The 3 most important employment-law rulings of the year

Three major employment-law rulings in 2007 affect the way just about every HR office and every business operate this year.
No. 1
What: Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.
Where: United States Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether a long-time employee can file a pay-discrimination suit more than 180 days after the alleged discrimination took place.
Ruling: No, the employee cannot file after 180 days.
The real story: The two sides fought when a minority employee of several years decided she had received, from the first day of her employment, lower pay than similarly situated white males at the company. She then sought to file a complaint based on when she first became aware of the alleged discrimination, long after her first day of work.
The meaning for HR: Employees can’t go back to any time in their work history to dig up and file discrimination claims. The court set a strict limit of 180 days (or 300 days in some state jurisdictions).
No. 2
What: Guard Publishing Co. Case.
Where: National Labor Relations Board.
Issue: Whether employees can use company e-mail for nonwork-related correspondence, particularly union solicitations.
Ruling: The company can prohibit such solicitations if it does so without targeting just one type (union-related).
The real story: The company had a no-solicitation policy that included union-related solicitations. The ruling actually was a mixed one, in that it allowed the company to bar solicitations of any kind but not bar routine nonwork correspondence if it regularly allowed employees to send and receive nonwork e-mails.
The meaning for HR: You can restrict how e-mail is used, but you’ll need a specific policy that has to be applied to all types of nonwork correspondence. In other words, you can’t single out certain types, i.e., union-related.
No. 3
What: Defeat of the Dept. of Homeland Security “no match” requirement for employers
Where: California federal court
Issue: Whether the DHS could enforce a law requiring employers to follow up and investigate within 90 days any no-match notifications, in which the Social Security Administration informs the employer that a new employee’s SSN doesn’t match one in SSA records.
Ruling: Employers are not obligated to perform such investigations.
The real story: The law would have required employers to fire employees if the further investigation didn’t come up with an SSN match. The successful court challenge shot down the requirement.
The meaning for HR: Keep good records, and don’t let your guard down. You can be certain that DHS is going to come back with new mandates on background checking.