Kavitha Gupta's blog

If you are concerned that another job might interfere with an employee's work for your business or if you want to prohibit employees from working for competitors, you may want to protect your business with a moonlighting policy. Depending on the type of business or industry you're in, your workforce may include a number of employees who are working more than one job. If this is the case you may want to consider a moonlighting policy, particularly if it's likely that another job might interfere with an employee's job with your business or if the employee's other job is with a competitor. An employee's outside employment can place a burden on your business in the following ways: Your employee may be too tired to perform your job effectively because another job might require the employee to work long or late hours. Your employee may not be able available to work the hours your schedule demands because another job also requires the employee to work the same hours. T

  Moonlighting employees: how to avoid the legal risks Locke Lord LLP USA   June 1 2009 In this unpredictable economic climate, many employees are looking for additional sources of income. This may mean working a second or third job or starting a business “on the side.” While most employers prefer not to intrude needlessly on employees’ private lives, “moonlighting” has the potential to create serious problems for employers. For example, moonlighting employees may not have the energy to perform at their full capacity, which in turn may pose a safety hazard. In addition, moonlighting may hinder an employee’s ability to work overtime, there is an increased risk that confidential information will be divulged when an employee works more than one job and moonlighting may create a conflict of interest if the employee works for a competitor. Employers should take the following steps to lawfully address employee moonlighting. STEP 1: Identify business-related concerns related to moonlighting.

  What is an employer to do when it makes an employment decision based on mistaken information? Historically, employers have been able to rely on the "honest belief" doctrine to demonstrate that while the information it relied on was incorrect, it was not a pretext for unlawful discrimination. The Eighth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal will be hearing cases that question the continued application of the "honest belief" doctrine. We will discuss the current state of the law and what the future may hold for employers. https://youtu.be/RAIkvJlRnfQ This is a web-based program that connects audio through computer or cellular device by Internet connection. Continuing Education Credit: This program is pending CLE credit approval in the state of Tennessee. It has been submitted to the HR Certification Institute and SHRM for review.

  Leverage the 'Honest Belief Rule' When Conducting Workplace Investigations Barnes & Thornburg LLP USA   June 10 2022 Conducting investigations of disputed workplace events is a routine responsibility for HR leaders. Faced with disputed facts, employers can make reasonable fact determinations based on a diligent investigation and still obtain summary dismissal of a discrimination claim. A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decision confirms how employers can best assure that the results of their investigations are respected and upheld. In  Rafee v. Volvo Group North America, LLC , Case No. 21-5891 (June 3, 2022), the plaintiff supervisor was terminated for directing combative behavior and profane language to a direct report for failing to complete a task assigned to him. During the investigation, the employee who was yelled at neither confirmed nor denied the allegations, but instead was dismissive of them. The supervisor completely denied the incident occu

Department of Justice U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Washington FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Friday, February 11, 2022 First of six consultants indicted in Amazon bribery scheme sentenced to prison Defendant used prior status as Amazon employee and underhanded tactics, including commercial bribes, to steal confidential information and manipulate the Amazon Marketplace Seattle – The first of six consultants indicted in September 2020, for a fraud and bribery scheme targeting Amazon.com and its online Marketplace, was sentenced today to 10 months in prison and a fine of $50,000, announced U.S. Attorney Nick Brown.  Rohit Kadimisetty, 28, of Northridge, California pleaded guilty to conspiracy in September 2021. At the sentencing hearing U.S. District Judge Richard A. Jones said, “You do not have a license to steal from Amazon, …you were involved in illegal conduct…. This could be called modern day organized crime.” “Mr. Kadimisetty used his knowledge and contacts from prior employmen