Sentences with phrase «adverse action against employees»

Employers can not fire, demote, or take any other adverse action against employees who take legally protected FMLA leave.

When in doubt, employers should consult an employment attorney to ensure that they are complying with all laws when taking any adverse action against an employee.

If an employer takes an adverse action against an employee because they took protected FMLA leave, it may be held liable for violating the employee's rights.

Thou shalt not take adverse action against an employee in response to the employee's protected activity.

When a company contemplates taking adverse action against an employee or applicant based on information found in a background check, the subject of the check has a right to a copy of the report.

This question is relevant when employers use information in a consumer report collected by a third - party Consumer Reporting Agency, like a background screening company, to take adverse action against an employee or applicant.

Not exact matches

The ADA is intended to require employers to provide equal opportunities to employees with disabilities by requiring them to provide reasonable accommodations to such employees, and by prohibiting them from taking any adverse employment action against such employees on the basis of their disability.

Call on state lawmakers and school districts to formulate and pass legislation and policies that allow school employees to provide parents with their opinions on whether students would benefit from exclusion from a state / and or district standardized test and that no adverse action or discipline would be taken against employees who engage in such discussion.

The Cooper Union requires Personnel to report to The Cooper Union good - faith concerns about behavior that appears to violate this Code, and under this Code a «Whistleblower» is the individual reporting such activity.The Cooper Union strictly prohibits any harassment, retaliation, or adverse employment consequences against any Whistleblower who, in good faith, reports a violation or suspected violation of this Code, and any person who retaliates against a Whistleblower is subject to appropriate disciplinary and corrective action, up to and including termination of employment in the case of an employee.

The Cooper Union requires Personnel to report to The Cooper Union good - faith concerns about behavior that appears to violate this Code, and under this Code a «Whistleblower» is the individual reporting such activity.The Cooper Union strictly prohibits any harassment, retaliation, or adverse employment consequences against any Whistleblower who, in good faith, reports a violation or suspected violation of this Code, and any person who retaliates against a Whistleblower is subject to appropriate disciplinary and corrective action, up to and including termination of employment in the case of an employee.

Workplace pregnancy discrimination is any type of adverse employment action against an employee or job candidate based upon the fact that the woman is pregnant.

When an employee complains about discrimination or harassment, any adverse action against the complaining employee can constitute retaliation.

(a) A state or local governmental entity may not suspend or terminate the employment of, or take other adverse personnel action against, a public employee who in good faith reports a violation of law by the employing governmental entity or another public employee to an appropriate law enforcement authority.

Pregnancy discrimination is any adverse action by an employer against a female employee because of her pregnancy.

Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), an employer must not take adverse action (including dismissal) against an employee because they exercised or proposed to exercise a workplace right (section 340).

Each of these suits involves a complex web of legal issues and accusations — one involving an alleged failure to follow adverse action notification protocol that resulted in an expunged criminal record being used against a prospective employee; another revolves around the alleged misuse of background screening disclosure and authorization forms and reporting of background information that is not legal for a background check company to report (resulting in adverse action against a hopeful applicant); and the third was news of a $ 18.6 M settlement over the use of unverified criminal database research.