Renee Inomata

Hiring: Getting it Right from the Start

Many a day, I answer phone calls and emails about non-performing or even “toxic” employees who must be terminated.  After grappling with the legal “dos” and “don’ts,” about half of the time the employer asks, “Why did I ever hire this person?” 

The answer is not purely a legal matter.  Marc Andreessen, a very successful entrepreneur, venture capitalist and software engineer, suggested his answer in a blog post entitled, “How to hire the best people you ever worked with,” several years ago.  Simply stated, he recommends that employers take time to look at their criteria and their process.  There are certainly many smarter and wiser than I who have written on the topic of the “perfect hire,” but after years of advising clients on terminating employees, I’d like to share a few tips that I’ve learned about hiring employees, in part, inspired by Andreessen’s sage advice.… Keep reading

In Part 1 and Part 2 I discussed four steps that I recommend employers follow in using criminal records.  Here in Part 3 and the last part of this series, I address the process of the handling of the documents.

 Step 5:  Handling Documents with CORI

Criminal records information obtained from any source is confidential, and employers must take precautions to insure that such information is protected from disclosure.  Because of the highly confidential nature of criminal records, the number of individuals who are authorized to request, access, receive and review such  information must be limited, and there are strict procedures for handling, storing and destroying criminal records information.  The new regulations provide for controls by:

  • Requiring the designation of a CORI Representative for an employer;
  • Requiring a Secondary Dissemination Log to track all distribution of CORI;
  • Limiting employer registration for CORI to one year increments; and
  • Limiting the validity of employee or applicant Acknowledgement Forms to 12 months from the execution date or the end of employment, whichever is sooner.
Keep reading

In my prior blog post, I provided the first two steps for an employer to obtain and use CORI in Massachusetts based on the new CORI regulations issued on May 25, 2012.  This post addresses the next two steps in this process.

These blog posts also address when an employer conducts its own CORI checks.  However, instead of conducting the background checks themselves, employers may request an outside consumer reporting agency to perform the background checks.  If you use or are an outside consumer reporting agency, please note that some of the requirements of the new regulations may be different than described in my blog posts.

Step 3:  Notifying Employee/Applicant of CORI

Once CORI is obtained by an employer, the employer must provide to the employee or applicant a copy of the obtained information and the source of the CORI before making any adverse employment decision based on the CORI, or even asking the employee/applicant questions regarding his/her criminal record.

If the employer intends to make an adverse employment decision based on the CORI, the employer is first required to:

  • notify the individual in writing of the potential adverse employment action;
  • provide a copy of the CORI, identifying
Keep reading
5 Steps for Employer Use of Criminal Records: Part 1

Massachusetts enacted broad reforms to its Criminal Offender Record Information (“CORI”) laws in August 2010.  These reforms emphasize existing non-discrimination requirements and provide new requirements for accessing records through the on-line system (“iCORI”), as well as using and maintaining criminal records. 

The first part of the CORI reform laws became effective in November 2010, requiring employers to refrain from asking employees and job applicants to provide their criminal record history.  The second part became effective May 4, 2012, requiring employers to follow certain procedures for obtaining and handling criminal records information when screening existing employees and applicants, and providing employees/applicants with certain due process rights before an employer can make an adverse employment decision based on such records. 

The CORI system is complicated, and employers can easily and unknowingly run afoul of its mandates and prohibitions.  To help you avoid exposure to these risks, I have broken down the CORI process into five steps.  The first two steps are detailed in this post and the remaining steps will be explored in separate posts in the coming weeks.

Step 1: Registering and Preparing for CORI Access

Employers must register with the Massachusetts Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (“DCJIS”) to … Keep reading

Providing Temporary Accommodations for Employee Disability

It’s never easy to navigate the legal requirements when an employee has a medical condition or  disability.  One of the many complications is providing a “reasonable accommodation,” a process that often requires significant time and careful consideration of how and what medical information can be obtained and scrutinized. 

In providing accommodations, some employers hesitate to relieve employees from certain “essential job functions” temporarily while the employee is recovering from a medical condition, or while it’s unclear how long a condition will last.  Based on the First Circuit’s decision in Jones v. Walgreens, Inc., et al., however, relieving an employee temporarily from certain “essential job functions” does not require the employer to permanently eliminate those essential job functions from the employee’s job.

In Jones, plaintiff-employee Jones, a Walgreens store manager, had been on several leaves of absence from January 2004 to October 2005 after suffering a knee injury when she slipped on ice outside Walgreens’ office.  In her second leave of absence, Jones indicated that she hoped to return to work with “reasonable accommodations.”  Walgreens welcomed her back to work with some physical lifting, bending, squatting and twisting limitations.  Twenty-two months later, in October 2005, Walgreens offered her … Keep reading

Before last week, a non-Massachusetts employer could insulate itself from employee claims under the Massachusetts Weekly Payment of Wages Act (“Wage Act”) simply by having its employees agree that all employment disputes be litigated in the employer’s home state.  That all changed with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Melia v. Zenhire, Inc.   

In that case, plaintiff Edward Melia, who worked and lived in Massachusetts, challenged the validity of a forum selection clause contained in his employment agreement requiring that any disputes related to his employment  be litigated in New York.  Melia’s claims against Zenhire included claims for unpaid wages, unpaid vacation and sick day wages, severance pay and unreimbursed expenses.  Melia argued that the forum selection clause was a “special contract” prohibited by the Wage Act and against Massachusetts public policy.  The SJC disagreed, determining that, due to comity amongst state courts, and in light of most states’ choice of law rules, there is a presumption that other jurisdictions would apply laws such as the Wage Act.  As such, there was no public policy reason to invalidate a forum selection clause in an employment agreement. 

The SJC did leave one opening for employees in this regard, in … Keep reading

With greater frequency, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has been exerting its authority over non-union employers.  I’d like to share an article that I co-authored with my colleague, Mike Leahy, for the Spring 2012 issue of Focus, our firm’s quarterly newsletter, about a few recent developments from the NLRB affecting non-union employers, resulting from the use of social media.  The full issue of Focus is available here.

A few years ago, many employers feared that use of social media would lead to disclosure of their confidential information and trade secrets, and implemented policies to stay ahead of the curve.  Over the past year, high profile cases involving those social media policies have provided a timely reminder that the  Depression-era National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) continues to apply to union-free workplaces, and not just unionized workplaces.

Indeed, the current chair of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently announced that he wants the NLRB to be viewed as a “resource for people with workplace concerns that may have nothing to do with union activities.” He has the law on his side.  Section 7 of the NLRA gives employees the right “to engage in…concerted activities for the purpose … Keep reading

In my previous post, I shared three best practices for preparing for a potential employee termination.  Here are two additional steps to consider in the termination process:

1. Prepare for possible exit interview scenarios.

Terminations are never easy and often become very personal.  In most situations, the key is to conduct the termination meeting as respectfully as possible.  In order to do so, it is advisable to have a plan addressing the following points:

a.  Who will be at the meeting?  Whenever possible, have two company representatives present, even if one is simply there to take notes.  Consider security outside the room in those situations where the employee may become volatile.

b.  What security measures will be taken while the employee is in the termination meeting?  Consider placing limitations on or completely shutting off access to company e-mail, company credit cards and company computer systems.  If the termination will not occur until a few weeks later, or transition is required from the employee, then completely shutting off access may not be the best course.  Limiting access to certain areas of the computer systems may be appropriate.

c.  What will be said?  Have a very short introduction, convey the … Keep reading

Employment attorneys and in-house counsel are used to the 4 p.m. phone call informing them that an employee must be terminated “today,” followed by a request for a separation agreement or advice on how to handle the termination.  More often than not, after asking a few questions we discover that, perhaps, the termination should be slowed down to ensure that we do it right. So, how should you prepare for a potential termination?  Get started with these three tips:

1. Assess the reason for the termination.

Often, the reason given for terminating an employee is that he or she was not a “good fit” – a conveniently vague term that ranges from a host of legitimate business reasons to code for unlawful discrimination.  Consequently, you need to drill down to what the real reason is for selecting this individual for termination at this time.  Eligibility for unemployment benefits and continuation of certain other benefits, such as health insurance, may be dependent on the reason for termination.… Keep reading

In a prior post, we had reminded you that certain changes to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) regulations would become effective on April 30. 

However, as of Friday, April 13, in a case brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. District Court of South Carolina decided to strike down the requirement to post notices informing employees of their rights to unionize under the NLRA.  The South Carolina federal court decided that the posting requirements exceeded the authority of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the entity charged with enforcing the NLRA.  The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals promptly followed, issuing an injunction putting the notice posting requirement on hold, pending the resolution of whether or not the NLRB had the authority to issue the notice posting requirement. 

As a result, yesterday afternoon, the NLRB announced that its regional offices would not implement the rule requiring posting of notices of NLRA rights while the appeal of the D.C. Circuit’s decision is pending. … Keep reading