Human Resource Blog

Yes, you are correct. There is no law that a Tennessee employer must make copies of the employment file for the worker, or permit the worker to read his or her employment file. A few states do have such laws, but Tennessee is not one of them.

A Tennessee employer can share the contents of an employees file if he or she chooses, but is under no legal obligation to do so. If the employee files suit, the files will be subpoenaed, and the employer will be forced to share them.

No. This is illegal workplace discrimination based on sex, and also a violation of the federal FMLA. It should probably be reported to the appropriate agencies. The U.S. Department of Labor enforces the federal FMLA or Family and Medical Leave Act, while the EEOC enforces the law against sex discrimination. Even if your husband opted to be the person who always took your daughter to the doctor, and you never did, these comments would be inappropriate. Fathers have just as many rights as mothers under the FMLA.
The EEOC has launched a new campaign against discrimination against care-givers in the workplace. One of their action items is any insistance by the employer that the female partner must be the one to provide care.

We tend to take a very pro-employer view of work situations, but we just cannot offer any encouragement to the employer in this situation.

Neither federal nor Florida law requires employers to give any meal or rest breaks to workers over the age of 18. We just cannot say it any plainer than that. Yes, this means that an employee in Florida can be required to work 8, 10 or 12 hours without a break. (That is not good management, and it is not the best practice in HR, but it is legal in Florida.)

Under the federal FLSA or Fair Labor Standards Act, when an employee is relieved of their duties for more than 20 minutes for a meal break, that break can be unpaid. If your sister had to take her lunch break at her desk while fielding calls from customers and coworkers, or doing other work, she would clearly be entitled to payment for the entire break, every day. A receptionist who had to eat at her desk while remaining available to greet visitors and answer the phone, would have to be paid for the entire period, even if the phone did not ring during her break on a particular day.

Having an employee answer a cell phone during their lunch break is a gray area. Whether or not your sister is entitled to payment for her break will depend in part upon how often she is called. That is probably why the HR department is asking her to track it. Apparently your sister is relieved of her duties, and even allowed to go off the premises on her meal breaks. However, occasionally her coworkers may call her on the company cell phone. If she is called every day, or multiple times every day, on her meal break, she would be entitled to payment for all her meal breaks. If she is called only occasionally (perhaps once or twice a month) then she would likely be entitled to payment for the entire break on the day that she was called (but not on days when her lunch is uninterrupted.)

Merely carrying the cell phone with her, in case she might be called while on lunch, does not constitute working during her break. Many people carry company cell phones with them 24/7. That does not mean they must be paid 24/7.

The only way to determine for certain which category your sister falls into, is for her to consult the U.S. Department of Labor. They make the final determination in this situation.

Read more about the FLSA at: http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/flsa/

This may very well be a case of a hostile work environment and sexual harassment. The EEOC reports that complaints of same-sex sexual harassment are up. The key to understanding this situation is that it needs to be handled exactly as if the harasser was male. Some employers tend to view female-on-female sexual harassment as less serious, but they should not.

It appears that a gay female employee (we will call her Tina) asked this employee, Charise, out. Charise declined. The note does not detail how Tina then made the work environment uncomfortable for Charise. It may have been continued unwelcome advances, or negative behavior. However, it is the employers responsibility to put a stop to this behavior by Tina. Continuing to tolerate it is setting the company up for a lawsuit from the EEOC.

Apparently this situation was serious enough in the past that it went to mediation and the supervisor agreed to put Tina on a different shift. However, he has apparently forgotten this agreement. (Mediation is an unusual way to handle a sexual harassment claim. It appears that the employer handled this problem as if it were a personality conflict, rather than sexual harassment.)

Charise needs to not miss any more work. (She could actually be fired for poor attendance, if she does.) Charise (and the HR person, if appropriate) needs to remind her supervisor of the agreement that Tina would not work on her shift. If Tina is not assigned to a different shift, then Charise needs to work with her and keep a written record of any harassment or hostile actions. If such events occur, Charise should bring them to the attention of the HR department. It would then be appropriate for the HR department to discipline Tina for sexual harassment. Unfortunately, if HR or the supervisor does not take action, Charise may file a complaint with the EEOC at www.eeoc.gov.

Multi-million-dollar fines for sexual harassment are usually paid by companies where the victim has complained repeatedly, and the company failed to take action. Not taking action creates a huge liability for the company.

Not exactly. California requires a 10-minute paid for each 4-hour segment of work. So the employee is entitled to a 10 minute break, not a 15 minute break. The break must be as near to the middle of the 4-hour segment as possible or practical.

California law does require a 30 minute unpaid meal break on any shift of 5 hours or more. However, the law permits an employee to waive this meal period when the work will be completed in 6 hours or less, if the employer agrees. The critical factor here is that both the employee and employer must agree to waive the meal period. If either fails to agree, then the break is required.