Sentences with phrase «claims against their employers because»

Not exact matches

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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».

Your employer can't terminate your contract because you've made a factory accident claim against them.

Employers have to be especially careful when making adverse employment decisions, such as firing or demoting, because such decisions could open the door for potential retaliation claims against the employer if the subject employee is a member of a «protected class.»

So, too, no fees or costs were covered by Labor Code section 2802, because that provision only required the employer to cover third - party claims arising out of a lawsuit against the employee arising out of the course and scope of her employment, again not encompassing expenses incurred in responding to law enforcement investigations.

Your employer can't threaten to terminate your contract or dismiss you because you're making a claim against them.

If a member of the public sued an employer for negligent hiring, the employer theoretically could bring a third - party suit against the screening company, claiming that it hired the person because of an allegedly faulty resume verification, according to Paler.