Articles Posted in Employment & Labor

By Lane V. Erickson, Attorney

Both Idaho law and applicable Federal Law require that an employer pay an employee for all hours worked. Sometimes it is clear what is considered on duty time.  However, sometimes it is not.  In Idaho, hours worked does not include:

• time to be spent by an employee travelling to and from the workplace, in productive work preparation, changing clothes prior to and after a work shift, taking showers, attaining and returning work tools and equipment, when a business, industry, plant, mine, factory or workplace has a custom or practice of treating such time as non-compensable time;

By Lane V. Erickson, Attorney

In Idaho, employers have a duty to protect others from the foreseeable harmful conduct of its employees.  The two types of cases that are usually brought against an employer when an employee engages in intentionally harmful conduct to others are negligent hiring and negligent supervision.

In the negligent hiring area Idaho has few cases.  One worth discussing is Doe v. Garcia, et al., 131 Idaho 578 (1998).  In Doe, the employee worked for a hospital as a respiratory therapist.  However, the hospital, in hiring the employee, failed to request the employee’s personnel file from his previous employer.  In failing to obtain this personnel file, the hospital failed to learn that the employee had been fired from his previous job because he had sexually molested a patient at his previous job.  While working for the hospital, the employee admitted to a staff member the reason for his previous termination.  However, the hospital took no further action.  While working, the employee treated Doe, who was a minor and developed a friendship with him.  The employee was later discharged by the hospital for encouraging under-aged employees to consume alcohol.  After his termination, the employee sexually molested Doe.  Doe filed suit against the hospital alleging that it was negligent in hiring the employee.  The district court ruled in favor of the hospital.  Doe appealed.  The Idaho Supreme Court reversed and remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings stating that a genuine issue existed as to whether the hospital was liable and whether it should have foreseen that the employee would use his position within the hospital that would lead to the molestation of Doe.

By Lane V. Erickson, Attorney

In Idaho the limits of using off-duty conduct in an employment decision are mostly controlled by either an employment agreement or the “at will” doctrine described above.  However, some exceptions to this may still apply.  Using social media as an example illustrates these narrow exceptions.  While none of the incidents reported below occurred in Idaho they likely will in the future.  As reported:

May 25, 2010, Brixx Wood Fired Pizza waitress Ashley Johnson was pretty fired up about the couple that lingered three hours over lunch, made her work an hour past her quitting time – and then left her only a $5 tip.  So Johnson, 22, did the 21st century equivalent of griping to the kitchen staff (or the bartender down the street): She vented on Facebook. “Thanks for eating at Brixx,” she wrote, “you cheap piece of —- camper.” (For the record, the $5 tip was 17 percent of the customers’ bill.)

By Lane V. Erickson, Attorney

Scene from the TV series The Office:

Michael Scott:“Yeah, Ryan snapped at me. But there was this twinkle in his eye, that I picked up on, which said, ‘Dude, we’re friends. I’m doing this for appearances. I am the big boss now. And I have to seem like an ogre. But you know me, and you trust me and we like each other. And we’ll always be friends. And I would never take you for granted in a million years. And I miss you, man, and I love you.’. . . His words.”

By Lane V. Erickson, Attorney

Regardless of whether there is a written employment contract, an oral employment contract or no employment contract at all, when an Employment Handbook or Policy Handbook exists, it may provide additional contractual rights either for the employer or the employee. The result is that an Employment Handbook or Policy Handbook could control an employer’s ability to either discipline or terminate an employee for misconduct. For this reason, it is important to review all of the statements made in the Employment Handbook or Policy Handbook regarding discipline and termination.

The very best Employment Handbooks or Policy Handbooks contain statements that allow discretion to the employer for both disciplining and terminating employees with language such as, “should the employee engage in this or similar behavior, the employee may be subject to discipline up to and including termination.” Some even go so far as to state specifically that certain types of described misconduct by an employee may lead to discipline and/or termination.

By Lane V. Erickson, Attorney

Federal law has made an effort to protect those who serve in our Armed Forces. Particularly, federal law concerning the employment of members of the military provides protections above those normally given to regular employees.

According to the Federal Department of Labor:

By Lane V. Erickson, Attorney

Employers are often covered by federal employment laws that provide certain protections for employees. One of the laws that exist that is applicable to many employers is the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).  The FMLA is designed to provide certain employees with up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave per year. It also requires that their group health benefits be maintained during the leave.  Essentially this means that an employee who is covered by the FMLA can take up to 12 weeks of leave, that is unpaid, with an assurance that their job will be open and remaining for them when they return.

The FMLA is designed to help employees balance their work and family responsibilities by allowing them to take reasonable unpaid leave for certain family and medical reasons. It also seeks to accommodate the legitimate interests of employers and promote equal employment opportunity for men and women.

By Lane V. Erickson, Attorney

Recently there seems to be a trend by my estate planning clients to avoid probate at all costs. It is true that a number of my recent clients have recently moved to Idaho from other states whose laws are vastly different than Idaho’s when it comes to probate. However, there are also a large number of individuals who have lived in Idaho their entire lives who for some reason feel it necessary to avoid probate

I found that when I actually talk to these clients I learn that their desire to avoid probate stems from information they have received from family or friends. I’m sure that these family and friends are well meaning, but I often find that the information they provide to my client is not accurate. It is my belief that there really are only three legitimate reasons to try and avoid probate.

By Joseph G. Ballstaedt

 In Idaho, if you leave your job voluntarily (rather than being fired), you are not eligible for unemployment benefits unless you left for “good cause connected with [your] unemployment.” The term “good cause” does not have an exact definition, and what constitutes good cause will depend on the unique facts of each individual case, but an employee’s decision to quit must be based on circumstances that are “real, not imaginary, substantial not trifling, and reasonable, not whimsical.” Ullrich v. Thorpe Elec., 109 Idaho 820, 823, 712 P.2d 521, 524 (1985). Also, rather than quit, an employee must explore viable options to resolve work problems and keep his job. See Ellis v. Northwest Fruit & Produce, 103 Idaho 821, 654 P.2d 914 (1982). And if he does quit, an employee must prove that good cause existed (the employer does not have to prove that good cause did not exist).

Over the past several decades, Idaho courts have determined that employees did not have good cause to quit under the following circumstances:

By Joseph G. Ballstaedt

 In Idaho, almost every employee is an at-will employee, which means he has no contract with his employer establishing how long the employment relationship will last or limiting why he can be fired. At-will employees can be fired for almost any reason and, conversely, can quit for any reason. Such an arrangement allows equal freedom to both the employer and the employee.

There is a general exception, however, to an employer’s rights under an at-will employment relationship: an employer cannot fire an employee when motivated by a reason that is against public policy. See MacNeil v. Minidoka Mem’l Hosp., 108 Idaho 588, 589, 701 P.2d 208, 209 (1985). All but a few states recognize this exception. Idaho courts have explained that public policy is made of principles that restrict parties’ freedom to contract and privately deal. Such restrictions are for the good of the community; whatever contravenes good morals or any established interests of society is against public policy. See Jackson v. Minidoka Irrigation Dist., 98 Idaho 330, 333, 563 P.2d 54, 57 (1977).