A fun way to while away your time until the weekend officially arrives.
How much do you know about the basics of HR law? Take our quiz and find out! The usual rules apply: The answers immediately follow the questions, and I won't know if you cheat. Since I'm in a good mood because we have survived the month of February, everybody will get a participation trophy at the end.
Unless otherwise indicated, assume that there are no unique state or local laws involved.
Ready? Here we go:
No. 1: What does "right to work" mean?
A. Everybody has a God-given right to earn a livelihood through gainful employment.
B. Either the employee or the employer can terminate the employment relationship at any time and for any reason, or for no reason at all.
C. An employee cannot be required to join a union as a condition of employment.
D. Welfare-to-work. In other words, for an able-bodied person, getting off welfare and going back to work is the "right" thing to do. So, it's "right" "to work."
ANSWER: C. Twenty-six states have "right-to-work" laws. A circuit court judge in West Virginia issued a decision this week invalidating that state's right-to-work law, which was enacted in 2016. The court's decision is sure to be appealed. In non-right-to-work states, union membership can be required.
The blue states in the map below are right-to-work states:
No. 2: Well, then, what is it when "Either the employee or the employer can terminate the employment relationship at any time and for any reason, or for no reason at all"?
A. A misstatement of applicable law.
B. Promissory estoppel.
C. Res ipsa loquitur.
D. Employment at will.
ANSWER: D, but I'll give you credit if you answered A. Generally, in an employment at will state, if the parties don't have a contract of employment for a definite term, then either party can terminate the employment relationship at any time and for any lawful reason. Even in an employment-at-will state, an employer can't terminate an employee for an unlawful reason, such as a discriminatory or retaliatory one.
Every state in the union is an "employment-at-will" state, except Montana.
No. 3: A clerical employee who is paid a weekly salary (not by the hour) is exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
TRUE
FALSE
ANSWER: FALSE. To be exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA, the employee's job must meet a number of requirements, including the "duties test" for the administrative, executive, or professional exemptions. Most clerical jobs will not meet the requirements for the exemptions. (There are also exemptions for certain computer employees and outside salespersons, but a clerical employee clearly won't fit into those, either.)
The salary threshold for exemption is pretty low right now -- $455 a week, so most clerical employees would probably be fine there. But word on the street is that the U.S. Department of Labor will soon be issuing proposed regulations that would raise this threshold.
No. 4: Bad Company has a policy that prohibits its non-exempt office staff from working overtime unless the overtime has been authorized in advance. Sheila flagrantly violates this rule. All the time. Which of the following can Bad Company NOT do to rectify the situation?
A. Fire Sheila for repeatedly violating the rule against working unauthorized overtime.
B. Stop paying Sheila for the unauthorized hours. That'll teach her.
C. Issue progressive discipline, up to and including termination of employment.
D. Make Sheila leave on the nose at 5 p.m. (her regular quitting time) every evening.
ANSWER: B. Employers can punish employees for working unauthorized overtime, and they can require employees to leave at their regular quitting times, but they can almost never withhold their wages. (Read "almost never" as "never.")
No. 5: Your company is in Portland, Oregon, and your CEO has strong religious beliefs. She finds out employee Skip is an atheist. Not long afterward, she tells you that the company is overstaffed, even though it isn't. She tells you to eliminate Skip's position, even though he is a good employee and the company needs someone with his talents. The other employees, all believers of one type or another, are not laid off. Which is the MOST ACCURATE description of your company's legal status?
A. Great! Your CEO found a way to get rid of that heathen!
B. Not so hot. You got rid of one of your best employees for reasons that don't have anything to do with work.
C. That's not the way I would have handled it, but to each his own . . .
D. You have violated the Portland civil rights code, which was recently amended to provide anti-discrimination protections to non-believers.
ANSWER: D. Only in Portlandia . . . well, never mind that, because Madison, Wisconsin, also has an ordinance that protects non-believers. And even if you have only Title VII to worry about, you shouldn't discriminate against anyone based on their religious beliefs or the lack thereof. (Exceptions apply to religious organizations and bona fide "ministerial" positions.)
No. 6: Ashleigh comes to you and says that she is being sexually harassed by her supervisor, Anakin. You know them both very well, and you know that Ashleigh is a big flirt and also a liar. On the other hand, Anakin is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.* You're swamped with work, and you don't have time to conduct a thorough investigation, and you aren't worried in the least that Anakin really did anything wrong. What should you do?
*Yes, I ripped this off from the Boy Scouts' Scout Law.
A. Investigate anyway, or better yet, bring in an outside investigator who can be more objective than you are.
B. Call it a "he said, she said," and close the case as "inconclusive."
C. Fire Ashleigh for making a false complaint.
D. Lock the two of them in a room together until they work things out.
ANSWER: A. Yes, Ashleigh may be a ditz, and yes, Anakin may be the greatest, but that doesn't mean Ashleigh couldn't be right this once. Never close a harassment case before you've conducted a thorough investigation. And if you feel that you know the personalities a little too well, do seriously consider bringing in an outside Human Resources consultant or employment attorney to conduct an objective investigation.
No. 7: While you're in a restroom stall, you overhear Matt and Ben complaining about their 2 percent pay raises. Ben tells Matt that their co-worker Nicole got 3.5 percent. As the HR Director, you know Ben is correct. Your CEO will be furious when he finds out that employees are talking about their pay. What can you do to nip this in the bud?
A. Fire Matt, Ben, and Nicole for discussing confidential information.
B. Conduct employee meetings, in which you warn them not to discuss their pay under penalty of disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment.
C. Nothing.
ANSWER: C. Assuming Matt, Ben, and Nicole are not "supervisors" within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and that they don't handle payroll or salary administration, this is "protected concerted activity" within the meaning of Section 7 of the NLRA. Section 7 of the NLRA applies even if your company is non-union. Among other things, employees have a legal right to discuss their terms and conditions of employment, of which pay is certainly one.
For more on why non-union employers need to know about the NLRA, tune in to our latest edition of ConstangyTV's Close-Up on Workplace Law. You'll be glad you did!
No. 8: Danielle has recently used up all of her leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act for her cancer treatments. Your company doesn't offer short-term or long-term disability. Danielle brings you a note from her doctor saying that she will be able to return to work with restrictions in two weeks. What do you do?
ANSWER: D. Of course!
HOW'DJA DO?
6-8 correct: Senior Veep! The HR professional to end all HR professionals!
4-5 correct: You're going places, baby! HR Director, or at least Manager!
2-3 correct: You share a hallway with the HR Department.
0-1 correct: An HR person fired you from your last job.
Just kidding! Everybody did great! Here's that Participation Trophy I promised you:
Image Credit: Bathroom from Flickr, Creative Commons license, by Jeff Barton.
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Kelly McGrath
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Piyumi M. Samaratunga
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010