Search results

http://www.dlt.ri.gov/ls/faqs.htm Would they win if they sued? Maybe. However, for $100 they probably wouldn't.

The law is the law, whether you agree with it or not. How much in common can a 28 year-old have with a 17 year-old anyway? I'd want you to stay away from any daughters I might have, of any age.

You cannot sue because childish people start rumors. It is common (and legal) for employers to not want employees who work closely together, or where one is under the supervision of another, to be related (or otherwise "like related"). As my g-pa used to say, you pays your money, you makes...

Not carved in stone, but possible. http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/DLSEManual/dlse_enfcmanual.pdf Section 35 In Illinois, I specifically asked this of the DOL when I left my job where it was stated that Illinois law applied, if Illinois law provided a higher benefit than the state in which we...

8 months later and you never checked? Even if the injury WAS covered under the Family Medical Leave Act, you have been out way longer than the law requires to employer to keep your job for you. And IF you were on FMLA, the employer was required to maintain your coverage at shared cost (what...

Except California and Illinois. ;)

You do know that if you quit over this, you won't get unemployment benefits, right?

This site deals primarily with U.S. Law. We have no responders here conversant in European employment law.

duplicate post

You probably can't. Bad planning on your part does not give you the right to rescind. http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-1400.html

And they probably just found out about it. You apparently took this action in violation of a company policy. You have no case for wrongful termination. You MIGHT be granted UI benefits; you have nothing to lose by filing.

duplicate post; answered elsewhere

Is the new salary at least $640/week? More accurately said, exempt employees (most of them) are not legally entitled to overtime pay; "salaried" and "hourly" are merely pay methods. The only thing California law requires is that a decrease cannot be retroactive. Other than that, the...

Wait a minute, SoL for what? For firing you, as in, was this a wrongful termination under the law? Almost certainly not. For unemployment benefits? No SoL either, BUT depending on what you did (or didn't do) may affect whether or not you receive benefits. Without knowing what that...

Professional what? This is a free forum where you are getting FREE advice. You don't get to choose who answers your queries. Of course, you can bet there are responders who won't do so now.

Bermuda shorts and capris can be tasteful and relatively professional-looking on women. Honestly, on men, not so much.

Not signing the form could be considered insubordination; it doesn't mean you agree with it. However, if this is the hill you want to die on in this job market, feel free.

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html Or, in English: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination I see no evidence of illegal discrimination in your post (which would have benefitted greatly from some paragraphs and white space).

Sorry back atcha. Please read my post again. That's not what I said. I said the Act provides for employers to not have to pay the employer's portion of FICA/Medicare for newly hired employees, through December 31, 2010 IF they have been unemployed for more than 60 days...

But short answer to your question is yes, because the law doesn't prohibit it. Having said that, however, it is now to the employer's advantage to hire someone who has been unemployed for more than 60 days; they don't have to pay the employer portion of FICA/Medicare for several months.