Tag Archives: employment law

What Stop WOKE and its inevitable copycats could mean for workplace law

Posted on by

Laws like Florida’s Stop WOKE undermine the purpose of civil rights laws to reduce unlawful discrimination. The order issuing an injunction against the law by a federal judge contains an interesting discussion of civil rights and workplace law. While “Stop WOKE” types of laws may interfere with an employer’s ability to dictate personnel matters to some extent, they amount to little more than the unhelpful insertion of grievance politics into civil rights laws that protect all employees.

A federal Judge in Florida issued an injunction that struck down provisions of the Stop WOKE Act effecting anti-discrimination training that was pushed by Florida Governor, and GOP Presidential hopeful, Ron DeSantis.

Stop WOKE would have banned discussion of concepts like critical race theory and white privilege in schools and workplaces. Interestingly enough, business challenged Stop WOKE arguing that it interferes with their efforts to combat discrimination in the workplace.

Florida-based and employee-side employment law blogger Donna Ballman has written two scathing takedowns of Stop WOKE here and here. Part of Ballman’s criticism is that Stop WOKE is so poorly drafted that it does the opposite of what its drafters intended.

However, the expected demise of Florida’s Stop WOKE is far from the end of the discussion on the issue. I expect copy-cat Stop WOKE legislation in other states and maybe even in Congress next year. Someone may even have the savvy to draft a Stop WOKE 2.0 that does what the original Stop WOKE intended.

So how will Stop WOKE type laws impact workplace law if and when they are enacted?

Anti-discrimination training and civil rights law

Left out of the discussion about Stop WOKE is how anti-discrimination training is part of civil rights laws. It’s easy to forget about this because so much writing on civil rights laws is authored by lawyers who litigate discrimination cases. However, civil rights acts also seek to eliminate discrimination through education. That is part of the job of the EEOC and parallel state and local civil rights commissions.

But to some extent education is outsourced to employers. The law gives employers reasons to conduct anti-discrimination training.  Evidence of anti-discrimination training can be used as a defense against punitive damages in discrimination cases.

Anti-discrimination training has been a long-time part of workplaces. But efforts to eliminate discrimination have taken on new prominence in the wake of the George Floyd protests. Efforts at eliminating discrimination have also shifted from trying to avoid liability into more proactive diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, discussions of unconscious bias and discussions about “white privilege.”

White privilege is the idea that white people have certain unearned benefits because of their skin color due to long-standing discrimination against people of color. The concept of white privilege seems to gall some conservatives and it seems like discussions of that topic are the target of legislation like Stop WOKE.

The First Amendment, workplace law and STOP Woke

The State of Florida argued for against Stop WOKE on 1st Amendment grounds because employees must attend these training so they are a captive audience.

The Federal District Court judge turned that First Amendment argument on its head. The court agreed that Stop WOKE actually violated the 1st Amendment rights of employers by prohibiting them talking about unconscious bias and white privilege based on viewpoint discrimination which is strongly limited by the 1st Amendment

The Court went further to argue that making discussions of unconscious bias and white privilege unlawful also undermined how the 1st Amendment is applied to anti-discrimination laws. To some extent, courts have incorporated the criticism that anti-discrimination laws could violate the 1st Amendment in general by creating a very employer- friendly standard for harassment that attempts to protect the 1st Amendment rights of those who would be accused of discrimination prohibited by civil rights laws. Courts have gone so far to say that civil rights codes aren’t civility codes. In fact federal circuit courts almost take a certain relish in describing boorish and creepy behavior that doesn’t constitute harassment for purposes of Title VII. In the Sixth Circuit’s version of this parade of horribles, they point out a manager who grabbed an employee’s buttocks and stated “Your ass belongs to me” did not create enough of a hostile environment for that employee to bring a harassment claim under Title VII.

In contrast, Stop WOKE would prohibit any discussion of white privilege, unconscious bias, etc no matter how it is presented. In essence such discussion is per se unlawful. If that standard applied to harassment on other classes protected by civil rights laws, employees would have a much easier time winning harassment cases.

The court also pointed out that the captive audience doctrine has limited application outside of laws regulating union organizing. Federal courts have interpreted the captive audience doctrine in a way helps employers in efforts to stop union organizing. Some labor advocates point out that DEI efforts often include so-called “affinity groups” of certain categories of workers and that those affinity groups are often sold as ways for employers to avoid unions.

I suppose you could take contrarian-left view and argue Stop WOKE is pro-worker in that it would curtail certain anti-union activities and would it make it easier for employees to sue their employer. That would be really short-sighted even if you completely discount legitimate concerns over diversity, equity and inclusion. Conservatives are marching in lock-step with some Democrats in gutting employment protections for the sake of the “gig economy” and big tech. Legislation about Stop WOKE is about inserting culture war grievance into civil rights laws that protect everyone from discrimination in the workplace. They have little or nothing to to do with improving workplace conditions for the bulk of workers.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , .

Employees can’t count on worries over bad publicity to get a good outcome in a case against an employer

Posted on by

“They aren’t going to want the publicity.”

In my experience, this phrase is right up there with “This isn’t about the money” when it comes to red flag phrases from potential clients looking for legal representation in a case against their employer or former employer in a wrongful termination or discrimination case.

Like a lot of common misconceptions about the legal process, “They aren’t going to want the publicity” is based on some truth that is stretched beyond reality. Companies like to keep litigation or disputes with former employers private. Employers usually demand confidentiality to settle cases out of court. Sometimes even routine company documents are subject to protective orders from courts.

But the threat of bad publicity is almost never sufficient to settle a dispute with employee quickly and on favorable terms to an employee. This post is about detailing some of those reasons.

Is your dispute with your employer newsworthy? In other words, why would anyone else be interested in what happened to you at work? If the mistreatment is based on something like sex, race, religion or disability, etc. you at least get your foot in the proverbial door. Same if you are opposing some unsafe or unlawful practice by your employer. But if your mistreatment is more or less a personal dispute between you and your boss or you and your co-workers, it’s not news.

Not all news is fit to print – Let’s say you have a legitimate legal case against an employer or former employer, does that mean the media will be running to put a microphone in your employer’s face? If what you are alleging is common place or typical then probably not. Maybe if something happens in your case like a favorable decision on a motion or verdict, then maybe that will merit some media coverage. But most civil cases don’t garner media attention based on merely filing a lawsuit.

Less news is fit to print nowadays – There is less coverage of local news due to the decline of local newspapers. So even if you have a strong legal case that may have some public interest, there are fewer reporters that would be able to cover your case. Early in my practice, up until about 2010, the local Associated Press would call me routinely about filings in my federal employment cases. Not anymore. Newsworthy cases may now get picked up in outlets like Law360 or Bloomberg Law that are read by lawyers, but it’s less common to read about civil cases in general publications.

Negative publicity is far from fatal for major employers – So let’s say that your case against your current or former employer garners some media attention and that attention is unfavorable for your current or former employer. If it’s a major employer, they likely have a public relations department to spin the story and more importantly create an ongoing stream of positive coverage that overwhelm the negative news about your case. Major employers also spend on advertising and corporate philanthropy to bolster their image. So the negative press from your claim, may be entirely cancelled out by what a companies efforts on advertising and public relations. Bluntly, major employers budget substantial sums to fight negative publicity.

Negative publicity may not change how your employer does business– Sometimes employees want employers to change how they do business. Maybe you can do that through litigation, but actions like collective bargaining and political organizing are the more effective in accomplishing those ends. But again, major employers already spend large sums of money on regular basis on the political process through lobbying and campaign contributions.

In short, employment law cases are about employees trying to correct harms done when their employers violate employment laws. While these harms can be newsworthy, they rarely garner media coverage. Even when they do, that media coverage usually doesn’t lead to substantial changes from employers without organized and sustained pressure. The potential bad publicity for the mistreatment of an individual employee is not going to lead to those changes in and of itself. An employee seeking justice, financial or otherwise, from mistreatment in the workplace is likely going to be in for relatively long-hail.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , .

Fast and Federal: How LGBT Nebraskans should sue for discrimination on the job

Posted on by

In a somewhat surprising 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court held firing an employee because of sexual orientation or gender identity is illegal under federal law.

This meaningful decision was even more meaningful in Nebraska. Nebraska lacks state laws that prohibit workplace discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

So, how do gay, lesbian and transgender individuals seek justice for workplace discrimination in Nebraska?

180 days to file with EEOC

If you want to sue your employer for sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination in Nebraska, you should file a charge with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The charge must be filed within 180 days of when you were fired or your employer took adverse action against you. This is the safest way to bring a case.

Filing a charge of discrimination against your employer is not the same as suing your employer. But under federal law, you should file a charge of discrimination before you can sue your employer. Federal law also requires you to file in federal court. You have 90 days from getting this written permission, called a right to sue, to file in federal court.

Nebraska law normally allows you 300 days to file a charge of discrimination. Charges filed within the 300 days under state law are normally timely under federal law as well. But since Nebraska doesn’t formally cover gender identity or sexual orientation, it is uncertain whether the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (NEOC) would accept that charge. It is also uncertain or whether the EEOC would accept a charge filed after 180 days.

I believe any charge of discrimination based on gender identity or sexual discrimination filed after 180 days would be challenged. as untimely.

How you win your case

I’ve read a lot of misinformation on social media (no surprise) about how discrimination cases work. First, as Justice Gorsuch makes clear, gender identity or sexual orientation does not need to be the sole reason you were fired. Sexual orientation or gender identity just need to be part of the reason you were fired.

Second, the vast majority of discrimination cases are proved by circumstantial evidence. Just because your employer doesn’t tell you that you were being fired for being gay or transgender doesn’t mean you can’t win your case. In a related note, your employer making up a reason to fire you isn’t a defense either. In fact, this would help your case as making up a reason to fire someone as cover for a real reason is defined legally as pretext. Pretext is circumstantial evidence you were fired for an unlawful reason.

Finally, being fired for poor performance or breaking a rule at work may not be a defense to a discrimination case. If your employer tolerated the same misconduct by a similarly situated heterosexual or cisgendered co-worker, that would also prove discrimination.

After 180 days but before 300 days

Nebraska law does not require that you file a charge of discrimination with the NEOC to sue your employer for illegal discrimination.  But Nebraska has a 300 day statute of limitations on filing a civil suit against an employer for discrimination. In other words, under state law in Nebraska, you can circumvent the NEOC altogether.

But why would you file a state law claim when state law doesn’t expressly include gender identity and sexual orientation?

The answer is that courts in Nebraska tend to follow federal law in interpreting our state’s anti-discrimination laws. So, you could file a case within 300 days and still succeed under Nebraska state law. But there is no guarantee the Nebraska Supreme Court would follow the United States Supreme Court. Even if the Nebraska Supreme Court found in your favor, the employer would be almost certain to appeal. Appeals can be costly and time consuming. They can also delay resolution of a case.

Bad employees can win discrimination cases, but…

Finally any employee suing their employer for gender identity or sexual orientation discrimination under current Nebraska state law would be acting as a test case. In practical terms that means you need to have a very strong case. All three cases in the United States Supreme Court decision fit that description. Nebraska law doesn’t include an “so-so” or “mediocre” employee exception to our workplace discrimination laws. But in practical terms, a court may be tempted to dismiss a test case involving a sub-par employee.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , .

Want to really be “open for business”? Outlaw discrimination against younger workers in Nebraska

Posted on by
One way to attract and keep young workers in Nebraska; stop discriminating against them/

Last week, the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce joined their companion organizations in Omaha and Lincoln in endorsing amending Nebraska’s fair employment statute to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Proponents of expanding civil rights protections to LGBT Nebraskans have pitched this proposition as an economic development tool meant to keep and attract younger Nebraskans who would otherwise flee a state that allows discrimination not allowed in other states.

Maybe I’ve spent too much time tangling in the trenches with lawyers for Nebraska’s big businesses. Maybe I’m just a Bernie Bro. Maybe both, but I have a hard time keeping my eyes from rolling when I hear the “Open for Business” approach to civil rights parroted by professional progressives in our state’s unicameral and mini-Beltway. (Lincoln has a K Street with tons of lobbyists offices, just like D.C.)

I mean for-you-know-what’s sake, any employment protections endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce are bound to be milquetoast at best.

But let’s assume some merit to the “Open for Business” approach. Let’s assume civil rights laws are an economic tool. How else could civil rights laws in Nebraska be amended to help attract and keep young people in Nebraska?

How about amending our age discrimination laws to prohibit discrimination against younger workers?

Miami (of Ohio) University Professor Megan Gerhardt argued for this in a recent opinion piece for NBC News. I made a similar argument in a blog post last year. In that post, I pointed out that at least Canadian province protects workers as young as 18 in their age discrimination laws. I also pointed out that since younger workers tend to get hurt more, anti-youth bias is a way to discriminate against injured workers.

I can tell you from first hand experience, that many business types talk about “millennials” or young people in a way that would get them successfully sued even in a jurisdiction like Nebraska, if they spoke like that about a group protected under our civil rights laws.

If Nebraska really wants to keep and attract younger workers, we should amend our age discrimination laws to protect younger workers. While I support expanding our state’s employment laws to protect LGBT Nebraskans, any comparative advantage Nebraska would get in expanding those laws would be lessened if the Supreme Court expands federal civil rights law to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Questioning by Justice Neil Gorsuch at oral argument in October 2019 on the issue has many LGBT rights advocates optimistic that the court will expand Title VII.

By expanding our age discrimination laws to include younger employees, Nebraska would truly be innovative. Nebraska is unique among states in having a one house (unicameral) and non-partisan legislature. This unique legislative body should start passing some more unique laws.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , .

Why it matters how your employer insures for workers’ compensation

Posted on by

Does it matter whether workers’ compensation benefits are paid directly by an employer or by an insurance company? I think it does.

Here is what injured workers should know about self-insured employers in Nebraska and how self-insurance can affect their workers’ compensation claim.

What is self-insurance?

Self-insurance means an employer pays workers compensation benefits directly from company funds. Typically an employer pays premiums to an insurer who pays out benefits.

Because self-insureds bear the entire cost of a work injury they tend to be more hands on in managing workers compensation claims. Many self-insurers have internal workers compensation coordinators who communicate with doctors and go to medical appointments with workers.

How to know if your employer self-insured for workers compensation?

You can skip to the end of this post and check. You can also call the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court at 402-471-6468. But if you are calling an someone in a risk management department at your employer about benefits, your employer is probably self-insured

Some self-insureds contract out to third-party administrators such as Gallagher Bassett and Sedgwick. (Sedgwick was criticized for giving Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds a ride to an Iowa State bowl game in a company jet.)

How does self-insurance effect your claim?

Most employers who are self-insured for workers compensation are also self-insured for health insurance. Typically, health insurance will shift the costs of work injuries onto workers compensation insurance. But when an employer is paying for both health and workers compensation insurance, employers will try to shift the cost to the least expensive form of insurance. Usually it costs the employer more to pay through workers compensation than it would through health insurance.

More importantly employees often incur significant out of pocket costs of injuries are shifted onto health insurance.

Self-insurance may also impact settlement value. Any employer that is self-insured for both workers’ compensation and health insurance typically values future medical benefits less than an insurance company. Self-insureds argue that they will bear the cost of the injury either through workers’ compensation or health insurance.

Interaction with employment law

As mentioned earlier, self-insureds tend to be more hands on in managing claims. I believe this can make such employers more vulnerable to retaliation claims as terminations are often used as an excuse to reduce or not pay workers’ compensation benefits. Self-insureds are also more apt to ask for so-called global releases of workers’ compensation and employment law claims. Global releases often require the employee to resign their employment. Often times a resignation is the only way that an employee can get fair settlement value for future medical care if they are employed with a self-insured.

Differences in regulation

Workers compensation insurance is regulated by the Nebraska Department of Insurance. Self-insureds are subject to regulation by the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court. The court regulates both claims practices and the solvency of self-insureds at NWCC Rules 69-76.

The risk of bankruptcy is another important difference between self-insureds and employers who carry outside insurance. If an employer goes bankrupt, the employee is still covered by workers’ compensation insurance. If a workers’ compensation insurer goes bankrupt, then a guaranty fund should pick up coverage. But if a self-insured goes bankrupt, the injured worker is less likely to get full compensation.

Who is self-insured for workers’ compensation in Nebraska?

Here is a list of approved self-insureds from the Nebraska Workers Compensation Court.

 

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Nebraska, Workers' Compensation and tagged , , , , .

Settling a workers’ compensation and wrongful termination case at the same time

Posted on by

Many employers want to settle all employment-related claims when they settle a workers’ compensation case

Clients often ask me, “If I settle my workers’ compensation case, can I still sue my employer for wrongful termination?” My answer is almost always yes. But for one unfortunate employee in Louisiana, it appears settling their workers’ compensation case may have doomed their wrongful termination case.

A federal district court in Louisiana held that a worker who settled their workers’ compensation case with a release that released all claims arising from their work injury was deemed to have settled their wrongful termination case under various civil rights laws.

The Louisiana decision raised the ire of some employee-side attorneys. Workers’ compensation laws and civil rights laws provide different remedies for different harms. A Minnesota court recently used this fundamental tenet of law to hold that a disability discrimination claim under their state’s civil rights laws was not barred by the exclusive remedy provision of their state’s workers’ compensation act.

But as a practical matter, some employers like to settle all claims arising out of the employment relationship when they settle a workers’ compensation case. In these cases there is usually consideration, or seperate amounts, to settle the workers’ compensation claim and the employment law claim. Sometimes this can be advantageous for a client. I am not sure of how the release was structured in the Louisiana case, but here is how I structure so-called global releases. In short, you need two releases: one for the workers’ compensation claim and one for the wrongful termination case.

Settling the workers’ compensation case

I wrote earlier about the so-called exclusive remedy of workers’ compensation. In Nebraska, that exclusive remedy also means the workers’ compensation court has limited jurisdiction. Nebraska courts have stated repeatedly that the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court can not adjudicate employment law cases because they are a court of limited jurisdiction. Neb. Rev. Stat. §48-139 gives the court jurisdiction over workers’ compensation settlements. 48-139 also dictates the language of workers’ compensation settlements, states when settlements must be approved by the court and mandates the filing of settlement papers with the court. In short, if the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court does not have jurisdiction to hear a wrongful termination or discrimination case, any settlements in that court should not effect any wrongful termination case or discrimination case.

Settling the wrongful termination or discrimination case

A settlement agreement in a wrongful termination case is a different document. Usually there is no requirement that it be filed or approved by a court. These agreements are often synonymous with severance agreements and oftentimes included language required by the Older Workers’ Benefit Protection Act if the employee is over 40 years old.

Settlement agreements in employment cases usually also talk mention tax liability. Tax liability is usually not mentioned in a workers’ compensation settlement as workers’ compensation benefits are almost never taxed. But settlement proceeds in a wrongful termination or discrimination case are usually taxable and those agreements should include some discussion of tax liability.

Sometimes employers will want a resignation as a condition of paying a settlement to an injured employee. If the employee is still working, that provision can be a deal breaker. But for an employee who has been terminated the extra money for a wrongful termination claim can be beneficial. Settling all claims at once may also help an employee minimize taxes by apportioning the majority of the value of the severance or employmennt law settlement into the non-taxable workers’ compensation settlement.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in employment law, Nebraska, Workers Compensation and tagged , , , , , .

Theodore Roosevelt Pushed For Protection Of Workers

Posted on by

Workers’ Compensation benefits are often confusing and seemingly unfair at first glance to many of my clients. As a result, I often find myself explaining to these clients how we, as a country, got to where we are with workers’ compensation laws and why the benefits are more limited than other civil lawsuits.

In explaining work comp laws, I usually give a brief description of the work comp system that was first developed in the early 20th century and a description of the “Grand Bargain”, the premise that employers pay for some benefits of their injured employees in exchange that the employee cannot sue that employer for negligence in civil court.

I, and many scholars, could go on and on about the history of the Grand Bargain and how it was strengthened/reworked in the 1970’s. Also, scholars can (and have), go on about the recent “reform” to workers’ compensation laws that have eroded workers’ rights in domino-fashion in many states by anti-worker legislation.

Nevertheless, I think the most poignant description of why we need to protect workers, and continue to protect workers, is this quote from our 26th president, Theodore Roosevelt, in calling for further reform of laws that Congress passed for employers’ liability laws:

In spite of all precautions exercised by employers there are unavoidable accidents and even deaths involved in nearly every line of business connected with the mechanic arts. This inevitable sacrifice of life may be reduced to a minimum, but it can not be completely eliminated. It is a great social injustice to compel the employee, or rather the family of the killed or disabled victim, to bear the entire burden of such an inevitable sacrifice. In other words, society shirks its duty by laying the whole cost on the victim, whereas the injury comes from what may be called the legitimate risks of the trade. Compensation for accidents or deaths due in any line of industry to the actual conditions under which that industry is carried on, should be paid by that portion of the community for the benefit of which the industry is carried on–that is, by those who profit by the industry. If the entire trade risk is placed upon the employer he will promptly and properly add it to the legitimate cost of production and assess it proportionately upon the consumers of his commodity. It is therefore clear to my mind that the law should place this entire “risk of a trade” upon the employer. Neither the Federal law, nor, as far as I am informed, the State laws dealing with the question of employers’ liability are sufficiently thorogoing.

— Theodore Roosevelt: Sixth Annual Message, December 3, 1906.

 

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Government, Legislation, Workers' Compensation and tagged , , .

What is the Most Common Mistake People Make When They File for Unemployment?

Posted on by

Cooperating with the unemployment claims adjudicator can help you get benefits.

Answer your phone.

This is the advice a friend of mine who works as an unemployment claims adjudicator would give to people filing unemployment. Oftentimes people are denied unemployment benefits they earned through their employer because they neglect to cooperate in the initial investigation of their claim. An adjudicator is assigned to determine eligibility for unemployment benefits. In short, they talk to you and your employer about why you are no longer employed. If the adjudicator determines that your were fired for intentionally disregarding reasonable work-related expectations of your employer or that you quit without good cause, then you will be found not to be eligible for unemployment benefits. Of course, you can appeal that decision, but that will lead to a delay in you receiving benefits, and it might also mean finding a lawyer to represent you in the appeal hearing.

The problem someone creates for themselves when they don’t talk to the adjudicator is that the adjudicator will only hear the employer’s side of the story. If an employee has documents that would show they did not commit work-related misconduct or that they quit with good cause, they should give those to the adjudicator as well.

Unemployment is stressful. Failing to communicate with people who might be able to help you just makes matters worse for yourself and family.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in getting fired, quitting, Unemployment, unemployment benefits, unemployment claims adjudicator and tagged .