Goldman & Ehrlich is still here to take on new employment matters. We are doing phone consults and Zoom video chats to "meet" and evaluate your cases.
leave us a message at 312-332-6733 or email at [email protected] or [email protected] We will respond promptly
Many companies will not hesitate to use common scare tactics when they wrongfully discharge an employee. There are a number of accusations that employers use as a cause to discharge an employee; however, it does not necessarily exempt the employee from suing for a wrongful discharge even in “at will” states.
Common Scare Tactics that Companies Use When They Wrongfully Discharge an Employee
If an employer desires to coerce an employee into leaving, they may use several scare tactics such as:
Consistently and frequently changing your job title and/or position
Attempting to force you to work on an undesirable assignment that you may deem questionable in regards to the legality
Being injured on the job and attempting to obtain workers’ compensation benefits, or other benefits delineated in your contract, but your employer fires you during the process
Threatening to retaliate for exercising your rights
Threatening retaliation for reporting sexual or any type of harassment
Employees that are fired from their jobs for any reason often feel inferior and blame themselves even if they know in their hearts that they were wrongfully discharged. Employers commonly believe that they can prevent an employee from suing them if they can convince the employee that their firing was justified, and due to the at-will law in place in their state, the employee will be foolish to pursue them through the court system. This couldn’t be further from the truth; every individual has the right to work in an environment free of any types of threats or scare tactics, and Illinois has laws in place to protect our citizens.
Wrongful Discharge Legal Support
If you have been wrongfully discharged and you believe your employer used one of the common scare tactics to wrongfully discharge you, contact Goldman & Ehrlich today for a free consultation to discuss your rights and legal options.
According to the law of Illinois and the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), non-exempt employees are to receive 1 ½ times their pay rate for any hours exceeding 40 hours in their normal week.
One Day Rest in Seven Act
As long as an employer does not violate the One Day Rest in Seven Act, they can require their employees to work as many hours over 40 hours as necessary. Double-time payment is not required by an employer requiring their non-exempt employees to exceed 40 hours per week; however, employers may, if they so choose, pay their employees double time for any hours exceeding 40 hours per week.
Salaried Employees May be Eligible for Overtime
Many employees have the misconception that the only way they are eligible for overtime is if they are hourly employees, but even if they are salaried, they could easily be eligible for overtime, and their hourly pay rate can be easily calculated to determine what they should be receiving in overtime pay. This is a misconception that some employers take advantage of, and if their misconduct is reported to Wage and Hour, their employees can collect damages for the overtime they have worked without being properly paid, and the employer may be subject to penalties in addition to back overtime payments.
Flawed Policies from Chicago Employers
In some cases, employers have company policies that are flawed and fail to adhere to the standards set by FLSA, and in some instances, employers have deliberately initiated policies to make it appear that their employees are considered exempt and ineligible for overtime pay.
Legal Help for Overtime Shortages
If you believe your employer has cheated you and other employees out of overtime pay, contact Goldman & Ehrlich today to discuss your legal options. We will fight for your rights to receive fair and just compensation.
According to many reports, the Supreme Court’s April, 2014 decision to move toward prohibiting the use of racial affirmative action for the purpose of college admissions in Michigan can lead to sweeping changes that not only affect college admission’s programs in other states, possibly all the U.S., but also other public employment and contracts affirmative action programs currently have in place. This is already the case in Michigan where the decision does restrict using race as a basis for preferential consideration in contracting and employment positions in both local and state government.
Citizens’ Influence on “Race Neutral” Affirmative Action Decision
Many people view this decision for Michigan Universities as directly in line with the Fisher v. University of Texas 2013 decision to sharply prohibit using race in making decisions concerning college admission programs. In addition, this decision to amend Michigan affirmative action programs was voted on and passed by the citizens of Michigan, which many view as being the most democratic way a decision of this nature should be made. Michigan citizens view this amendment as being race neutral, whereas government leaders view this decision as a disturbing trend that will be used against minorities, and some even suggest the decision sets the U.S. back over fifty years.
It goes without saying that the Michigan affirmative action decision will impact affirmative action programs in many other states in the near future including affirmative action in Chicago.
Legal Guidance for Impending Changes to Affirmative Action in Chicago
Contact our Chicago office onlineor call 312.332.6733 today to learn more about affirmative action and how the Supreme Court decision in Michigan could affect the future of affirmative action in Chicago.
Goldman & Ehrlich is located in Chicago, IL and serves clients in and around Chicago, Cook County, Lake County, DuPage County, Will County, Kane County, and McHenry County.
Attorney Advertising. This website is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. [ Site Map ]