It is natural for you to feel a strong sense of loyalty towards the Manhattan company that employs you. That is what makes the decision for you report improprieties committed by your employer so difficult. On top of that, you also have to worry about what consequences you might face should it be revealed that you were the one to blow the whistle on your company. Yet regulatory violations often only come as the result of whistleblower actions. Thus, prosecutors need to be able to protect people like you from retaliation in order to ensure that you are willing to come forward.
New York state law requires employers to provide some compensation for employees during terms of short-term disability. Many might complain that the wage benefits called for under the law aren't much to write home about.
Previously, we began looking at the case of James Damore, the former Google engineer who wrote a 10-page memo criticizing Google’s diversity policy. As we noted, Damore was fired after filing a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, the agency responsible for investigating and resolving allegations of unfair labor practices.
One of the ongoing discussions in the technology sector, one which the industry is trying to come to grips with, is gender inequality. The fact of the matter is that men play a larger role than women in the technology industry, and the problem doesn’t appear to be getting better.
Last time, we looked at the case former Queens Library president Thomas Galante, who was terminated under extraordinary circumstances in connection with accusations of embezzlement. Although we don’t know exactly what contractual rights Galante may have had concerning termination from his position, it is often the case that high-level executives have special protections from termination at will.
Last time, we began commenting briefly on some of the issues that are addressed in executive level employment agreements, particularly with respect to the issue of termination. As we noted, such agreements, at the least, need to address the terms surrounding the executive employee’s decision to terminate employment, both in cases where there is cause and in cases where there is no cause, as well as the terms surrounding the employer’s decision to terminate employment for cause and without cause.
We’ve previously noted on this blog that the general rule is that employment is at-will, and that an employer may therefore terminate an employee for any reason, at any time, without fear of legal repercussions. This rule can be modified by contractual promises, as it often is with high-level executives.
In our previous post, we mentioned two important statutory exceptions to the at-will employment rule: illegal discrimination and retaliatory termination. As we noted, employers who terminate employees on such bases are typically very cautious about it so as to avoid allegations of wrongdoing. Those who believe they may have been subjected to such illegal termination should, therefore, work with an experienced attorney to help them build the strongest possible case.
Security is an important issue in many areas of life, and employment is no exception. Employees rely on their employment for their livelihood, and it is natural to feel that some degree of job security is deserved. The truth, however, is that employers have a lot of discretion in terms of letting employees go.
The relationship between an employer and employee is often complex and, at times, can become strained and even contentious. In cases where an employee is fired or let go from a job, he or she is likely to feel slighted and wronged. In most cases, however, the terms of an employment relationship are considered to be at will which means that either an employer or employee can choose to terminate the relationship at any time.