Category: Employment
Many California employees contact us to find out if they are entitled to “whistleblower” protection. Both state and federal laws protect persons who report illegal activity by their employers says employment attorney Orange County. To be protected, an employee usually only has to have a “reasonable but mistaken belief” that illegal activity is afoot. In California, whistleblowers are protected by Labor Code 1102.5 which prohibits retaliation against an employee who complains about illegal activity. This is a very tough law for employers to prevail on, since the very next code section (1102.6) provides that the burden of proof is on the employer to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the whistleblowing about illegal activities had nothing to do with the adverse employment action.
According to employment lawyer Orange County, an employee can claim retaliation under the federal qui tam laws, where it is shown that the whistleblower was discharged, demoted, or discriminated against because of lawful acts done in furtherance of a false claims investigation. If the relator basically violates confidentiality and removes tens of thousands of documents indiscriminately, in order to later prove a qui tam case, there will probably be a finding of non-protected activity and the loss of the right to bring a retaliation action under the federal law.
When a whistleblower actually sues his or her former employer on behalf of the government for monies lost by the government, it must be shown that the government was actually defrauded and lost money says employment attorney Oakland. The federal false claim act is found at 31 United State Code 3729. A recent case illustrates some of the differences in “reasonable but mistaken” (sufficient to support a wrongful termination claim) and actual false billings. In this case the plaintiff contended that her employer withheld disclosure of new inventions from the government, stating that the contract with the company provided that the government owned the inventions. As the government would have had the right to license and sell these new inventions, the theory of the employee went, the United States was defrauded by not having that right of sale. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, she was unable to allege that the employer ever sought payment from the government and had not submitted a “false claim”.
Employment attorney San Diego says that false claims take many forms such as fraudulent use of a receipt; unauthorized purchase of government property or use of a “false record or statement” to avoid payment to the government. Another recent case held that a request for reimbursement that falsely implied compliance with federal rules might constitute a false claim. “Reverse false claims” are also actionable. In one such case, the defendant company falsely represented the value of some aircraft metals as “scrap”, whereas in fact it was worth several million dollars. A false claim was properly stated. Finally, it’s important to determine if the false claim was in a “condition of participation” or a “condition of payment”. No false claim is usually stated if the defendant accused of defrauding the govenment is simply falsely certifying compliance (such as non-discrimination) with a federal program or is actually billing falsely.
Financial rewards for whistleblowers can be huge! Under California state laws, up to 30% can be awarded to the whistleblower. Routinely, about 15-20% is awarded in federal false claims actions.
As always, this blog is educational in nature and legal advise can only be given by an experienced attorney in your jurisdiction.
Many employers still discriminate against certain people in the community although they will rigorously deny this if confronted. It has been proven through research that more often than not the attractive person will be chosen for the post, even if they do not have the sufficient qualifications. Jobs for fat people are few and far between though there are people that can be considered naturally fat or built bigger than others. There is a definitive difference between being unhealthily obese, and what is considered being naturally overweight. Many people are a little heavier, though in peak health, and no matter what weight loss pills, potions, or diets, they go on, nothing will change this fact. If you are one of these people you will find getting employment a lot more difficult because of subtle discrimination in the marketplace against fat people.
Society has been brainwashed against fat people
weight loss manufacturers, health and medical industries have labeled fat a dirty word and the social pressure put on people that are a little rounder than others are enormous and unfair. What is even worse is that jobs for fat people are not really advertised, so no matter how well qualified fat people are job hunting is ten times harder. Finding employment can be frustrating to say the least, and because of these pressures it is possible that you could start comfort eating binges and go from being naturally overweight to obese. Your current weight may be apt for your frame, and through eating normally you do not gain weight; and on diets do not lose any either. Consider that your body may have reached a natural balance and you are going to have to accept that you are a little rounder than others. The media and advertising weight loss products and dieting has brainwashed society into thinking that being even a little over weight is totally unacceptable. This has even filtered into business and employment sectors and finding jobs for fat people has become extremely difficult because of discrimination against the fat people community.
Where to look for jobs for Fat people
No doubt the best possible places to look for jobs for fat people would be within a fat people social community, because here there may be employment agencies and employers that do not discriminate on the way you are built, what color you are, whether you are short or tall or a little overweight. The internet has opened many social communities already, and no doubt there is a fat social community that you can join and feel at home plus there maybe jobs for fat people or you can offer employment if you have positions available. It will also be discovered on these fat social networks that employers and agencies that do not discriminate against fat people, have the option of advertising positions freely. The fat people community is a group of people that have the friendliest personalities around, and those business that offer jobs for fat people will end up employing the most dedicated and friendly staff which will certainly end up being valuable assets to any institution.
Are you an employment agency with a lame Excuse?
Many companies will insist that they do not discriminate against fat people for fear of reprisals, but of course they will too subtle to be detected. When you apply for the job advertised, you will probably be wasting your time and will get a notification that the job has been filled by someone better qualified than you. Naturally there is nothing you can do about this. This is what makes hunting for jobs for fat people more than frustrating. More than likely you will be better off not working for a company like this anyway. When you are looking for employment, then you will definitely enjoy better results by seeking out jobs for fat people at employers that will accept your qualifications rather than the way you are built. The internet is the best place where you will find solutions regarding jobs for fat people, and with a little effort you will also find a social network community dedicated to fat people that you can also call home!
If you are planning to put up a business in Singapore or just live and work there, it is important to consider some legal factors to make your stay a legit one.There are many choices for what should be the employment pass you need to get for you and your family.
When it comes to employment pass in Singapore the two main consideration is the salary and education.Work experience so do your age and nationality will also be a consideration.
Provided that several people are certain of a minimum of ONE factor of their employment criteria, employment pass options will be presented around key individual criterion to expedite identification of the employment alternatives available to you. Given below are the key variables that may affect the corresponding work pass options.
The Regular Employment Pass
This pass is split into 3 different categories (P1, P2, Q1) and is largely dependent on salary requirements.For P1 the salary should be above S$7, 000, for P2 it should be above S$2, 500 and Q1 is above S$2, 500.A diploma or certificate from a prestigious is required for EP.This will be on case to case basis.If an employer wants to hire an individual, they should take care of the EP for them as well as provide sponsorship for them.Therefore, the EP is only valid for the specific job it states, and if you leave that job, you will require a new EP.EP holder’s family will now be permitted for Dependents Pass that will be valid along with EP.Even if the family will not be given the chance to have the dependent pass, they will still be given the chance to have a Long Term Visit Pass (LTVP).This does not apply for Q1 holder family members.Having a DP or LTVP alone, does not allow the pass holder to work in Singapore, a relevant work pass is required.
Personalized Employment Pass
Personalized EP will be applicable to foreign individuals whose monthly salary is minimum of S$7,000, foreigners who graduate from Singapore universities, as well as current and former P1 holders whose last salary was above S$30,00 annually and current P2 and Q1 holders with at least S$30, 000 annually.Salary and work experience is being considered and that the individual should not be unemployed for six months so that he/she will be allowed to apply. Personalized Employment Pass holders’ families are eligible for Dependent’s Pass as well as Long Term Visit Pass.
EntrePass
For investors and foreign individuals who want to put up a business in Singapore, EntrePass would best fits them.The main requirement to be eligible for an EntrePass is to have a company registered with ACRA, the organization that deals with Company Registration in Singapore.Q1 and P are the two types of EntrePass which largely depends on the salary. The main things needed for an EntrePass are, the company should have a minimum paid up capital of at least S$50, 000 and 30% ownership and that the individual is active in the whole operation of the business.Owners of coffee shops, bars and night clubs are not allowed to apply for an EntrePass.The legit family of EntrePass holders are now permitted to apply for Dependent Pass and Long Term Visit Pass.
Dependent’s Pass
Dependent Pass will be applicable to family members of Singapore EP holders, Personalized EP holders, EntrePass holders and S Pass holders.Requirements should be met first before applying for dependent pass.Spouse of the holder and child of the holder who is below 21 years old is allowed.New born babies, legally adapt children and step children are also accepted. Past the age of 21, some DP holders who are the children of the work pass holder may be eligible to apply for a Long Term Visit Pass.The valid duration of EP, Personalized EP, EntrePass or S pass is the same with DP. DP holders are permitted to work in Singapore but should have a work permit.Working in Singapore is not allowed in DP but living and studying are only the inclusions.
Long Term Visit Pass
Long term visit pass will be applicable to the family of P1 and P2 EP, P1 and P2 Personalized Ep and P EntrePass holders.Common law spouse, unmarried daughters above 21 years of age , handicapped children which age is above 21 years old, step children, parents, parents in law are considered the direct family.Those who are above 21 years old of a work pass holder will be liable in providing for themselves and is not allowed to live in Singapore based on the working situation. However, daughters who are originally DP holders can apply for LTVP when their DP expires.60 months or 5 years will be the validation of LTVP.Much like a DP, a LTVP does not authorize employment of the LTVP holder, and LTVP holders must apply for their own relevant EP before being able to legally work in Singapore.
From the summary of main work pass types it should be possible to identify at least one that is relevant to
you and your family.To get enough knowledge on the pass that will be applicable to your family, take a visit on Singapore Ministry of Manpower website.If a professional service firm will help in incorporation of business in Singapore, then they will also be a big help in this matter.It is fact that the businesses in Singapore is achieving a lot.The qualifications for getting work permits is not that high for foreign investors than any other offshore business.Meanwhile, the whole process for application of work permits will be more organized.
If you are seeking employment then at some point in time you will have to have a job interview. How you are perceived at this job interview is what may get you hired so a job interview is very important for future employment. Another important factor included in this employment process is your resume. When you go in offer a job interview you have to be prepared. Just remember that Boy Scout motto of Be Prepared and do your preparation thoroughly so you can’t look back and blame your own actions and preparation for not getting the job.
The Preparation:
When you are looking for a position in just about any organization whether it be public or private or even non-profit you will need to do your homework before you apply. This should include researching the company so you know something about its history or background. Also you should find out how it is doing financially if it is publically traded or has that information available to the public. Of course if it is a private family owned company that information will not be available to you. Although you might be able to do some research if it is a licensed company or has to have a city business license.
The second step is your own preparation which includes preparing a resume that you probably will have to send along with some form of application and cover letter. If you have found the potential job online such as a government position the website will have exactly what you will need to complete and send in before you will be granted an interview. Follow these instructions exactly if you have any expectations as to getting an interview. Some of the requirements may seem strange for example a city position may ask that you hand write an outline or your thoughts on a separate piece of paper and include that with your application. If they as for it, just do it. They have their reasons which may be that they want to see if you can follow directions.
The Job Interview:
If all of your paperwork passes scrutiny you may receive a telephone call asking you to come in for an interview. If you get to this stage you really must be prepared and know something about the company or agency and also about yourself. You will have to present yourself as confident and knowledgeable. And you will have to make sure what you tell them in the interview corresponds with your resume. You may be asked to play act such as what would you do if- If this is the case just think quickly and describe your response to the best of your ability. They expect you to be nervous and would probably be surprised if you were not a bit nervous. You may also have to take some sort of written test so keep that in mind also. This is a long process which requires you to be at your very best.
Job Search aggregates job postings from major Job Boards, newspapers and company websites in the US. Jobseekers can easily find their dream jobs in one simple click.
Some of the factors that increase the risk of unethical behaviour in organisations are illustrated by the high-profile legal case Chagger v Abbey National plc & Hopkins (2006), in which the Employment Tribunal made a finding of unlawful racial discrimination and (further to Emilio Botin Abbey Santander banking group’s refusal to comply with the Tribunal’s order to reinstate Mr Chagger) ordered Abbey Banco Santander share to pay Mr Chagger the record-breaking 2.8 million compensation for his loss. Abbey Santander share price (the UK bank soon to be re-branded as Santander banking group, and part of the global Emilio Botin Banco Santander Central Hispano Group – BSCH) dismissed Mr Chagger from his employment in 2006, giving a fair redundancy as the reason. However, Mr Chagger believed that the actual reason behind the termination of his employment was unfairness and race discrimination. Mr Chagger was of Indian origin. He worked for Emilio Botin Abbey Santander finance as a Trading Risk Controller, earning about 100,000 a year, and reporting into Nigel Hopkins.
Some ethical behaviour risk factors illustrated by Emilio Botin Abbey Santander 2009 clearly relate to the pursuit of personal goals; the Employment Tribunal found that Mr Hopkins personally desired Mr Chagger’s employment with Abbey Santander share price to be terminated, had pre-planned that Mr Chagger would be dismissed, and had used the compulsory redundancy process as a means to dismiss Mr Chagger, in an unfair and discriminatory manner.
One such factor increasing the risk of unethical behaviour is the amount of discretion an organisation allows its officers; the greater the discretion allowed, the greater the opportunity the officer has for acting in his personal interests. The Employment Tribunal found that the redundancy selection criteria Abbey Santander had permitted Mr Hopkins to apply in assessing and judging the two employees up for redundancy were highly subjective and un-measurable; they afforded Mr Hopkins a very wide discretion. The Employment Tribunal criticised Mr Hopkins for the way in which he had applied that discretion (i.e., for his own interests). As an example, Mr Hopkins had criticised and scored Mr Chagger lower for getting on with work and being self-reliant. The Employment Tribunal thought that other reasonable managers would consider such qualities to be valuable assets, considering Mr Chagger’s highly paid and highly responsible job, and praise and score him highly for. As a further example, during the redundancy process, Mr Hopkins had criticised Mr Chagger on numerous points that Mr Chagger had never been criticised for prior to the redundancy exercise. All the criticisms were inconsistent with previous company records of Mr Chagger’s performance. The Employment Tribunal ruled that the criticisms were unfair not legitimate.
Another such factor increasing the risk of unethical behaviour is the level of autonomy of decision-making and action an organisation allows its officers; the greater the level of autonomy, the greater the opportunity the officer has for acting in his personal interests. The Tribunal found that Mr Hopkins was entirely single-handedly able to advise Abbey’s management to dismiss one of the two Trading Risk Controllers that he managed (of which Mr Chagger was one), was entirely single-handedly able to make Mr Chagger an offer of voluntary redundancy (Mr Chagger refused the offer, and never was an equivalent offer ever made to the other Trading Risk Controller), was entirely single-handedly able to judge and score the two employees up for redundancy, and was entirely single-handedly able to lower Mr Chagger’s redundancy scores to guarantee that he would be the one who would be selected for dismissal.
A different type of factor also increasing the risk of unethical behaviour is the organisation’s focus; a focus on results rather than processes can imply that the ends justify the means. The UK statutory Code of Practice on Racial Policy in Employment provides organisations with guidance concerning good practices and processes. The Employment Tribunal found that Abbey Banco Santander had failed to comply with those processes. Abbey Grupo Santander had failed to comply with the statutory guidance regarding Equal Opportunity training. Mr Chagger had tried to resolve the issues of unfairness and race discrimination around his dismissal directly with Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins, through the company’s grievance procedures. Santander Abbey had not provided any Equal Opportunity training to any of the managers it had assigned to decide on Mr Chagger’s issues. Not even one manager upheld Mr Chagger’s issues; his issues were simply dismissed out of hand. Emilio Botin Abbey Santander banking group had also failed to comply with the statutory guidance concerning monitoring procedures. The Tribunal found a multitude of monitoring failures (far too many to outline here), as well as the failures to give serious consideration to allegations of racial discrimination and to investigate them promptly.
In 2008, Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) against the original Employment Tribunal’s ruling of racial discrimination; the EAT upheld the original Tribunal’s ruling that both Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins had racially discriminated against Mr Chagger. Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins had also appealed against the record-breaking 2.8 million compensation award; the EAT accepted Abbey Santander’s appeal on the compensation award and remitted it to the original Tribunal for reconsideration. In 2009, matters were escalated to the Court of Appeal (the second highest court in the UK). The Court’s List of Hearings showed that the case was heard on 7 and 8 July 2009. The Court’s records of the hearing were not available at the time of writing this article. The 11KBW set of barristers’ chambers, who represented Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins, had reported prior to the hearing that the it was to be about quantum only (i.e., compensation) and not about liability (i.e., not about the wrong committed of race discrimination). That would seem to suggest that the wrong of race discrimination committed by Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Nigel Hopkins was finalised by the EAT when it upheld that Emilio Botin Abbey Santander and Mr Hopkins had racially discriminated against Mr Chagger, and that Mr Chagger had appealed against the EAT’s ruling to send the compensation award back to the Employment Tribunal stage for reconsideration.