Sentences with phrase «against the employer because»

Workers» Compensation: Typically, an injured employee may not bring a lawsuit against their employer because they are entitled to benefits provided by workers» compensation insurance.

Not exact matches

The employer should make sure that they have a legitimate case against the employee in this instance because many situations are covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and other laws that protect employees.

(Perhaps he was uncomfortable speaking out against his former employer; perhaps he was uncomfortable because he advises Box, an enterprise software company that has expanded into productivity.

Pao, for example, a former venture capitalist at well - known Silicon Valley firm Kleiner Perkins, lost a lawsuit last year that she filed against her former employer over allegations that it had discriminated against her because of her gender.

This time, the focus is more narrowly on ensuring that people not be forced to agree to potential arbitration as a condition of their employment and that employers be prohibited from «threatening, retaliating or discriminating against, or terminating any applicant for employment or prospective employment or any employee because of the refusal to consent to the waiver of any right, forum, or procedure for a violation of specific statutes governing employment.»

The parables disclose with what pleasure and tolerance he surveyed the broad scene of human activity: the merchant seeking pearls; the farmer sowing his fields; the real - estate man trying to buy a piece of land in which he had secret reason to believe a treasure lay buried; the dishonest secretary, who had been given notice, making friends against the evil day among his employer's debtors by reducing their obligations; the five young women sleeping with lamps burning while the bridegroom tarried and unable to attend the marriage because their sisters who had had foresight enough to bring additional oil refused to lend them any; the rich man whose guests for dinner all made excuses; the man comfortably in bed with his children who gets up at midnight to help his importunate neighbor only because he despairs of getting rid of him otherwise; the king who is out to capture a city; the man who built his house upon the sand and lost it in the first storm of wind and rain; the queer employer who pays all of his men the same wage whether they have worked the whole day or a single hour; the great lord who going to a distant land entrusts his property to his three servants and judges them by the success of their investments when he returns; the shepherd whose sheep falls into a ditch; the woman with ten pieces of silver who, losing one, lights the candle and sweeps diligently till she finds it, and makes the finding of it the occasion of a celebration in which all of her neighbors are invited to share — and how long such a list might be!

In papers submitted by the UK Government last year in the case and seen by the BHA, the Government attempted to argue that there is no breach of EU law because «if a teacher brought a claim against a school (on the basis that the school, as an employer, had discriminated against them in their remuneration, for example), then the court or tribunal would consider the legislation in this wider context.

President Bush signed a measure into law in May that bars insurance companies and employers from discriminating against anyone because of the findings of genetic testing.

We work towards a more just society and as such we are an equal opportunity employer and do not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, age, marital status, military status, pregnancy, or parenthood.

(d) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for any employer, labor organization, or joint labor - management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including on - the - job training programs to discriminate against any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in admission to, or employment in, any program established to provide apprenticeship or other training.

(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment, for an employment agency to discriminate against any individual, or for a labor organization to discriminate against any member thereof or applicant for membership, because he has opposed, any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this title, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this title.

to exclude or to expel from its membership, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his age; to limit, segregate, or classify its membership, or to classify or fail or refuse to refer for employment any individual, in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee or as an applicant for employment, because of such individual's age; to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an individual in violation of this section.

(D) It shall be unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment, for an employment agency to discriminate against any individual, or for a labor organization to discriminate against any member thereof or applicant for membership, because such individual, member or applicant for membership has opposed any practice made unlawful by this section, or because such individual, member or applicant for membership has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under this Act.

If, for example, they paid you more because you are declining coverage, the government is now considering this «discrimination» against those who are participating in the employer's health plan.

Additionally, government employers can not discriminate against employees because of their credit history.

Sub-section (b) of the code states this in relation to private employment: «No private employer may terminate the employment of, or discriminate with respect to employment against, an individual who is or has been a debtor under this title, a debtor or bankrupt under the Bankruptcy Act, or an individual associated with such debtor or bankrupt, solely because such debtor or bankrupt

When repeated court judgments are placed against the borrower for wage garnishment, the employer could potentially fire the employee because of concern that the lack of credit could translate into an issue of character.

Amends § § 4112.02, 4112.05, 4112.08, and 4112.14 of the Revised Code to specify that discrimination by an employer against any person because of the person's credit history is an unlawful discriminatory practice under the Ohio Civil Rights Law.

In the following states, employers can discriminate against you based on your credit score, because each of these states lawmakers have no laws that state that employers can not discriminate based on your credit history.

An employer shall not: fail or refuse to hire or recruit, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to employment, compensation, or a term, condition, or privilege of employment because of the individual's credit history or credit report; inquire about an applicant's or employee's credit history; or order or obtain an applicant's or employee's credit report from a consumer reporting agency.

An employer shall not: fail or refuse to hire or recurit discharge, or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to employment, compensation, or a term, condition, or privilege of employment because of the individual's credit report or credit history; or inquire about an applicant or employee's credit report or credit history.

An employer shall not: fail or refuse to hire or recruit discharge, or otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to employment, compensation, or a term, condition, or privilege of employment because of the individual's credit report or credit history; or inquire about an applicant or employee's credit report or credit history.

It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any employer to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or discharge from employment, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual in compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of the individual's credit history or credit report

No employer may (1) request or require that an employee or prospective employee consent to or provide the results of a credit check as a condition of employment; (2) obtain a credit check or cause a credit check to be obtained that pertains to an employee or prospective employee; or (3) fail or refuse to hire, bar, discharge from employment, or otherwise discriminate against an employee or prospective employee because of information contained in a credit check unless the information contained in such credit check is a bona fide occupational qualification or such credit check is otherwise required by law.

No employer shall refuse to hire, discharge from employment, or discriminate against an individual in compensation or the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment because of the individual's credit history or credit report.

By law, employers may not discriminate against employees because of their genetic information.

As you may recall, in a 5 - 4 decision back in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that Ledbetter's claim against her employer for paying her less than her male counterparts because of her gender was time barred because her present lower pay arose out of salary decisions made years earlier, well outside of the 180 - day statute of limitations for discriminatory employment practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

The court in the Western District of Pennsylvania signed off on a magistrate judge's recommendation and report, in Despot v. Baltimore Life Insurance Co., which noted that the man had a «pattern of filing conclusory complaints against former and prospective employers,» and that because of his history in the federal courts, «his pro se status does not save his complaint.»

If an employer suddenly terminates an employee because he asserts his civil rights, the employee might have a claim of retaliation against his employer, based on the timing of the employer's actions.

Because employers are responsible for the wellbeing of their employees, they can have a personal injury claim filed against them in the event of a work - related accident.

If you feel that your employer has discriminated against you because of past, present, or future military service please contact our experienced USERRA attorneys.

15 The Board shall not certify a trade union if any employer or any employers» organization has participated in its formation or administration or has contributed financial or other support to it or if it discriminates against any person because of any ground of discrimination prohibited by the Human Rights Code or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If your employer unfairly retaliated against you because of a complaint of discrimination, get the legal help you need today with a consultation with HKM Employment Attorneys, LLP.

These types of cases can be complicated because the employer will always try to justify their actions against an employee.

The employer is not able to take any actions against an employee simply because he or she filed a claim.

The Tribunal upheld her complaint of unfair dismissal on the basis that the employer had not given fair consideration to the question of whether Dr Drzymala could have been offered alternative work, and because she had not been given a timely opportunity to appeal against the decision not to renew her contract.

Further, where an employee discusses pay because she feels that she has been discriminated against, any action taken by the employer to stop such discussion will give rise to a victimisation claim.

Against this, at Constantine Law we have hired four leading employer - focussed partners during the past two years because they want to be supported by an entrepreneurial platform which their clients understand.

It is clear that the EAT did not regard its conclusion as representing a satisfactory state of affairs, particularly where the joint or concurrent tortfeasors are at arms» length, eg as in Bullimore v Porthecary Witham Weld [2011] IRLR 18 where an ex-employer gave a damaging reference about the claimant to a prospective employer because the ex-employee had presented a sex discrimination claim against them and the prospective employer withdrew the offer for the same reason, and in circumstances where CLIA 1978 applies to discrimination claims brought in the ordinary courts.

The women were trapped because their employer was not prepared to enforce equal opportunities against the wishes of the union, though it expressed sympathy to their claims.

Based on the foregoing, the Fourth DCA denied the employer's temporary injunction against the former employee because the employer breached the employment agreement by failing to properly compensate the former employee.

This means that it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person because of their religion or belief.

If it becomes clear that the employee has acted outside the scope of employment, the employer is unlikely to continue to provide support unless it would be in its interests to do so because, for example, there is a potential for related civil claims to be made against the employer.

The new tort of intrusion upon seclusion provides employees with a potential cause of action against an employer where the employer, in an unauthorized manner, collects, uses, or simply views the personal information of an employee that it holds only because of the employment relationship.

Except in cases of bona fide occupational requirements, employers are prohibited from discriminating against individuals when placing job advertising, accepting applications, employing an individual or setting the terms of conditions because of a person's:

In Nelson v. Bodwell High School (No. 2), 2016 BCHRT 75 a single, male teacher with no children claimed that he was discriminated against on the basis of his family status because he was not eligible for his employer's Child Benefit Scheme («CBS»).

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently found an employee's defamation claim against his previous employer for an unfavourable reference could not succeed, because the reference was justified and fell «within the range of qualified privilege».

Because of Bill 168, the OHSA now requires employers to treat the risk of violence and harassment against workers like other workplace hazards, which must be foreseen and minimized, and which must be governed by incident action plans.

Esther Brake, a long serving employee of a McDonald's franchisee, PJ — M2R Restaurant Inc., took legal proceedings against her employer after she was given a choice between a demotion from her Manager position to a position of First Assistant, and termination of her employment because of alleged performance issues.

The high court ruled that the Law Against Discrimination's two - year limitations period for bringing a discrimination case against an employer was a «public - purpose imperative» and that any contractual clause that shortened this time period was automatically unenforceable because it was contrary to public Against Discrimination's two - year limitations period for bringing a discrimination case against an employer was a «public - purpose imperative» and that any contractual clause that shortened this time period was automatically unenforceable because it was contrary to public against an employer was a «public - purpose imperative» and that any contractual clause that shortened this time period was automatically unenforceable because it was contrary to public policy.