Human Resource Blog

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.

Probably so. The I-9s should be filed all together, in a separate file from other employee information. The information must be kept secure, away from the public and away from supervisors when they are making employment decisions. Any employer who keeps everything together is just inviting a discrimination lawsuit.

I-9s contain information that, by law, must not be considered when making decisions on hiring, firing, promotions, training, salary, transfers, work hours, benefits, etc.

Legally, employers are allowed to copy the supporting documents for the I-9s. But, those copies must be kept together with the I-9s, separate from any personnel files.

Many employers keep I-9s and supporting documents together in a three-ring binder, which is kept in a locked cabinet.

Technically, the file cabinet for the I-9 would not have to be locked, if it was kept in a very secure location like a bank vault. But that’s probably not the case at your restaurant.