Human Resource Blog

This will depend upon which state the employee is in, and the employees age. Workers under the age of 16 are entitled to breaks by federal law. There are also limits to the number of hours that they can work. Some states set restrictions on employees who are under 18.

Assuming that the employee is over the age of 18, there are 31 states that do not have any law requiring a lunch break or meal period of any kind, regardless of how long the shift is. Meal breaks of some sort are required under state law for most employees in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Deleware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Washington and West Virginia.

A few states have law that require an employee to have one day off in each payroll week, unless the employee volunteers to work seven days. Illinois is such a state. In other states, there is no such requirement and employers can legitimately make an employee work 7 days per week.

OSHA assumes that employees are allowed to drink water on duty, and to use the restroom as necessary. They also assume that employees who are not given a meal period are permitted to eat on duty.

Just as a sidlight, it is interesting to note that about 40% of the questions on breaks result from situations where the emplyees want breaks and are not permitted to take them. Almost an equal number come from employees who want to work straight through without a break, and are required by law or company policy to take one! This seems to be an issue where it is difficult to reach a happy medium.

Usually we try to focus on HR rules and regulations, but since you asked, we will try to answer. The federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 requires that most buildings be accessible for people with handicaps. Existing buildings must usually be brought into compliance when they are renovated.

A general overview of federal ADA codes can be found at: http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/html/adaag.htm

Each state, city and county also has requirements under their building codes, so you should consult with them as well. The best way to handle this is to hire a licensed architect, who will check all the codes for you.

Be aware that in some cases an employer may be required to make a modification as a reasonable accommodation under ADA for a particular employee, even if that modification is not required under the building codes.

There are actually three different issues here, and we will address each of them separately. Although many company policies forbid it, it may in fact be permitted , under federal law, for an employee to share information about his or her own salary with another employee. This conduct is protected under federal laws regarding collective bargaining and unions. That\\\\\\\’s because often such information is used by union organizers lawfully engaged in thier work. You could write your employee up for disclosing a third party\\\\\\\’s salary, but not his own.

It is not unusual for employees to refuse to sign a disciplinary warning. That\\\\\\\’s because many employees feel it does not count unless they sign it. They are wrong. Signing the writeup is not an admission of guilt, it simply acknowleges that a conversation took place about this issue. When that is explained, the employee usually signs the writeup. If not, the employer can and should ask someone who witnessed the conversation (preferably another supervisor or manager) to sign the writeup instead. The second manager simply writes \\\\\\\”This issue was discussed with the employee, who refused to sign the writeup.\\\\\\\” and signs it. This is sufficient proof that, in fact, a discussion did take place.

A few states do require that employees be shown their own personnel files upon request. As far as we were able to determine, Indiana is not one of them. So there is no need for that information to be shared with the worker.

Well, no, the employer can’t legally require that the employee answer such questions. But this is the way that most employers would handle a theft, and it is considered a “best practice” in the HR field. The employer wants to get to the bottom of this theft. However, the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution says that none of us has to incriminate ourselves. So even if an employee was questioned by the police, they could invoke the fifth amendment, in most cases. But…most employers would consider a refusal to answer questions an admission of guilt. And, most employers in those circumstances would then report the theft to the police. Many would also terminate the employee. If you didn’t steal the items, it would be wise for you to answer any questions completely. If you did steal the items, you need an attorney.

This will depend on the state that you are in, and the circumstances of this case. You are probably much better off addressing the performance issue, rather than the prescription drug problem. Normally to collect unemployment an employee must be out of work “through no fault of his or her own.” An employee who was able to complete his work but willfully refused to would not be eligible for unemployment. But, an employee who was unable to complete his work  would be eligible for unemployment. If the employee’s “poor performance” was not a result of his own willful actions, he would also qualify. For example, a salesperson could be terminated for having low sales for 3 months. The employee could legitimately argue that whether or not the customer buys something is out of his control, and he would likely be awarded unemployment benefits.

 An employee who uses illegal drugs at work can almost always be fired. However, an employee with an addiction to prescribed drugs may well have a disability covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA would require accommodations in that case, including time off for rehab. However, if the employee is working, he can be held to the same performance standards as any other employee in the same job.

If the employee is using drugs prescribed by a doctor in the way they are intended, for a legitimate medical reason, and his performance is adequate, you may not have cause to fire him at all. In other words, the ADA prohibits an employer from firing someone simply because they require medication.