For more than 40 years it has been against the law in Illinois and throughout the U.S. to discriminate against employees based on their religion or religious practices.

The applicable federal law is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The law not only prohibits religious discrimination in the workplace, but discrimination based on color, race, gender, or national origin.

Employers are prohibited from discriminating in all areas of workplace operation, whether promotions, benefits, hiring, firing, training, pay, or discipline.  The law essentially says, and court cases have supported it, that employers must make “reasonable accommodations” to employees’ stated religious beliefs, provided the stated religious belief is “sincerely held.”

What would constitute a “reasonable accommodation”? It would vary depending on the situation, but typically, that would include allowing for adjustments in a workplace dress code, uniform, hours, or working conditions. An employer would allow a Jewish employee to take off on Rosh Hashanah. That employee might work on Christmas day instead, particularly in workplace environments that require 24/7 operation.

Since 9/11, court cases have aired issues of discrimination against Muslims in the workplace. In two such cases, adjustments in the dress code were deemed to constitute “reasonable accommodation.”

In Pennsylvania, for example, a local county government had a dress code demanding that workers be clean-shaven. Two Muslim employees refused to shave their beards and were disciplined. They challenged the decision, and a court ruled that making an exception to the dress code in their case would certainly be a “reasonable accommodation.” The judge pointed out, however, that if the beards had posed a safety hazard, that would have been a different matter, and employers would be within their rights to prohibit the facial hair.

In another case, a Muslim woman in Phoenix, AZ, received an award of more than $250,000 after she challenged her firing. Her employer, Alamo car rental, had terminated her because she refused to come to work without her head scarf. She noted in her challenge that she had been wearing a head scarf with the Alamo logo and that the supervisor had allowed it.

Employees in Connecticut and throughout the rest of the U.S. are entitled to take unpaid, job-protected leave for a serious health condition by the hour, if they wish, and need not schedule the time off in advance.

The practice is called “unscheduled, intermittent FMLA leave.” It is one of the most hotly-debated features of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.

Under the FMLA, there is nothing to prevent an employee from taking short bursts of unscheduled leave until his or her 12 annual weeks of leave is used up.

The U.S. Department of Labor has acknowledged, in a 182-page report, that unscheduled, intermittent leave is one of the major concerns of Connecticut and other employers. Many have said that such leave was not the original intent of the FMLA, which permits workers with serious medical conditions to take the leave. Employees may also take the leave at the birth of a child or to care for an immediate family member with a serious health condition.

New 2009 regulations for the FMLA requires employees to follow their employer’s standard reporting policies when taking unscheduled, intermittent time off under FMLA.

Employees who have worked for a specific employer for a minimum of 1,250 hours in a 12-month period are eligible for FMLA, which is essentially unpaid, job-protected leave. “Job-protected” means the employee is guaranteed his or her job back at the conclusion of the leave.

Because of the way the FMLA is currently structured, a pregnant employee with severe “morning sickness” (nausea and vomiting) may take an hour or two off on any given day. The nature of the ailment is such that, obviously, the employee cannot schedule the time off in advance.

If she uses up two weeks, of her FMLA leave this way, she will have only 10 weeks of her 12-week total remaining at the birth of her child.

Compare this to an employee who required weekly chemotherapy treatments. The two or three hours a week necessary for the treatments could be scheduled by the worker.

FMLA applies to employees at business locations with 50 or more employees within 75 miles.

Massachusetts workers who are suffering a short-term disability may be disappointed when they discover that the state has no legislation requiring employers to pay short-term disability.

There are some options, however, that employees in Massachusetts are encouraged to explore.

One of them is the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Under this federal law, employers are required to provide workers with as much as 12 weeks of unpaid but job-protected leave every year. “Job-protected” means that while the worker is on FMLA leave, the employer is not allowed to hire a permanent replacement for that employee. Workers should understand, however, that employers are allowed to, and usually will, requires a doctor’s not verifying that the worker is suffering from a condition requiring leave. This is standard operating procedure in most companies, and insures that workers are using FMLA leave for legitimate reasons.

Another option is workers’ compensation. Under what is sometimes called “workers’ comp,” employees may not only receive payment for a disability, but medical expenses as well.

A third is the Pregnancy Disability Act. As a hypothetical example, assume that Company A employee Julie is pregnant. Company A offers paid leave to workers with other disabilities.” In the interest of fairness, then, the company is required to offer the identical benefits to women who are pregnant and who are suffering from a medical condition.

Workers are strongly urged to actively explore the options available to them. It is important that they educate themselves about the benefits offered by the company for which they work. Employees with questions would be well advised to contact their company’s human resources department. The “HR” department will provide information.

While Massachusetts has no legislation requiring short-term disability benefits, it is not alone in this regard. Only five states in the U.S. have passed laws requiring benefits. They are Rhode Island, California, New Jersey, Hawaii, and New York. Of these, only Rhode Island requires that the disability coverage be paid through payroll deductions. In the other four states, employers must pay costs. In Rhode Island, workers may receive benefits for as many as 30 weeks.

In Idaho and elsewhere throughout the U.S., it is an example of illegal religious discrimination when an employer refuses to allow a worker to take prayer breaks at work.

The applicable law is Title VII of the Civil Rights Ac t of 1964. Under the law, employers must make what is called “reasonable accommodations” to an employee’s religious practices unless it causes “undue hardship.” Employers must allow Muslim employees to take prayer breaks.

Employers would be advised to keep in mind that employees already receive breaks during the day. Typically, workers get two 15-minute breaks daily anyway. In most cases, it is of no concern to the employer what happens during those breaks. Cigarette addicts may go outside for a smoke. Christian employees may spend their break times reading the Bible. Atheists may enjoy a doughnut and coffee. The time smokers spend taking cigarette breaks, in fact, might well exceed the time needed for prayer breaks.

Questions might arise, “What is reasonable accommodation” and “What is undue hardship”? Examples may help answer these questions. If a Muslim employee took some time out of the workday to briefly practice his Islamic faith, that would certainly be “reasonable accommodation.” On the other hand, if an additional worker had to be hired to cover his breaks, that would not be. If Muslim women employees are provided with loose-fitting long uniform pants as a replacement for the customary short skirts, that would obviously not be “undue hardship.” Outfitting the workers with $10,000 designer uniforms would be, however.

The law stresses that accommodations must be made for “sincerely held” religious beliefs. An example is appropriate. If an employee pretended to be Jewish on Jewish holidays, Muslim on Muslim holidays, and Christian on Christian holidays, that would not be a “sincerely held belief.” Evidence of sincerely held belief might be attending services in a faith at least part of the time, or participating in a religion in some other way.

Altogether, there are five specific times during the day when a Muslim is required to pray. Some companies have established quiet rooms to accommodate prayer activity.

Most companies have instituted policies regulating written warnings for employees. Such policies have, in fact, become standard operating procedure for many firms.

No Florida or other state or federal law covers procedures for written disciplinary notices. The process has been established simply because it is the best practice, developed by the top professionals in Human Resources.

The typical policy outlines a formal and progressive disciplinary process. Usually it involves one or more verbal warnings first, then as many as three written warnings. Most policies stipulate that if a worker gets three written warnings for the same violation in a certain time frame, say 90 days, that worker is terminated.

The disciplinary notices are usually considered warnings that an employee must improve her or his job performance. As written warnings, they have more influence on a worker than a verbal reprimand or warning, and they provide evidence that the worker was fired because of misconduct, if the termination is challenged.

Typically, employees are asked to sign a written warning. Many workers assume signing a document is an admission of guilt. Signing it, however, simply indicates that the employer and employee have had a discussion on the matter. This avoids the kinds of difficult “he said-she said” situations that can develop without a written record.

To support the evidence, many managers include another supervisor or manager during a discussion of disciplinary matters with an employee. Again, this helps avoid “he said-she said” situations. Once the subject is discussed, the employee is asked to sign the warning. If he or she refuses to do so, the second manager or supervisor will write something like “Discussed with employee on (such-and-such a date) and employee refused to sign.” Both supervisors then sign the form.

Using this process guarantees a witness to the fact that the employee was given a warning and received it. Documentation also exists, recording the discussion.

Discipline should be applied fairly to all workers in a company. If a restaurant owner allowed waitresses to come to work late to their shifts, but not waiters, that would be considered illegal discrimination based on gender.

Some employees take smoking breaks. Others take breaks to enjoy a coffee and doughnut.

Why, then, should a New York employee not be allowed to use the break time to practice his or her religious belief?

That is one useful approach employees could take when a worker wishes to take time during the day for a prayer break.

Employers in almost every case must allow Muslim employees to take prayer breaks. It is federal law, in particular Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating based on religion. As a federal law, Title VII applies in New York as well as other states.

Employers must, under the rules of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, allow for religious expression in the workplace. There have been a number of court cases supporting this interpretation.

Only what the law describes as “sincerely held” religious beliefs fall under the law. In other words, an employee who claims to be a member of the “Church of the Long Coffee Break” is probably not sincere. Workers who pretend to be Jewish one week, Muslim the next, and Christian the third in order to get more holidays off are not likely to be protected by the law either.

As the law is written, employers must make “reasonable accommodations” for workers who wish to worship in the workplace, provided such accommodation does not create an “undue hardship” on that employer.

A “reasonable accommodation” is one that would not involve an excessive cost. For example, if a Muslim employee took short prayer breaks, it is unlikely that this would constitute a hardship. On the other hand, if the employee’s breaks demanded that the employer hire a second worker (an unlikely scenario), that could constitute an undue hardship.

Providing loose-fitting long uniform pants for Muslim women rather than short skirts would be a reasonable accommodation. Providing $10,000 designer wardrobes would be an undue hardship.

Followers of the Islamic faith are required by their religion to pray, facing east, five times a day.

Companies already offer breaks. What a worker does during that break is his or her business.

The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, commonly called the FMLA, guarantees workers in Colorado and the rest of the U.S. the right to as many as 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave annually.

The time may be taken at the birth of a child or to address a worker’s serious health condition.

There is nothing in the FMLA as written, however, to prevent a worker from taking short bits of time off, say an hour in a day, sporadically, with no need to schedule it in advance.

This is called “unscheduled, intermittent” FMLA leave, and many argue that it was not the original intent of FMLA legislation. A new report from the U.S. Department of Labor addresses the issue, acknowledging that it has been listed by employers as one of their major concerns.

New FMLA legislation for 2009 changes now require employees to follow their companies’ reporting policies when taking time off under FMLA, including intermittent, unscheduled time off. Legislation may further address the problem in the future.

Any employee who has worked a minimum of 1,250 hours for a given employer in a single year is entitled to take FMLA leave. The employer must maintain the employee’s health insurance while the leave is being taken. “Job-protected” means the worker is guaranteed his or her job at the conclusion of the leave.

The implications of intermittent, unscheduled FMLA leave can be seen in a hypothetical example. Assume that a pregnant employee is suffering from severe “morning sickness” – nausea and vomiting so severe that she is unable to work. The nature of the ailment is such, of course, that she cannot schedule the time off in advance. Under the FMLA as it is now written, she may take off for short periods of time as often as she needs to, without advance notice, provided she does not exceed her 12-week maximum. However, her employer has the right to require a doctor’s certification that she has a serious health condition under FMLA.

There are at least three options open to Kansas employees who need to receive short term disability benefits.

One of the most significant is the Family and Medical Leave Act, or FMLA. Thanks to this federal law, employees who qualify are entitled to as much as 12 weeks of job-protected leave annually. “Job-protected” refers to the fact that the employer is prohibited from permanently replacing that worker when he or she is on FMLA leave. The employee is guaranteed his or her job back.

Companies usually require a worker to present a doctor’s note saying that he or she has a condition that requires a leave of absence. Employers do this routinely, in order to guarantee that the claim for FMLA is a legitimate one.

It should be noted, however, that FMLA is an unpaid leave of absence.

Under workers’ compensation employees are entitled to disability payments and to coverage of their medical expenses. Workers’ compensation applies when an employee is injured on the job.

Another option, at least for pregnant employees, is the Pregnancy Disability Act. To offer one example, assume employee “Julie”  is pregnant and her employer provides paid leaves of absence to workers with other forms of disability. Her employer, then, must do the same for women in the company who are pregnant and experiencing a medical condition.

It may seem unfair to many workers, but Kansas has no law requiring employers to pay benefits for short term leaves of absence. Kansas is no exception to the rule, however. Only five states in the U.S. have passed laws mandating that an employer provide short-term disability for their workers. They are California, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Hawaii. In Rhode Island, which guarantees up to 30 weeks of short term disability benefits annually, workers fund the plan through payroll deductions. In the other states, there is no such legal provision.

Workers are strongly advised to visit their human resources offices to educate themselves thoroughly on the benefits available to them for short term disabilities. Detailed information can be obtained.

Employers in Missouri as well as the rest of the U.S. are legally required to make what are called “reasonable accommodations” for a worker’s “sincerely held” religious beliefs.

Since 9/11, religious discrimination against Muslims in the workplace has led to several court cases.

Dress code adjustments are reasonable accommodations.

In Phoenix, Arizona, an Islamic woman had been fired by Alamo car rental for using a head scarf. She had refused to leave her head uncovered at work, arguing that her supervisor had allowed her to wear a head scarf in the past, and had chosen to wear one with the Alamo logo. She was fired nevertheless, and challenged Alamo in court. As a result of that challenge, she was awarded more than $250,000. Allowing her to wear the scarf would have been a “reasonable accommodation” on management’s part, the court ruled.

Two men working for local government in Pennsylvania, both of them practicing the Islamic faith, were subjected to disciplinary action for refusing to shave their beards. The county they worked for had a dress code requiring all employees to be clean-shaven. Again, the court ruled that allowing the men to keep their beards would be a “reasonable accommodation.” On the other hand, the judge pointed out, if the beards had posed a health risk to employers or coworkers, their employers would have had the right to prohibit them.

Nothing in the existing federal law allows employees to “change religion” from holiday to holiday. In other words, workers cannot take advantage of anti-discrimination laws to increase their days-off quotas by claiming to be, for example, Jewish in October and Christian in December. This would obviously not constitute a “sincerely held” religious belief, and courts would be highly unlikely to support an employee who appeared to be “faking it.”

The applicable law is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII states that employers must not discriminate on the basis of religion, color, race, gender, or national origin. The federal law applies to all areas of the workplace, whether discipline, firing, hiring, training, salary, or benefits are involved.

No federal law mandates or speaks to written warnings for employees. In fact, no state laws address the matter, either.

Most companies, however, have developed what is called a formal and progressive discipline procedure. The typical policy allows for one or more verbal reprimand or warning, usually followed up by as many as three written admonitions.

Policies usually stipulate that if a worker receives three written warnings for the same violation within a certain period (90 days, for example) and fails to correct the behavior, termination will follow.

Companies that establish policies outlining procedures for written warnings are following the best practices as developed by the top professionals in the Human Resources field.

All discipline must be applied justly and fairly to all workers. If a restaurant owner, for example, allowed waiters to come in late without warnings but not waitresses, that would be discrimination based on gender. It would be illegal under federal law.

To avoid he said/she said situations, and to have evidence in the event a firing is challenged, companies often take certain steps.

One is to have employees sign a written warning. This is not an admission of guilt, as many workers might think, but simply an indication that the employee has read and understands the warning. It is evidence that the discussion has taken place. The supervisor should make clear to the employee the consequences of continuing the wrong behavior. The best policy is to state this in a non-threatening way.

The manager should also have another supervisor or manager on hand when discussion the infraction with the worker. Following the discussion in front of the second manager, the first manager should ask the employee to sign the written warning. Should the worker decline to do so, the manager then writes “Discussed with employee on (such-and-such a date) and the employee refused to sign.” The two managers then sign the form.

This provides not only physical evidence, but a witness that the discussion actually did take place.

Written warnings are also good because they exert more influence than a spoken warning does.

There are only five states in the U.S. where legislation mandates that employers pay benefits to workers for short term disabilities.

Missouri is not one of the five. They are New Jersey, California, New York, Rhode Island, and Hawaii. In Rhode Island, short term disability may be offered for up to a maximum of 30 weeks a year. The state requires, however, that the disability benefits be funded through payroll deductions, much the way health insurance premiums are. In the other states, it is assumed that the burden will be carried by the employer.

Workers in Missouri  and the other 44 states without the necessary legislation have other options.

Workers who are pregnant, for example, may make use of the Pregnancy Disability Act. Under this act, an employee who is pregnant must be offered paid leave for pregnant workers if the company provides such leave to workers who suffer from other disabilities. Any pregnant workers suffering from a medical condition would receive the benefits.

An option that is likely to be useful to a greater number of employees is the FMLA, or Family and Medical Leave Act. This federal legislation provides a maximum of 12 weeks of unpaid, but job-protected, leave to workers who qualify. It is not unusual for employers to require a doctor’s note before granting FMLA. This is standard operating procedure in most companies, and is designed to insure that the illness or disability is legitimate.  Doctors need to show that the condition requires that the employee receive a leave of absence. “Job-protected,” incidentally, is a phrase which means that an employee who takes FMLA leave will be guaranteed his or her job back when returning to work. Employers are prohibited from hiring a permanent replacement for the worker who is on leave.

A third possibility is workers’ compensation. Commonly called “workers’ comp” or “workmen’s comp,” it provides payment for a disability, including the medical costs involved, provided that the injuries were received on the job.

It is crucial that employees take steps to educate themselves about their rights to short term disability benefits. A company’s human resources office can provide extensive, valuable information.

Many employees are surprised to learn that there is no Louisiana holiday pay law. In fact, there is no law requiring employers to give workers paid holidays in any state, or under federal law.

There are no government-sanctioned holidays in the US. The term “federal holidays” merely refers to days when the post office and other government agencies are closed. Many countries have certain holidays on which almost every employer must be closed, by law. In England, for example, Christmas Day is such a holiday. However, the US does not have any such laws.

A Louisiana employer can legally require that employees work any day of the year. The business can be open 365 days per year. Employers are not required to close on any holidays, or to otherwise observe them.

Many Louisiana employers operate 365 days per year out of necessity. Hospitals, hotels, restaurants, convenience stores, fire stations, gas stations and police stations must all be open every day. For this reason, workers in many industries routinely work on holidays.

Other employers may be open on holidays by choice. A retail store or mall can be open on any day, by law. The employer can schedule any worker on the holiday, and discipline or terminate an employee who is absent.

If Louisiana employees work on a holiday, there is no state law that they must be paid a higher wage. Nor is there a federal law that requires employers to pay a premium on holidays. Some employers offer such a benefit as an incentive to workers, but there is no law that the employer must do so.

If a Louisiana employer chooses to close on holidays like Memorial Day, Labor Day or Thanksgiving, there is no law that employees must be paid for that day. Under the law, employees must be paid for every hour worked – but there is no law requiring an employer to pay workers for holidays.

There is no law that a Virginia employer must provide benefits like paid vacations, paid sick leave or paid holidays. It is strictly up to the employer whether or not they will offer these benefits.

Under both federal and Virginia minimum wage laws, an employer must pay employees for all hours worked. However, currently there is no law that requires the employer to pay workers for time that the employee does not work, such as holiday pay or sick pay.

This may change in the very near future. A bill introduced in Congress in early 2009 would require employers to offer paid sick leave to workers. However, there is no guarantee that the mandatory sick leave bill will pass. Such bills have been introduced several times in the past, without passing.

If a Virginia employer has a written policy of offering paid vacations, holidays or sick leave to employees, the employer must honor that policy. In many states, the department of labor will enforce the employer’s policy. In other states such as Florida, the employee has no choice but to sue the employer in small claims court  to enforce such policies.

Several states including Illinois, Massachusetts and Louisiana require that terminated employees be paid for unused vacation. Those states do not require that the employer offer paid vacations to employees. However, if the employer does provide paid vacation time to workers, the employee must be paid for any unused vacation at termination.

In other states, if the employer has a written policy stating that they will pay terminated workers for unused vacation, the employer must honor that policy. A few states presume that the employer will pay terminate workers for vacation, unless the employer specifically has a written policy that states otherwise.

Regardless of the employer’s vacation policy, it should be enforced consistently. An employer who enforces a vacation or benefit policy sporadically can face a lawsuit for illegal discrimination.

Many employees are surprised to learn that there is no Texas lunch law. Nor is there any federal law that an employer must provide meal breaks for employees in general industry.

It is completely lawful for a Texas employer to require employees to work for 8, 10 or even 16 hours per day without a meal break. It is not a recommended Human Resources practice, but there is no law against it.

The best practice in HR is for employers to give workers a 30-minute unpaid meal break, and one or two paid 10- to 15-minute rest breaks, on an 8 hour shift. These breaks have been shown to improve productivity. That is, employees who take regular breaks actually accomplish more during the workday than other employees. This is true, even when the paid rest breaks are counted as work time. However, there is no Texas lunch law that requires employers to grant such breaks.

Federal agencies like the US. Department of Transportation require meal breaks for workers in some occupations, such as airline pilots or interstate truck drivers. However, these breaks are more a matter of public safety than employee rights.

OSHA federal worker safety regulations require that employees be permitted to use the restroom when nature calls, but they do not require any rest or meal breaks.

Nineteen U.S. states from California to Maine have laws that require meal breaks for almost every employee – but Texas does not. States with meal break laws include Illinois, Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Washington and West Virginia.

While there is no Texas lunch break law, an employer can require that any Texas worker take a meal break. Any employer can establish a mandatory meal break policy and require employees to clock out for a 30 or 60 minute meal break on every shift. This is a very common way for Texas employers to save payroll dollars. Any employee who does not comply with this policy can be disciplined or terminated.

An Indiana business owner wants to know, “Can I grant comp time to workers instead of paying overtime?”

Across the state, an employee writes, “I was just recently hired in an hourly job. My new employer very graciously agreed to give me two weeks of unpaid vacation, to take a long-planned trip. I’d like to work extra hours the week before and after, to make up the lost wages. Can I do this without being paid overtime?”

The answer in both cases is “No!”

“Comp time” is paid time off in lieu of paid overtime. It is very common for government agencies and some non-profits to grant “comp time” – but it is completely unlawful for private employers to use this tactic to avoid overtime payments to workers.

Under federal law, hourly employees must be paid overtime when they work more than 40 hours in the payroll week. The employer cannot grant an employee time off in a different payroll week, instead of paying overtime. Nor can the employer average the worker’s hours over two payroll weeks – even if they are in the same payroll period.

Example: Ted works in a commercial bakery. His employer pays every two weeks. The first week of the payroll period, Ted works 50 hours. The next week, Ted works just 25 hours and takes 15 hours of “comp time.” The employer wants to pay Ted for 40 hours each week. This is illegal.

Under the federal FLSA or Fair Labor Standards Act, when an employee works 50 hours in a payroll week, she must be paid for 40 hours of straight time and 10 hours of overtime. Overtime is always figured at 1.5 times the employee’s average rate of pay for that payroll week.

Because overtime hours are calculated by the payroll week, if an employee takes time off during the same payroll week, that reduces overtime. This is a very common way to control overtime and payroll expenses. An employee who works 5 extra hours on Monday may be asked to go home 5 hours early on Tuesday. As long as Monday and Tuesday are in the same payroll week, this is a lawful way to reduce or eliminate overtime.

The U.S. Department of Labor recently identified a major problem with child labor in the agriculture industry in Georgia and across the nation. 

While many think of this issue in conjunction with sweatshops in Asia, there is a very real Georgia child labor problem. 

Under the federal FLSA or Fair Labor Standards Act, children under 12 cannot work in any capacity, including in agriculture. A few loopholes permit some exceptions to the law, as when a child works for their parent on the family farm.

Yet, a recent undercover investigation by graduate students showed that this law was regularly being violated, with children as young as 6 working alongside their parents in the fields, harvesting crops.

According to investigators, child labor is used most often to pick small fruits and vegetables, such as blueberries, strawberries and grape tomatoes. The children’s tiny fingers and dexterity enable them to quickly harvest such crops with less bruising of the fruit.

There are several major concerns about using children for such labor. The majority of children are the offspring of migrant laborers. Working in the fields keeps them out of school. The lack of education creates a cycle of poverty where the parents cannot find any other job, and must put the children to work simply to earn enough to live.

According to healthcare experts, children working in farm fields are exposed to high levels of pesticides and herbicides, which often cause rashes, respiratory problems, asthma, and other ongoing health problems.

The children’s normal social and psychological development is also delayed, because they don’t have the opportunity to play or interact with other children.

One U.S. Department of Labor attorney thinks even the current Georgia child labor laws are inadequate. “We don’t let 13-year-olds work in factories,” he notes. “Why should we let them work in the fields?”

Many employees in Michigan have questions about hostile work environments.

The hostile work environment is one of the most misunderstood concepts in Human Resources. This is partly because it is regularly misused in the popular media, including sitcoms like The Office, starring comedian Steve Carell.

No matter how badly an employer or coworker behaves, obnoxious behavior alone does not constitute a hostile work environment. Under the legal definition, a hostile work environment exists when two conditions are met:

1. The employee is the target of negative behavior at work from coworkers, supervisors or others due to the employee’s race, color, sex, age (between 40 and 70), disability, pregnancy, national ancestry or religion.
2. The employer is aware of the negative behavior but takes no steps to eliminate the negative behavior – creating a hostile work environment for employees in that protected group. 

What are some examples of a hostile work environment? What actions can an employee take if a hostile work environment exists? Consider these situations:

• Jane’s employer is a micro-manager who regularly screams, yells, throws papers into the air and berates employees of every age, race and sex. Jane consults a close friend in HR, wanting to know if her boss’s actions constitute a hostile work environment.
• Ted’s employer has taken a personal dislike to him. Although Ted considers his performance average, he is prone to errors in his work. Last month, he made a purchasing mistake that cost the company $7,322. Ted’s boss constantly nitpicks and finds fault with his performance. Ted is constantly afraid that he will be fired.

Neither of these situations is a hostile work environment. Jane’s boss is a jerk, and possibly a poor manager, but his actions do not target employees in any one protected group, so they do not meet the legal test for a hostile work environment in Michigan.

Ted’s employer has singled Ted out for what she perceives as poor work performance – not his race, color, sex or religion.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting illegal discrimination, including a hostile work environment. Recent suits won by the EEOC include:

• An executive chef at a hotel in Lisle, Illinois who regularly referred to Hispanic employees as “dumb Mexicans” and “wetbacks.” The EEOC found that these statements created a hostile work environment for Hispanic employees, based on national ancestry, race, or both. 
• A Pennsylvania bakery recently settled a hostile work environment case involving an African-American worker. The employee was subjected to repeated racial slurs by other workers, including the n-word. Despite the employee’s complaints to management, the slurs continued.

In each of these cases, the companies ended up paying more than $1 million per worker for allowing a hostile work environment to continue.   

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law, mandates that employees who work more than 40 hours on one work week are entitled to overtime pay. The rate for overtime is 1.5 times the employee’s usual hourly rate. There are occupations that are exempt from overtime, including salaried employees.

For this reason Mississippi employers usually assume that a salaried employee is ineligible for overtime pay.

FLSA, however, doesn’t exempt all salaried employees from overtime. Instead, they classify these workers into two groups: salaried exempt (ineligible for overtime) and salaried non-exempt (eligible for overtime for over 40 hours or work in one week.)

Determining which salaried employees are exempt and which are not can be difficult. More than one factor is involved in the classification, which can be confusing. There are, however, general guidelines for employers to follow.

The first cutoff point for being considered salaried exempt is weekly earnings. An employee who makes less than $455 per week, regardless of his or her occupation, is always eligible for overtime. Those who make over $455 per week are exempt or non-exempt depending on their occupations.

The FLSA allows employers to exempt certain occupations from overtime. These occupations include, executives, professionals with advanced degrees, outside salespeople, highly-paid computer personnel, administrative employees and workers who earn over $100,000 per year for non-manual labor.

Within these occupations, there are further definitions and guidelines:

• Executives must manage the duties of more than two other people. Giving someone the title of “manager” doesn’t immediately place them into the executive category.
• Professionals with advanced degrees have advanced knowledge, such as emergency room physicians. Creative professionals, like artists and sculptors, also fall into this category
• Administrative employees can be considered exempt only if they have the power to exercise their own judgment in important decisions. For example the executive assistant who chooses which vendors to use for purchasing office supplies would be salary exempt.

Some states have established their own overtime laws. It is possible for an employee to be exempt under federal law, but eligible under state law.

In a recent year, the U.S. Department of Labor recovered over $25 billion in employee benefit funds. These funds had been misappropriated by employers to help solve cash flow problems and for company officers to treat themselves to new cars, houses and even race horses. Unfortunately, the amount recovered is only about 25% of the monies taken. Some employees got all their money back, but many only received a small part of their investment.

These cases were prosecuted as violations of ERISA (Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). This federal law applies to Federal employees and workers across the nation. ERISA sets the minimum standards for most of the health and pension plans voluntarily established by private industry, and protects the individuals in those plans.

The Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) is responsible for enforcing ERISA. If an employee suspects their funds are being misappropriated, they should immediately contact EBSA at 866-444-3272.

For example, suppose Shirley contributes to a 401k offered by her employer. The deductions show up on her paycheck every pay period, but have never shown up as deposits on her 401k statement. It’s possible that Shirley’s employer has misappropriated her 401k funds. She needs to report this problem to EBSA as soon as possible.

In addition to the federal administration, Shirley can also contact her state’s Department of Labor. Several states have laws on their books that force employers to adhere to all promises made regarding employee benefits. These cases are usually handled by the Wage and Hour Division, but the name often varies among states.

ERISA covers the majority of plans, but not all. If a government entity sets up or maintains a health or pension plan, that program is exempt from ERISA. Plans established by churches for their workers, programs maintained outside the United States for the benefit of nonresident aliens, and unfunded excess benefit plans aren’t covered either. ERISA also doesn’t apply to monies set aside for the sole purpose of complying with disability, workers compensation or unemployment laws.

The majority of the health and pension plans established by private industry are covered under ERISA (Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). This law applies to employees in New Hampshire and across the country. ERISA was enacted to set minimum standards for health and pension plans, including 401k plans, and to protect the employees in these plans.

The Employment Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) was established to enforce ERISA, and can be contacted at 866-444-3272. If an employee suspects his or her funds are being misused, he or she should phone the EBSA as quickly as possible. The sooner the problem is reported, the better the chances of recovering the money.

Some New Hampshire employers ask what actions could indicate that their funds are being misappropriated.

To illustrate, suppose New Hampshire employee Bob Miller enrolls in the 401k plan offered by his employer. His contributions are regularly deducted from his paycheck, but he never sees these contributions on his 401k statement. It is possible Bob’s employer is misappropriating money from Bob’s 401k account.

Bob must quickly contact the EBSA. He can also check with his state’s Department of Labor. There are some states with laws that mandate all employers make good on promises made regarding employee benefits.

Unfortunately, EBSA receives a lot of these types of calls. In 2006, over $25 billion in employee benefit funds was recovered by the U.S. Department of Labor. A lot of these funds were used by company officers for their own personal use. Some employers misappropriated the money to stem the tide of poor cash flow, but others spent the money on houses, condos, cars and jewelry.

In one case of note, a union in California used employee benefit funds to renovate the union-owned golf course.

What makes the situation worse is that the $25 billion represents only a fraction of the funds that were taken. According to some estimates the recovered money makes up a mere fourth of what the employers misappropriated.

Several federal laws and court cases mandate that an employee’s personal data be kept confidential. This data includes age, race, gender, country of origin, religion, color, medical condition and disability status. Federal law requires employers to keep disability information separate from the employee personnel files, and to keep it locked up.

To address this issue, West Virginia uses the “two-lock” system. With this method, confidential files are placed into a locked filing cabinet inside a locked room. This method is safe, and common with employers.

Neither West Virginia law nor federal law stipulates exactly how a lock system should work. Employers are mandated to do “whatever it takes” to protect the employee’s privileged information. The number of “locks” or levels of security required to comply with the federal law depends entirely on the employer. Whether two locks or ten locks are required, companies must do what’s necessary to keep the date confidential.

Relevant federal laws include the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). In addition to the federal ADA, many states have established their own disability laws.

The point of keeping this information out of public view is to protect the employees. Even those people who have a legal right to view privileged data should have limited access. If everyone is allowed to see the data, the chance of the data being used against the employee in an aspect of employment rises dramatically. Even if the information was used inadvertently, the result is discrimination, which is illegal.

Restricting access dramatically decreases that risk.Employees should lock up confidential files when they aren’t being used. When in use, always lock them up when leaving the room or area, even if it’s for a short time. Simply placing the files in a drawer and locking the office door is insufficient. Anyone who has access to the room would also have access to the files.

Do Wyoming employers have to pay overtime to their salaried employees?

It depends. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) mandates that employees who work more than 40 hours in one work week receive overtime pay. The rate of pay is 1.5 times the employee’s average hourly rate. FLSA also allows employers to exempt certain occupations from overtime pay. These occupations usually include employees who are paid a salary instead of hourly wages.

Not all of the salaried employees are exempt, though. The FLSA divides salaried employees into two categories: salaried exempt (ineligible for overtime) and salaried non-exempt (entitled to overtime for more than 40 hours in one work week).

Understanding who is exempt and who isn’t can be confusing, because many different factors are involved.

The first checkpoint is straightforward. Without exception, an employee who makes less than $455 per week, regardless of occupation, is entitled to overtime pay.

Checkpoints beyond that get a little more complicated. FLSA allows employers to exempt outside salespeople, employees who earn more than $100,000 per year for non-manual labor, administrative employees, highly paid computer employees, executives, and professionals (with advance degrees) from overtime.

Yet, working in one of these occupations doesn’t automatically exempt the employee from overtime. The specific duties of the job also have to be taken into account.

For an executive to be exempt from overtime, he or she must direct the work of two or more employees. Simply giving an employee the title of “manager” doesn’t automatically place him or her in the executive category.

To be classified as salaried exempt, administrative employees must be in a position to exercise their own judgment in significant company matters. An administrative employee who decides which vendors to buy from would be considered salaried exempt. The administrative employee who places the orders to the vendors would be salaried non-exempt, and eligible for overtime pay.

Emergency room doctors and pharmacists are classified as salaried exempt, because they are professionals with advanced degrees. Artists and sculptors are exempt, too, because they are professionals with advanced knowledge.

Many Wisconsin employees wonder about their paid sick leave. Is there a state law that requires employers to give workers a specific number of days of paid sick time?

The answer is no. There is no Wisconsin law mandating the number of sick days a company is required to provide its employees. In fact, there is no law mandating paid sick days at all. Federal law doesn’t require paid sick time, either. Providing this benefit is strictly the choice of the individual employer.

There are ten states, though, where employers are legally obligate to pay workers for their accrued vacation time at termination. No laws exist in any states, however, that require the same for accrued sick leave. Even California, which has the toughest labor laws in the country, doesn’t mandate pay for accrued sick leave upon termination.

Employees are often surprised to find that employers are not legally obligated to provide paid sick leave. Many workers expect this benefit and feel the company “owes” it to them.

The majority of employers do offer paid sick leave as an employee benefit. They have the right to determine the number of days provided, and the procedure for taking sick leave. Once they offer the benefit, they can change it or cancel it at any time.

Employers will sometimes cancel paid sick leave as a benefit, because employees are abusing the privilege. Across the country, workers use their sick leave, when they aren’t sick, simply to take a day off. By revoking paid sick leave, the employer avoids paying employees using this leave as another vacation day.

Many companies have adopted a paid leave plan that negates sick leave being used as vacation. Paid Time Off (PTO) does not separate leave into vacation and sick, it simply provides employee with a certain amount of paid time off. The worker can use these days for any reason whatsoever. No more pretending to be sick to take a break from the job.

If a Utah employee is on short term disability for 11 weeks, can he or she be terminated for being away from work too much? Is short term disability restricted to only once a year, or can a worker utilize benefits more than once per 12 months?

The first question addresses job security. Short term disability benefits do not guarantee an employee’s job. It is possible for a worker on disability to be terminated. The benefits would continue, but the employee would no longer have a job.

If, however, the employer counts the leave as FMLA, the situation changes. FMLA (Family and Medical Leave Act) provides up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave. When an employee returns from FMLA leave, the employer must present him or her with the same job or with a position comparable in salary, working conditions and benefits. The worker in the question would have only 1 more week of benefits.

Employers can count short term disability towards FMLA, but must notify the employee in writing prior to any leave being taken. After the employee goes on short term disability or after he or she returns to work, the employer cannot retroactively charge the leave toward FMLA.

In most cases, employees can be on short term disability more than once a year, provided they haven’t yet reached the limit specified by the plan. Short term disability is private insurance and plans can vary from company to company depending on which plan is purchased. The standard in the United States is to offer 13 to 26 weeks of benefits per year. So, the employee in question would be eligible for 2 to 15 additional weeks of benefits.

There are five states, though, that have established their own state-level mandatory short term disability laws. In these states, (California, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii and Rhode Island), the answers to these questions may be different.

Illinois employees are wondering if their benefit funds are protected by law.

The answer is yes, for most plans. The majority of private industry pension and health plans, including 401ks are protected by ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). This federal law applies to Illinois employees and to workers across the country.

ERISA sets the minimum standards for employee health and pension plans, and provides protection for the employees in these plans. Not all plans, however, are covered by ERISA. A plan established solely to comply with unemployment, workers compensation or disability laws is not covered under ERISA. Neither are plans set up by churches for their employees.

The Employment Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) is charged with enforcing ERISA and can be reached at 866-444-3272. Sadly, this number is called all too often to report misappropriation of funds by employers. In 2006, the U.S. Department of Labor recovered over $25 billion in employees funds, an amount that some estimates claim as only a quarter of the monies taken.

Consider Josh, an Illinois employee who contributes to the 401k plan offered by his employer. The contributions are deducted from his paycheck, but they never show up as deposits on his 401k statements. Josh’s employer could be misappropriating these funds.

The moment Josh suspects there’s a problem, he should call EBSA. Chances for recovering the funds are better if the problem is reported quickly.

In addition to EBSA, some states have laws mandating that employers make good on promised employee benefits. These laws are usually enforced by the Department of Labor for that state.

Some of the cases report that instead of holding these funds for the employees, companies deposited the money into their operating accounts to solve cash flow problems. There were also situations where company officers used the money for their personal benefit, including buying cars, houses, jewelry and even race horses.

Sometimes, it is possible to recover all of the misappropriated funds. Unfortunately, employees often receive only a portion of what was taken.

Every employee has the right to expect his or her private health information to be considered private. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) mandates that a worker’s disability status be kept confidential. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act also mandates that a person’s medical information remain confidential.

Information considered confidential includes the employee’s race, gender, national origin, color, religion, disability status, medical condition and other privileged data. Several court cases along with federal laws demand that this data be kept separate from employee personnel files. The separate files must also be kept under lock and key.

Only persons with a legal right to view the information, such as human resources officers and supervisors should have access. Their access, though, should be limited. The more this information is viewed, the greater the chance that someone may inadvertently will use that information against the worker. That constitutes discrimination and is illegal.

Federal law doesn’t dictate what kind of lock system should be used. Alaska law doesn’t stipulate a lock system method, either. Currently, Alaska uses the “two-lock” system. Some Alaska employees, though, are unsure exactly what is involved with a two-lock system and how it maintains confidentiality.

The two lock system maintains confidentiality by requiring two levels of access. Confidential files are placed in a locked room inside a locked container (such as a filing cabinet). Accessing the data first requires access to the locked room. After that, the person must have access to the locked cabinet. The two lock system isn’t the only option, but is commonly used.

Though the type of lock system isn’t dictated by law, employers do have certain legal obligations. Under federal law, companies must do “whatever it takes” to keep an employee’s privileged information from being seen by anyone except those with the legal right. Whether maintaining confidentiality requires a two lock or a ten lock system, the company is legally obligate to use the system that provides the most security.

Most Missouri employers consider salaried employees ineligible for overtime, but that isn’t always the case. Depending on the occupation, salaried employees can qualify for overtime pay.

According to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) employees are entitled to 1.5 times their usual hourly rate when they work more than 40 hours in one work week. There are exceptions to this law, specifically salaried employees, but FLSA categorizes salaried employees in two ways: salaried-exempt and salaried non-exempt.

This is where employers can get confused. Classifying an employee as salaried exempt or salaried non-exempt depends on several different factors. Included below are some general guidelines.      

To be classified as salaried-exempt the employee must earn more than $455 per week, or work in one of the following occupations that the federal laws allows to be exempt from overtime.

• Executives: persons in a supervisory position who are in charge of the duties for two or more other employees.
• Professionals with advanced degrees –Employees with advanced knowledge, such as doctors or lawyers
• Creative Professionals –Workers who earn a living as a creative professional, including sculptors and artists.
• Administrative employees: persons with the power to use their own judgment when dealing with important business matters
• Computer employees: highly paid computer workers, including system analysts, computer programmers and software engineers
• Outside salespeople and employees whose annual salary is over $100,000

These guidelines mean that an employer can’t simply give an employee the title of manager to place him or her in the executive category. The worker’s exact duties must be considered.

An example of a salaried-exempt administrative employee would be a purchasing agent with the power to choose which vendors the company will use. This worker would be exempt from overtime. The administrative employee who simply places the orders, however, would be salaried non-exempt and entitled to overtime pay.

These guidelines apply to the federal FLSA. Some states have established additional or different guidelines. That means an employee could be ineligible for overtime under federal law, but be entitled to overtime pay under state law.

Policies for providing Florida employees paid sick leave are determined by each individual employer, if the employer decides to offer this benefit. Employers have this right, because they are not legally obligated to provide paid sick time at all. There is no Florida law that requires it. There is no federal law, either, that mandates companies pay workers for time off due to illness.

This fact is often a surprise to employees. Many workers feel that companies “owe” them this benefit.

The purpose of paid sick time is to provide income to employees when they are genuinely ill. There is a trend across the nation, however, for workers to pretend to be sick just because they want a day off from work. This time off is often referred to as taking a “mental health” day.

Due to this trend, companies will sometimes stop offering paid sick leave. Usually, the business will notify employees that as of a certain date, they will no longer be paid for time off due to illness. There are situations, though, where an employer will cancel this benefit without advance notice.

Canceling paid sick leave is completely legal, unless a union contract is in place that mandates this benefit.

Not giving warning may seem unfair, but the company is probably taking this action to save money. Consider that if a company announces that “In 3 months you will lose your 5 days of paid sick time”, every employee cold become “sick” for exactly 5 days before the program expires. By canceling without warning, the company avoids the expense of paying for workers to use that sick leave as additional vacation days.

There is a benefit program that provides a solution to the sick/vacation time problem. Many employers have adopted PTO, or paid time off, to provide paid leave. PTO does not separate leave into vacation or sick, it is simply paid leave. Employees may take this time off for any reason. With this program, workers no longer need to pretend to be sick to get a day off.

Nevada employees have two questions about short term disability. Can a worker be terminated while on short term disability? Can a worker go on short term disability more than once a year?

The answers to both of these questions depend on the terms of the short term disability plan.

Short term disability is essentially private insurance, which provides money to employees when they are unable to work. The amount and duration of money varies depending on the benefits of the specific plan. For information about these plans, employees should consult their HR department, read the insurance booklet or contact the insurance company directly.

Generally speaking, though, it is possible to be terminated while on disability. Short term disability benefits do not guarantee the employee will keep his or her job. If a worker has to miss a lot of time, the employer is usually within its rights to let that worker go.

 As for being on disability more than once a year, the majority of short term disability plans offer payments for 13 to 26 weeks per year. If an employee has been gone 8 weeks, then he or she could have 5 to 18 weeks of available coverage.

Another consideration is whether the employer has counted the leave as FMLA (Family and Medical Leave Act). Companies can’t count short term disability as FMLA leave unless the worker is notified in writing prior to taking leave. If that employee’s company is counting the 8 weeks of leave as FMLA, then the worker has 4 more weeks available.

FMLA (Family and Medical Leave Act) is a federal law which provides employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave every 12 months. When the worker returns to the job, the employer must provide him or her with the same job, or one comparable in pay, benefits and working conditions.

If the leave wasn’t counted as FMLA leave, the employee still has those 12 weeks of leave available.

A Hawaii employee is suspicious about his 401k statements. His contributions are deducted from his paycheck, but don’t show up as deposits on his 401k statements. What actions should the employee take, if any?

The Hawaii employee should immediately place a call to the Employment Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) at 866-444-3272. The situation sounds as though the employer has misappropriated the employee’s 401k funds, and the EBSA has the power to take legal action.

The relevant law is the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, also known as ERISA. This federal law sets the standards for the majority of pension and health plans (including 401ks) that are voluntarily established by private industry. ERISA also protects the employees in these plans.

In addition to contacting EBSA, the employee should check with his state Department of Labor. Several states have enacted laws which mandate that employers abide by all promises made to employees regarding benefits, including 401ks. These laws are normally enforced by the state’s Department of Labor.

Unfortunately, situations like this man’s 401k problem occur with alarming frequency. Employers have used employee benefit funds to boost their operating accounts to solve cash flow problems, to buy expensive houses and cars, and in one case, to renovate a union-owned golf course.

In 2006, the U. S. Department of Labor recovered over $25 billion in misappropriated employee benefits. This amount represents a mere fraction of what was taken, possibly as little as 25%. Some employees received all of their money, but many workers only received a small portion of what they had invested.

The EBSA works hard to see that when funds are misappropriated, the employees get back every penny. Not all employee plans, however, come under their jurisdiction. ERISA applies to the majority of private industry plans, but doesn’t cover plans established by churches for their employees. Nor does it apply to government established or maintained programs. All plans set up simply to comply with disability, unemployment or workers compensation laws are exempt as well.