If you fire an employee for an indefensible reason, chances are you will get a charge or a lawsuit out of it, even if the indefensible reason was legal. That's HR/Legal 101. (In other words, don't believe that "employment at will" propaganda.)

If you realize your reason wasn't too good and therefore "improve" it a little after the fact, that just makes things worse. If you "improve" it ...

NOTE: Because of the holiday weekend, this will be our "Friday" post of the week. Happy Passover, Easter, or end of March, as the case may be!

"Hippity, hoppity, y'all!"

This is my third and final installment on equal pay -- at least, until I decide to talk about it again. My first post is here, and the second is here.

What is the one simple, cheap, and easy thing that an employer can do to minimize ...

My post last week on why the "gender pay gap" is mostly bogus generated a great discussion in the comment box. In the hopes of keeping it going, this week I'd like to talk about some of the discrimination or quasi-discrimination issues we do occasionally find.

That nasty remaining five percent or so* that can't be explained by personal choice.

*Completely unscientific percentage.

If your ...

After Tuesday night's rather -- intense -- Presidential debate, it was fun to watch Gov. Romney and President Obama good-naturedly tease each other at last night's Al Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner to benefit Catholic Charities of New York. With two and a half weeks to go until election day (November 6 - don't forget to vote!), I thought this would be a good time to provide some guidance ...

What should an employer do about "anonymous harassment"?

Last Friday, I said I'd devote an entire post to a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit* that didn't take too kindly to Chrysler Corporation's response to complaints from an employee about anti-Semitic and national-origin-based notes and graffiti.

*The Seventh Circuit hears appeals from federal ...

As you all know, the Americans with Disabilities Act excludes "current users of illegal drugs" from protection. Meaning that an employer is free to take action against applicants or employees based on their current use of illegal drugs.

A question that has arisen a few times, and which I've managed to sidestep, has been this: What about current use of medical marijuana? Assuming the ...

Dear Jackie,

How ya doin'? I'm not too bad . . . just keepin' my nose to the grindstone at work and enjoyin' the spring weather, and not a whole lot else . . . same old, same old.

Listen, hon. I know it's been a while since we've been in touch, but when I saw your new "Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil ...

It's been another zany week or so in the world of labor and employment law, rivalling Groucho, Harpo, Chico and Zeppo. Here are a few items that jumped out at me. (Each subhead is a line from a Marx Brothers movie or the title of a Marx Brothers movie. Answers at the end.)

"Hurry up, or you'll be late for jail!" Pepsi Beverages (formerly Pepsi Bottling Co.) agreed to a pre-litigation settlement ...

UPDATE: Daniel Schwartz of Connecticut Employer Law Blog has made some excellent additions to the list below. We could go on like this all day! Check it out.

My friend and employee/plaintiff's lawyer, Lee Smith of Atlanta (who does not have a web page, and who neither blogs nor tweets!), has been corresponding with me about the words that no employee's lawyer ever wants to hear from a ...

As they said at Bunker Hill, "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes!"

Last week, I wrote about early motions to dismiss employment lawsuits under Rule 12(b)(6) and questioned whether they were always the best strategy for the employer. Most of last week's post simply described the differences between a motion to dismiss, a motion for summary judgment, and a trial, as ...