my Employer

May 16, 2013 by

facebook iconCalifornia Assembly Bill AB 1844 (Employer Use of Social Media) prohibits employers from requesting employees or job applicants to provide user names or passwords for personal social media accounts, such as Facebook. California law limits exceptions, including an exception relating to employer investigations.

Employer Use of Social Media

California’s AB 1844 does not allow employers to require an applicant or employee to provide logon information to access their social media websites in the employer’s presence.  However, in addition, it may be a future requirement that employers may not be able to request that they be a “friend” to an employee or potential applicant, thereby giving the employer no access to information that is otherwise available through the interview process.

The current law does not prohibit employers from researching the background of potential applicants; however, should employers look into the history of an applicant, under no circumstances should that information be a deciding factor in not hiring an applicant, and online information cannot be used as a reason to not hire a potential employee.

Employer Should Be Cautious

What this means is:  employers should be cautious in conducting online searches of employees and potential applicants because such searches often uncover information that employers cannot lawfully use to make hiring decisions.  Employers still have the right to hire who they choose, but the decision making process  must be thoughtful and based upon the employee’s or applicant’s job experience, talent, attitude, willingness to do the job, etc., and not based upon information from Facebook such as:  beer pong pictures, fraternity comments, family dynamics, religious beliefs, etc.

Suggested at this point would be to conduct multiple interviews and thoroughly question applicants regarding their job experience and willingness to be a team member to your business.  Also recommended is calling all references and using intuition as a source of guidance.  Further recommended is having several key management persons take notes while conducting multiple interviews, providing insight that is cumulative to the decision making process.

Further, after the decision to hire a new applicant has been made, it’s suggested that letters be sent to all interviewees explaining why they were not chosen for the job:  for example:  the applicant did not meet the skill set that was required;  or, the applicant did not meet the current needs for the position at hand. [Read more…]

Filed Under: News, Social Media Tagged With: , , , , ,

Why Does My Small Business Need an Employee Handbook?

April 25, 2013 by
Employee Handbook for a small businessToo small for an employee handbook?

One of the first questions we ask a new small business owner client is: Do you have an employee handbook?  More often than not, they say “NO” and on the rare occasion that they do have one, it was written years ago, has never been updated and sits in some storage room nearly forgotten.

It’s remarkable the number of small businesses that have no handbook at all!  There are many good reasons to create an employee handbook, and in fact, small businesses can do themselves great financial harm without one.

Courts, the Department of Labor, and the EEOC will automatically assume, if you have no employee handbook, that you have not informed your employees of the up to date information that you are legally bound to tell employees in writing, such as their right to vote, their earnings breakdown, their right to pregnancy leave and so forth. The list of what businesses must legally tell employees grows longer every year.  Not having an employee handbook may lead these agencies to dig more deeply into your business practices to determine your compliance with wall postings, payroll accounts and such, which could then lead to severe penalties if you are not in compliance and up to date.

Having an employee handbook, and updating it annually, can protect an employer from liability if an employee decides to sue.  The employee handbook is a document where important policies and procedures are outlined in detail and explained to the workforce.

Here are some guidelines as to what must be included in the company employee handbook:

  • Workplace rules (e.g., work schedules, length of breaks, days off, etc.).
  • Strong language that supports an “off clock” break policy and enforcement of such;
  • Description of the culture of your organization;
  • Employment at Will language written appropriately with the inclusion that the business owner has the only right to choose an employment agreement;
  • Anti-discrimination policies;
  • Sexual harassment policies;
  • Leave policies;
  • Open door policies;
  • Anti-retaliation policies;
  • Termination procedures;
  • Insurance and COBRA information;
  • Pregnancy and Postpartum policies;
  • Exempt vs. Non-Exempt language;
  • Clocking in to work policies;
  • No working off clock policy;
  • Overtime policies;
  • FTO/Vacation policies;
  • Right to Vote policy;
  • Non-discriminatory dress code policies;
  • Non-discriminatory smoking policies;
  • Disclaimer regarding technology ownership;
  • Technology Use policies;
  • Employee Fiduciary Duty to Employer language;
  • Employee Duty of Loyalty to Employer language.

All employees should be given time to review the employee manual and then be required to sign and date a letter of agreement or acknowledgement page that clearly states they’ve read the handbook and understand its contents.

Employee handbooks should be updated annually. The new employee handbook should then be , re-distributed and A new letter of agreement or acknowledgement page should be signed by all employees and saved in each employee’s file. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Employee Handbook, Employment Law, News Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Current California Lunch Break and Rest Period Employee Labor Laws

October 25, 2012 by

The Santa Rosa Labor Law Attorneys at Beck Law P.C. work with both employees and employers in regard to all areas governing compliance with California Labor / Wage and Hour Laws.  So as not to violate current California lunch break and rest period employee labor laws, as of April 12, 2012 it is a California requirement that all non-exempt employees get uninterrupted meal breaks and rest periods according to a decision by the Supreme Court (Brinker vs. Superior Court) See Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004.  The Petaluma Employment Law Lawyers at Beck Law P.C. suggest to employers that all Employee Handbooks and Policies are updated by an experienced labor attorney to ensure compliance with these new laws so that overtime violations will be avoided.  In turn, we encourage employees to contact an experienced labor and employment lawyer, such as Beck Law P.C., if they feel their legal rights are being violated.

GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES

The employer must relieve the employee of all duty:  The Wage and Hour Labor Law Attorneys Beck Law P.C. interpret this to mean that literally ALL NON-EXEMPT EMPLOYEE DUTY must be relieved. We encourage employers to have built in contingencies to their policies to ensure that non-exempt employees do not eat at their desks or take any phone calls or instructions while they are “clocked out”.

The employer must relinquish control over all activities of the employee:  The Ukiah Labor Attorneys at Beck Law P.C. suggest all of our business clients provide a break area for employees and to encourage non-exempt employees to take a full break as well as leave the premises whenever necessary.

The employer must permit an uninterrupted 30-minute break:  The Lake County Labor and Employment Lawyers at Beck Law P.C. suggest our business clients provide a break schedule and appoint an Office Supervisor that monitors all non-exempt employees to make sure breaks are taken in a timely manner.  All non-exempt employees must “clock in” and “clock out” and are never permitted to work at home or “off clock.”

The employer must not impede or discourage the employee from taking their 30-minute meal break:  In order to demonstrate compliance with this law as well as avoid meal period violations, the attorneys at Beck Law P.C. suggests employers hire experienced employment law attorneys to prepare the appropriate legal language to be included in all Employer Handbooks and Policies that clearly outlines the break schedule stating that employees have a responsibility to take their breaks in a timely manner.  Additionally, we encourage fellow employees to never discuss work related matters with a non-exempt employee while they are taking a break.

All Non-Exempt Employee Lunch Breaks and Rest Periods Must be Provided and Taken in a Timely Manner:  Current California labor laws for rest breaks and meal periods require that the employer provide non-exempt employees with a 30 minute uninterrupted meal break after 5 hours of work (unless the employee’s workday is completed within 6 hours), and a 10 minute rest break time after each 3 ½ hours of work.

10 Minute Breaks Must Be Paid By Employer.  Not only must an employer require a non-exempt employee to take an un-interrupted lunch or Rest break, but the employer must pay for it, according to current labor laws.  rest break violations and meal break violations can occur if a non-exempt employee is interrupted during a break or meal period and said employee is entitled to additional compensation for working through a meal break.  In addition to the one hour of pay, the extra compensation can increase the amount of overtime that you are due.

Employers May Not Pressure or Coerce the Non-Exempt Employee to Forgo a Lunch or Rest Break:  Only if ALL of the above are met will an employee be deemed to have taken a break. In particular, the California Supreme Court noted that the “wage order and the governing statute do not countenance an employer’s exerting coercion against the taking of, creating incentives to forego, or otherwise encouraging the skipping of legally protected breaks.”

What this means, in simple terms is:  A written company policy stating that you permit meal breaks and rest periods will not be legal if you do not enforce your employees to take timely breaks, that are monitored with accurate time keeping records that demonstrate that non-exempt employees “clocked in” and “clocked out” on time, every work day.  Even on extremely busy days, managers must not pressure non-exempt employees to work through breaks and must ensure rest and meal breaks are taken on time and un-interrupted, or compensate the employee in the amount of one hour’s wage for each interruption or violation.

Missed Meal Breaks and Rest Periods are considered a Wage and Not a Penalty:  In Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. the courts decided that missed meal breaks are considered a wage and not a penalty. What this means is under California labor law code meal break rule violations can be collected by employees for 3 years and sometimes 4 years under the California unfair competition statute, whereas a penalty is only collectable for 1 year.

What are the Timing Requirements that Comply with First or Second Meal Periods during the Workday?

Train your management to keep in mind the 5-hour mark.  When an employee works more than five hours, a meal period must be provided no later than the end of the employee’s fifth hour of work (simply stated:  no later than the start of the employee’s sixth hour of work).  When an employee works of a period of more than 10 hours, a second meal period must be provided no later than the end of the employee’s tenth hours of work (no later than the start of the employee’s eleventh hour of work).

Filed Under: Blog, California Employment Law, California Labor Law, Employment Law, Labor Law, Meal Break Violations, News, Overtime Violations, Rest Break Violations, Wage and Hour Law Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Santa Rosa Employer Employee Data Privacy Protection

October 19, 2012 by

internet securityNew Nightmare for Santa Rosa Employer Employee Data Privacy Protection & Employer Responsibilities

Scenario:  A key employee resigns and you find that they have shared private and personal information about your customers on Facebook.

Nowadays, employers collect a great deal of personal information about their employees, customers, patients, clients, and others along the course of the work day. Companies use employees’ personal information for many reasons such as administration of payroll, employee benefit plans, and evaluation of employment applications, the handling of independent contractors, terminated employees, retired employees and so forth.  In this computer dependent age, personal data is being shared and transferred between organizations online; and thus, maintaining compliance with applicable data privacy laws is an ever increasing responsibility of employers.

Companies need to be aware of their obligations under the profusion of data protection laws and regulations that govern the collection, use and transfer of personal information. Additionally, data privacy laws include not only active employee information, but extend to any non-employee groups whose personal data they may acquire.

Minimizing Employer Risk

The Petaluma employment law attorneys at Beck Law P.C. suggest the following to attempt to minimize employer risk.

Companies should seek counsel annually with an experienced employment law attorney, to acquire the appropriate legal interpretive guidance on compliance matters so as to avoid legal violations and security breaches involving employee personal data.

Policies should include legal language specifically directed to employee procedures in regard to data privacy to ensure the best practices that aim to limit the amount of personal data they collect, process, transfer and store.

Companies should limit access to personal data and provide training to staff that handles personal data.

Companies should include legal language in their policies stating that business computers will be monitored and reviewed periodically to ensure employees are applying appropriate security measures regarding personal data.

Even Still:   All the precautionary measures in the world will not stop a dishonest employee from selling your business’s personal information, such as your customer social security numbers online and you, as the business owner will be held accountable for their actions.

There is absolutely nothing an employer can to do to prevent an employee from texting information from their personal phone or simpler still, writing down the information and throwing it in their purse or pocket before walking out the door.

Therefore, the labor and employment attorneys at Beck Law P.C. offer these further tips:

Perform all due diligence during the interview process when hiring a new employee.  Take your time, and have multiple interviews so that you begin to trust the person you are about to hire, before you hire them.  Call all references and carefully listen to not only what they say, but more importantly, what they don’t say.  Ask lots of questions to cull out information that may give you more clues to this person’s integrity.  Use your intuition, and perform all interviews with other trusted staff members to get their feedback,  and if any one of you feel something is not quite right with this person’s integrity, move on until you feel very comfortable with who you are going to hire.

For current employees:  Know your employees, be attentive and listen to them, use good communication and eye contact.  Always honor and praise good work.  Be on the look- out for suspicious behavior such as when an employee uses negative body language or challenges you in ways that you find inappropriate to the situation, as this may an indication of guilt that they may be doing something behind your back.  Listen to other employees who report that they do not feel comfortable about another employee’s actions.  If you feel a negative feeling about an employee, trust your feeling, as you are most likely correct.  If you suspect and employee of dishonesty, begin your due diligence research and contact an experienced employment attorney, such as Beck Law P.C. to handle the appropriate legal remedy and counseling process to remove said employee from your work place.

Filed Under: Blog, Employee Data Privacy, Employer Data Privacy, Employment Law Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Disclaimer

The information on this website should not be considered to be legal advice, nor construed to be the formation of any manner of attorney client relationship. Prior to taking any form of legal action, please consult with an attorney experienced in the appropriate area of law germane to your situation. Case results and testimonials presented on www.californialaborandemploymentlaw.net or any of its related websites are germane to the facts present for each individual case and is not a promise of similar outcomes for any other cases. This website is not intended to solicit clients for matters outside of the State of California.