A restaurant is barred from enforcing an arbitration agreement it required applicants to sign, because there was no consideration for signing and the agreement was unfair.
A large steakhouse chain that required all job applicants to sign an arbitration agreement to even be considered for a job could not enforce the agreement for numerous reasons. Therefore, employees who had filed a case alleging violations of wage and hour laws did not have to arbitrate their claims, but could instead continue in court.
The court used ordinary contract law to explain the different reasons the arbitration agreement was unenforceable. First, the restaurant did not offer the applicants anything (like extra money) in exchange for the agreement to arbitrate. It just required them to sign it if they wanted to be considered for a job. Also, the restaurant did not give the individuals time to carefully read or think about the agreement, and in some cases, managers gave prospective employees the wrong information about the contract.
The court found that the individuals did not knowingly sign the agreements to arbitrate, and that many of them did not have the education, experience or background necessary to understand what they were signing. Finally, it was unfair for the restaurant to offer the agreement on a “take it or leave it” basis.
This case shows the types of issues an employer should consider if it wants to have its employees sign arbitration agreements. It is critical to give something to employees in return for their signing such an agreement, and also to give the employees time to understand the contract and ask questions.
对于FLSA下的许多雇主来说，工资和小时审计变得普遍。
With the amendments to the regulations interpreting the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) now almost nine months old, many employers and employees are beginning to understand how these new regulations actually affect the decision of whether an individual is exempt from the right to be paid overtime. Additionally, many employers who want to avoid the possibility of litigation, as threatened by the Department of Labor, have undertaken in-house audits of their workforce to make sure all workers are being paid in compliance with the law.
在分析工作职责，工资率和其他因素后，审计涉及将工作头衔和分类分类为豁免或不发行。一些雇主发现，多年来，他们一直没有仔细研究其劳动力分类，并且许多被归类为免税的雇主的雇员可能不受欢迎。雇主拥有有关工人的新数据，并了解了FLSA的变化，在面对诉讼之前，雇主已经能够正确地对员工进行重新分类。
It is important for both employers and employees to understand their rights and obligations under the FLSA, to make sure that employees are receiving all the money they are entitled to, and that employers are not unintentionally paying their workers too much or too little.
- 在梅兰妮·H·伯科维茨（Esq。
有效的保留记录政策是任何雇主必须的。
Having a good policy in place for records retention can help employers avoid liability, protect employees’ privacy and assist in responding to legitimate information requests. An easy rule for records management is that business records should be retained as long as they retain value for some business purpose and are legally required, but no longer than that.
就业和劳动事务受到严格管制。联邦，州，有时甚至地方政府机构执行各种影响工资和小时，平等就业，员工组织活动，工作场所健康和安全以及员工福利的法律和法规。这些法规中的许多也征得了记录保存和报告要求。遵守这些许多法律法规通常由人力资源人员决定。
除了就业法要求外，雇主还经常创建并保留大量记录，而无需考虑需要这样做。通常，这些记录分配给无法实际使用该信息的人。此类实践的成本，包括阅读，归档和存储原件和多个副本，这是巨大的。出现进一步的并发症，因为记录经常超过作者或接受者的回忆。措辞不佳的文件需要广泛的研究来阐明歧义，而诉讼的结果有时会取决于无辜但不清楚的著作引起的不确定性。
For all these reasons, all companies should create a clear records-retention policy that complies with applicable law.
- 在梅兰妮·H·伯科维茨（Esq。
Handle personnel information and records with care.
A good records-management program will establish guidelines for the creation and circulation of documents, encourage quick disposal of routine and marginally relevant records, and provide for careful organization and retention of truly important records in central, readily available files.
人员记录特别关注，因为它们包含有关员工的大量个人和敏感信息。因此，雇主必须谨慎不要疏忽或故意披露任何可能违反法律或雇用雇主侵犯隐私和/或诽谤的诉讼的信息。即使员工人事档案的内容可能与诉讼直接相关，在某些司法管辖区的发现可能不允许发现该文件，而不必迫切需要发现，而这超过了员工的隐私权。此外，即使有如此迫切的需求，从人事档案中的任何披露的允许范围也只会根据需要满足迫切需求的需求。
Improper internal use of personnel records should be minimized by allowing disclosure only to designated personnel having a “need to know.” Personnel who have a need to know would typically be only those individuals involved in decision making regarding promotions, wages or discipline.
当员工要求访问其人员档案时，这通常是警告诉讼。尽管可以扣留某些材料，但请注意，未能生产文件，该员工有权根据法律访问，可能会造成严厉的处罚。因此，最好确保人员文件完成并且不包含不应在文件中的信息。相反，仅仅是因为材料在文件中并不一定会导致它们受到披露。
人事记录只是一种信息业务保留的一种类型，但是由于其高度个人的性质，他们应该得到特殊待遇。仔细维护人事记录是任何业务的必需品。
- 在梅兰妮·H·伯科维茨（Esq。