Human Resource Blog

Not necessarily. An employer can require that workers keep the details of other employees salaries confidential. For example, a company may forbid a manager or payroll clerk from disclosing salary info on other employees.

Many companies do have rules against employees discussing their own salary with coworkers. And, often such disclosure is unwise or leads to hard feelings. However, such rules are generally unenforcable. Under federal laws on labor relations, an employee is permitted to disclosue info about his or her wages to others. This is protected conduct, because it is often part of the union organizing process.

It is considered a best practice in the HR field to keep an employees private medical information confidential. Obviously, that was not done in this case. However, it is not clear that the employer has violated the law.

HIPAA, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, requires that medical providers keep a patients personal health information confidential. That law has been extended to administrators at insurance companies. Third-party administrators, who coordinate between the employee and his or her health insurance carrier, are also covered.

Here is where we get into the grey area. If the employee disclosed her medical diagnosis to an HR person as part of a conversation about health insurance coverage or health care, then the information would certainly be protected under HIPAA. If the employer is self-insured, then the info would probably be protected under HIPAA. Most employers err on the side of caution, requiring that managers keep all employee health information in strictest confidence.

But when an employee voluntarily discloses a medical diagnosis to her supervisor or a coworker, then it is not necessarily protected under HIPAA. By doing so, the employee herself has started the gossip chain. The coworker or supervisor is not legally required to keep such personal information on the qt, although many responsible supervisors would do so (and some companies require that they do.) One way to avoid this is simply for the employee to request sick leave for \\\”a serious health condition\\\” or \\\”a medical condition.\\\” If necessary, the employees doctor can provide any FMLA certification or documentation needed for sick leave, but even that can be done without sharing a diagnosis.

Some medical information may be covered under ADA, the Americans with Disabilities Act. This act prohibits employers from taking workplace actions due to confidential medical information, such as an employees disability or medical condition. For example, Sue cannot be denied a promotion because she had breast cancer two years ago. Under ADA, employers must keep medical information confidenital.

Some companies are eliminating systems like this where employees can donate leave to other workers, precisely because of the privacy issues involved. After all, an employee is far more likely to donate time to a coworker who is having chemotherapy, than to one who misses work for a face lift. Unfortunately, in requesting the donation, the company may be violating their employees privacy rights. At the very least, the employer should inform workers that if they opt to request sick leave donations, their time off request will be made public.

Only the EEOC, after reviewing all the details, can determine if the employees rights were violated under HIPAA or ADA.

This is a more complex question because it concerns California, the state with the strictest employment laws in the nation. But the answer is a qualified yes.

California considers all earned vacation time wages. So as the employer you cannot reduce the number of hours of vacation time that employees have earned so far. The employee must be paid for them. However, moving forward, non-exempt employees can accrue vacation time based on the hours they work, not on the weeks they work. In fact, the majority of computerized payroll programs figure vacation time this way, anyway.

Example: Jon works at a company that grants 2 weeks of vacation per year. Each time he works 80 hours, Jon accrues 3.08 hours of vacation, which works out to about 80 hours of vacation per year (exactly 80.08, to be exact.) When the schedule is changed, Jon continues to accrue vacation at the same rate, so he still earns 3.08 hours of vacation whether he works 80 hours in two weeks, or 80 hours in four weeks.

Technically, the employer is still giving the same number of weeks of vacation each year. Suppose Suzys new schedule is 30 hours per week. She continues to accrue 3.08 hours of vacation each time she works 80 hours (or 0.0385 hours of vacation per hour worked.) At the end of the year, Suzy will have accrued 60 hours of vacation, which is two weeks worth at her current reduced schedule.

If an employer follows this system, the exempt employees are not even being given more vacation time. They are simply earning the same amount of vacation time per hour worked, that non-exempt employees do.

By the way, your company is being generous. During the current tough economic times, many employers are forced to reduce workers hours to part time. Many part time workers do not qualify for benefits, so the employees are losing vacation time, and in some cases health coverage as well.

However, to answer your question, it would be perfectly legal to have a two-tiered system where exempt employees had more vacation than non-exempt employees. Many, many companies do so. As long as the decision is not based on race, color, sex, religion or another protected category, but on job position, it is legal.

It is very, very common to reward salaried exempt employees who do an exceptional job. However, you are right that it is smarter not to present this in terms of overtime payment. The best solution is to award the Director a one-time discretionary bonus for superior performance. This bonus can include both a cash payment, plus additional vacation or paid time off that the Director can use at a time of his or her choosing.

When awarding the bonus, it is a good idea to identify a reason besides the number of hours the employee has put in. Did the Director work extra hours to complete a special project? Or, did the Director put in additional time filling in for an absent employee? Did the extra hours result in a savings on payroll or other expenses? Granting the bonus for any of these reasons rewards the Director for going above and beyond the call of duty,without setting a precedent of formally or informally paying for overtime. The bonus should be accompanied by a letter that makes it clear the bonus is a one-time event, and thanks the Director for the excellent work performance.

Rewarding managers who perform especially well under difficult circumstances is an excellent way to motivate them to continue their efforts, and to retain superior employees.

It is a best practice in the Human Resources field for companies to provide workers with written policies that outline employee benefits, rights, and expectations. Often these cover the areas you indicate: paid time off, leave, harassment, benefits, penalties, disciplinary procedures, etc. Some employers are now providing this information via a private, password-protected website, or a VPN (virtual private network) for employees.

However, there is no federal or Minnesota law that requires employers to provide an employee handbook or other written list of company policies.

The employee handbook usually provides as much, or more, protection for the employer as for the worker. The handbook often contains a code of employee conduct, and details disciplinary measures taken if employees violate that code. Employees are usually required to sign a page of the handbook and return it to the employer, signifying that they agree with the policies outlined in the handbook. Often, this signature will include permission for the employer to deduct the cost of uniforms (where legal) or make other deductions to the employees wages.

Usually employee handbooks contain a copy of the companys policies against illegal discrimination and sexual harassment. Documenting these policies, and having every employee sign off on them, is an important first step in preventing expensive lawsuits, so an employer who does not have such a policy in writing is very foolish.