Latest news with #employmentlaw
Independent Singapore
2 days ago
- Business
- Independent Singapore
'My boss terminated me without proper cause' — Employee claims he was wrongfully terminated over leaked info accusation
SINGAPORE: A Singaporean employee recently claimed on social media that he was wrongfully terminated after being accused of leaking confidential information. On Monday (June 2), he took to the r/askSingapore Reddit forum to seek advice and share his experience with fellow locals. In his post, he explained that he was recently dismissed from his full-time position because his employer alleged that he had disclosed sensitive company information to other departments or colleagues. However, he firmly denied these accusations, stating that they were completely 'untrue.' He also mentioned that his contract puts him at a disadvantage. 'I'm on the losing end as my employment contract only provided for 1 month of notice period, so my salary in lieu of notice will only be 1 month's wages to tide me over the next few weeks and months until I can secure a new job.' Seeking help from those who may have gone through similar experiences, he asked: 'What can I do apart from filing a complaint report with TADM? As I understand, these investigations can take up to weeks and months.' See also Worker laments as she still needs to work even while on sick leave 'Employers can terminate you for no reason at all…' In the Reddit discussion that followed, one user commented, 'Nothing. The employer can terminate their employment contract with you for any reason outside the protected classes (e.g, gender, race, pregnancy).' Another agreed, saying, 'There is no such thing as termination WITH a proper cause. Employers can terminate you for no reason at all. They just need to either give you a notification period or pay you the amount so you can leave immediately.' However, some Redditors challenged this view and suggested the employee might have grounds to file a complaint. One pointed out, 'If they did not tell you what the breach was, or carried out any investigations to ascertain the breach, then you may have a claim for wrongful dismissal.' Wrongful dismissal According to the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM), wrongful dismissal refers to cases where an employee is let go without 'just or sufficient cause.' Examples include dismissal due to discrimination, being unfairly deprived of benefits, or being punished for exercising employment rights. It also covers situations where an employee is forced to resign against their will. In contrast, dismissals due to misconduct, poor performance, or redundancy are generally not considered wrongful, as long as the contractual notice is served or payment is made in lieu thereof. TADM also states that if an employee disputes the reasons given for their dismissal, they must be able to support their claim with 'anecdotal or documentary' evidence. Read also: Singapore jobseeker plans to pause job hunt after 6 months of rejections Featured image by Depositphotos (for illustration purposes only)
TechCrunch
2 days ago
- Business
- TechCrunch
Valla raises $2.7M to make legal recourse more accessible to employees
After a while, Danae Shell got tired of hearing the same story over and over again. 'Something bad would happen to someone at work, and the story always ended the same way,' she told TechCrunch. 'They just left, because doing anything else was incredibly complex and expensive.' One doesn't need to look far to notice that for many people, seeking legal recourse feels so daunting and complex that many just don't try to. Even for someone with a cushy tech job, the prospect of going against their company is daunting. That bothered Shell so much that in 2022, she launched Valla, which seeks to make legal support more accessible to workers. The company focuses on employment law, and since its launch, it says, more than 12,000 workers have successfully brought complaints against employers and negotiated settlements. 'The basic thesis of Valla was, 'If we can build tools that let someone file their tax return from their mobile phone, surely we can build something that can help them manage their own legal issue,'' Shell said. Valla platform enables users to collect their own evidence, generate documents, and then talk to legal experts who 'coach' them through what the legal process would be for each stage of their case. For example, Shell said, a user can keep track of an ongoing issue at work, draft a Tribunal claim, and then purchase a coaching package to prepare for the preliminary hearing. Techcrunch event Save now through June 4 for TechCrunch Sessions: AI Save $300 on your ticket to TC Sessions: AI—and get 50% off a second. Hear from leaders at OpenAI, Anthropic, Khosla Ventures, and more during a full day of expert insights, hands-on workshops, and high-impact networking. These low-rate deals disappear when the doors open on June 5. Exhibit at TechCrunch Sessions: AI Secure your spot at TC Sessions: AI and show 1,200+ decision-makers what you've built — without the big spend. Available through May 9 or while tables last. Berkeley, CA | REGISTER NOW Like nearly every other startup these days, Valla also uses AI to streamline knowledge transfer. 'The GenAI engine in our platform acts as a legal secretary in the background,' Shell said. 'It does everything from briefing the coach on the case, taking notes and actions during any calls, and picking up all the admin and reminders as the case progresses.' Investors seem to like what they see at Valla: Today, the company said it had raised a £2 million (about $2.7 million) seed round led by Ada Ventures. Active Partners and Portfolio Ventures, as well as returning investors Techstart and Resolution Foundation, also invested. Shell said Valla started using generative AI in early 2023 and paired with the early traction her product received, that helped investors see the potential of her product. The company will use the fresh capital to boost marketing, build relationships with worker unions and insurers, and build more AI features within the platform. After employment law, Shell said the company hopes to expand into small claims and tenancy. 'Then we will broaden out to other geographies,' she said. 'We're already looking at opportunities in the U.S. and Europe.'
Washington Post
2 days ago
- Business
- Washington Post
Work Advice: Manager hints that age, caretaking makes me bad at my job
Reader: I'm a woman in my early 60s in a sales engineering role for a software vendor. My team supports nontechnical salespeople in a different management chain. My manager, 'Kelly,' is in her late 50s. The nontechnical sales manager, 'Tiffany,' is in her early 40s. Kelly was in a meeting with Tiffany and Tiffany's boss, a younger man in his 40s. According to Kelly, Tiffany and her manager were suggesting replacing me with 'someone who has more energy.' Tiffany indicated that I'm struggling at the company, but she has never spoken to anyone I've worked with or seen any of my performance evaluations. I have a stellar performance record. In addition, I'm currently taking intermittent two-week leaves of absence under my state's family leave law to care for an aging parent with dementia. Even though I have worked during my leave to help her out, Tiffany complains about the fact that I can't travel because of my parent. Kelly called out Tiffany's complaints as ageism and an improper performance evaluation of someone who's on protected leave. But she was then fired for unspecified 'performance reasons'; I believe it was because of her comments. Kelly says her own manager, who was fired months ago for similarly vague reasons, told her Tiffany is 'evil' and to 'watch your back.' Kelly has hired an employment attorney. I would like HR to move me to a different role so I don't have to deal with Tiffany and her manager's biases toward older workers. But when I bring this up to HR, all they say is that Tiffany and her manager have been coached on how to provide feedback without using vague words like 'energy.' HR is doing nothing and won't address the retaliation against Kelly. What would you do? Karla: First, I would waste no more time talking to HR. That flies in the face of my usual advice, but in this case, it sounds as though they have done all they can or care to do about the matter. To be fair, they probably aren't allowed to go any further into how your colleagues have been counseled or disciplined, and they may not have the authority to grant you a job transfer at your own request. But whether their hands are tied or they're sitting on them, you've exhausted that resource for now. Besides, you know all you need to know: Tiffany and her manager have it in for you for reasons that hint at age and caretaker bias. Your manager was fired after calling them out on it, which as you note smacks of retaliation. Unless HR miraculously managed to scare some sense into them, they have motive and means to get rid of you next. Even though you don't seem to report to Tiffany, if she had a hand in getting Kelly fired as you suspect, then she surely has the connections and influence to do the same to you. Before she gets the chance, you need to start fortifying your defense strategy. If you haven't already, document all these incidents — timelines, what was said, potential witnesses and evidence — and bring them to an attorney, perhaps at the firm Kelly has already engaged. Whether you go on to take legal action, at least one short consult with an employment attorney should help confirm your rights and advise you on how best to protect yourself. Document your achievements as well. Build a store of evidence to rebut claims that your performance is suffering. Work your connections in other departments and outside the company to clear an escape path to a better work environment. Stay in touch with Kelly, not just because you're grateful for her having your back, but because you may be able to help each other further. Incidentally, while you're legally entitled to take intermittent leave under federal and (in your case) state law, consider whether there's an alternative way to arrange it. I know. You shouldn't have to. It's beyond me that any human with loved ones would see your situation and feel primarily resentment, rather than gratitude that it's not (yet) them. While I don't know the details behind your arrangement, I assume it's set up the way it is because it was the best you could do with the resources you currently have. Still, alternating two weeks of stressful caretaking with two weeks making up for it under the judgmental eye of someone short on empathy isn't sustainable in the long term. It's hard enough seeing a parent through a long decline without also having to watch your own back. You're going to need relief in one form or another, and soon. Whatever path you decide on, please make yourself a priority.
Forbes
5 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
Minneapolis Overhauls Civil Rights Law: What Employers Must Know
The amended Minneapolis Civil Rights Ordinance, No. 2025-022, significantly broadens protections for ... More job seekers, employees, students, tenants, and others who interact with institutions operating in the city. Minneapolis employers must prepare for sweeping new civil rights obligations taking effect August 1, 2025. With protections extending to individuals with criminal histories, unstable housing, or nontraditional body types, the city's latest ordinance makes inclusive hiring a legal mandate. The amended Minneapolis Civil Rights Ordinance, No. 2025-022, significantly broadens protections for job seekers, employees, students, tenants, and others who interact with institutions operating in the city. For employers, the most consequential change may be the addition of 'justice-impacted status' to the list of protected classes, prompting a fresh look at how criminal background checks are used in hiring. The amendments to Minneapolis Code of Ordinances Chapter 139 expand the city's civil rights protections across a wide spectrum of activities, ranging from employment and education to lending, housing, and public accommodations. For employers, the most notable changes include: These new classifications join an already expansive list of protected characteristics, which includes race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, and familial status. The ordinance now prohibits discrimination in application, hiring, training, benefits, compensation, promotion, and discharge, and even extends protection to decision-making influenced in part by a protected trait. Perhaps the most significant change for employers is the ordinance's treatment of justice-impacted status, a novel term created by the Minneapolis City Council. For the first time in Minnesota, a local law prohibits adverse employment actions based solely on a candidate's or employee's criminal history, unless the employer can demonstrate that the history is reasonably related to the duties of the position. This means employers may not automatically reject applicants or discharge employees due to arrests or convictions. Instead, they must conduct an individualized assessment, considering six factors: Importantly, arrests alone cannot be the basis for adverse action. However, employers may evaluate the facts surrounding a pending charge or dismissed case and apply the six-factor analysis to determine whether adverse action is warranted. Employers hiring into Minneapolis must now follow a two-step approach when evaluating criminal history. Step one is timing. Under Minnesota's 'ban-the-box' law (Minn. Stat. § 364.021), private employers may not inquire into or consider a candidate's criminal history until the applicant has been selected for an interview, or, if no interview occurs, until after a conditional job offer has been made. This law has been in place since 2014 and applies statewide, with exceptions for roles where background checks are mandated by statute. Step two is substance. Once criminal history is lawfully obtained, Minneapolis's new ordinance applies, requiring an individualized assessment. Simply complying with state law is no longer sufficient. Minneapolis employers must now justify adverse decisions under a local legal standard requiring an individualized assessment. Together, these laws create a layered compliance framework: the state dictates when you can ask about criminal records; the city dictates how you must use them. The ordinance closely tracks the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC's) 2012 guidance on the use of arrest and conviction records under Title VII. That guidance similarly discourages blanket exclusions and encourages individualized assessments that consider the nature of the offense, its recency, and its relevance to the job. Although EEOC guidance does not carry the force of law, its framework has informed civil rights legislation across the country, and Minneapolis's ordinance has codified these best practices as enforceable legal mandates. For the first time in Minneapolis, employers are now prohibited from discriminating against job applicants or employees based on height or weight. These protections extend beyond objective measurements to include perceived characteristics, such as being considered too short, too tall, too heavy, or too thin. The ordinance recognizes that body size bias, while often unspoken, can significantly shape employment decisions and workplace culture. Employers may assert a narrow affirmative defense if height or weight prevents someone from performing essential job functions, and no reasonable accommodation is available. This requires documented, case-specific analysis, not assumptions. Organizations should update job descriptions, reassess accommodation protocols, and train decision-makers to avoid biased reasoning tied to appearance, uniform policies, or health programs. The ordinance bars employment discrimination based on housing status. Applicants experiencing homelessness or unstable housing may not be disqualified due to lack of a permanent address. Employers must avoid using housing status, such as listing a shelter or motel, as a proxy for professionalism or reliability. Screening tools that flag ZIP codes or address history should be evaluated to prevent inadvertent bias. This provision reinforces a central civil rights tenet: opportunity should depend on qualifications, not living conditions. In addition to anti-discrimination provisions, the amended ordinance heightens employers' responsibilities to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnancy-related limitations and sincerely held religious beliefs. Employers may not require pregnant workers to take leave if accommodations would allow them to continue working. They must also engage in a good faith interactive process, denying requests only when they would cause undue hardship. Religious practices must be accommodated unless doing so imposes a significant burden. The updated language mirrors national trends toward more individualized, evidence-based accommodation decisions. The ordinance also updates definitions of existing protected characteristics. 'Race' now includes traits historically associated with race, such as hair texture and protective hairstyles like braids, locks, and twists. 'Familial status' extends to individuals caring for someone unable to manage their own physical health or make independent decisions. 'Disability' now includes impairments that are episodic or in remission, provided they would substantially limit a major life activity when active. Employers should also note changes to how the Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights (MDCR) handles complaints. If MDCR finds no probable cause, the complainant may now appeal the decision to a three-person review panel, which must include one licensed attorney. The panel may reverse MDCR's decision only if it finds the ruling was 'clearly erroneous.' In addition, MDCR may no longer dismiss a charge based on lack of evidence or the 'interests of justice,' suggesting a greater likelihood that charges will proceed to investigation. With the ordinance taking effect on August 1, 2025, now is the time for employers to prepare: Employers doing business in Minneapolis, or with remote employees working from within the city, should view these changes as a call to action. Through Ordinance No. 2025-022, the City Council has made it clear that inclusive hiring is no longer aspirational. It is a compliance imperative.
Irish Times
28-05-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Second worker wins claim for unpaid wages against solicitor
A solicitor's receptionist who said she was left 'financially challenged' for months after being left out of work when her ex-employer closed down his law office has become the second worker to win a claim for unpaid wages against him. The worker, Charlotte O'Regan, has won an order for the payment of wages, worth €830.73 gross, more than a year after she was let go by David Gaffney, trading as Gaffney Solicitors. The Workplace Relations Commission gave the direction on foot of Ms O'Regan's complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991, to which Mr Gaffney entered no defence. The tribunal heard that Mr Gaffney wrote to Ms O'Regan on 26 April 2024 informing her that her job would be terminated on Friday 3 May 2024. READ MORE 'On the termination date, should there be sufficient funds, you shall receive your statutory redundancy entitlement and accrued annual leave entitlements,' Mr Gaffney's letter stated. 'Alternatively, I, with the assistance of [my] accountants shall assist you in making an application to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment for the purpose of obtaining such statutory entitlements,' it added. Ms O'Regan explained that her efforts to secure the sum of €873.73 in unpaid wages was met initially with a 'stated positive plan to pay' by Mr Gaffney which 'did not materialise'. Ms O'Regan said she was 'financially challenged' for the six months following her dismissal up to October 2024, when she got advice on the matter and wrote to Mr Gaffney re-stating her claim for unpaid wages. She pointed out in her letter that she had 'no recourse' to the Insolvency Payment Scheme because she had been his direct employee as 'an unincorporated sole trader'. Adjudicator Patsy Doyle noted in her decision that there was 'no appearance by or on behalf of' Mr Gaffney and that 'no defence was offered in the case'. Ms Doyle wrote that €870.73 in gross wages, comprising three days' work and a week's pay in lieu of notice was due to Ms O'Regan and made an order for the payment of the net value of the wages after statutory deductions. The adjudicator wrote that it was 'regrettable' to see a 'deterioration in WhatsApp communications' over the six months Ms O'Regan was pursuing her wages. She wrote that it had been a 'mistake' for the worker to keep a set of office keys in a bid to strengthen her hand. 'I make this order in the hope that payment of this amount will afford closure to the complainant in what has clearly been a distressing pursuance of unpaid wages,' Ms Doyle added. Ms O'Regan is the second former employee of the law office to secure a claim for unpaid wages against the solicitor, following a decision in favour of his former secretary, Leona Erangey, for some €4,687. In Ms Erangey's case, it was noted that Mr Gaffney appeared before the tribunal at a hearing on 28th November 2024 and confirmed that he was 'insolvent'.
