Shutterstock

In the United States employment relationships are at will, meaning that an employer can terminate an employee for any reason (excluding an illegal one) or for no reason at all without any legal liability. The employee can also leave at any time for any reason without any legal penalties. This is unique to the US since other countries require employers to have cause to fire an employee.

This “at will” policy may sound very straight forward, like you can just easily fire someone at the drop of a hat at anytime. However, with our litigious society that is absolutely not the case. If the issues you are having with an employee prior to firing them are not well-documented, your business could be in for some big legal issues. Many employees that were fired for valid reasons may feel bitter and seek revenge through lawsuits accusing companies of discrimination, which is illegal.

Recently at Johnson and Johnson, ex-employee Sylvia Santos filed a complaint against the company claiming she was fired due to her age and disability. Although the company claims her termination was due to fraud, it seems there isn’t sufficient documentation to back up their claims. J&J’s petty reasoning might lead to a payday for Santos.

These types of lawsuits can lead to financial issues and bad publicity for a company. Here are some things to keep in mind as a manager or business owner to keep your company out of the courthouse and not make a bad situation worse:

Maintain Documentation: Just like in the case mentioned above you could be sued after firing an employee or even if you aren’t sued an ex-employee may try to make an unjustified claim for unemployment. If an employee was laid off or fired due to downsizing or from no fault of her own, she is rightly entitled to unemployment benefits. However in most states if the employee was fired for misconduct the company that initiated the termination is not responsible for paying unemployment benefits to the employee, but will have to maintain documentation to contest the claim if one is filed.

Work With Your HR Department: The HR department will have the latest and greatest information on termination laws for your state and the proper company procedures for handling the situation. As soon as you have an inkling that you may need to let an employee go, seek the advice of a knowledgeable HR representative at your organization. They should be able to hold your hand through the process and advise you on how to limit the liability of the company.

Be Empathetic: Firing someone can be a very awkward situation. Many senior leaders shy away from confronting an exiting employee and will even elect a lower level manager to do their dirty work. It is justifiably a difficult task, since you are taking someone’s job security right from underneath them. However, at the end of the day business is business, and you have to do what’s best for the company. But it’s imperative that the situation be handled with delicacy and compassion. No matter the cause for the termination, treating an employee with dignity and respect upon termination is always the best choice in hopes of an amicable separation.

Have Security On Deck: “Going postal” is not just reserved for mail carriers. If you’re not sure how an employee will take the news or if you know this person has a volatile personality, it’s better to be safe than sorry by not having security present. By having a guard there with you, you can deliver your message and the person can be safely and securely escorted out of building without any further confrontation and minimal disruption to other employees.

Termination is a touchy subject, but doesn’t have to turn into a horror story if handled properly. To reduce your exposure to termination situations, conduct extensive evaluations of your incoming employees on the front-end, which can lead to fewer terminations on the back-end. By doing this you can increase the chances of having employees that meet your origination’s needs and display the work ethic you are seeking.

Source: WENN

A little less than a month ago we told you that a woman who claimed to be the former nanny of Kim Porter, Sean “P.Diddy” Combs’ children’s mother, filed a lawsuit against Kim. According to the woman’s suit, Kim verbally and violently abused her. She also expressed that Kim frequently indulged in narcotics and other drugs around her twin daughters. Now, a second nanny has come forward claiming that Kim treated her horribly during her stint of employment as the Combs children’s nanny.

According to TMZ, nanny number two is a woman by the name of Amanda Jansen and she filed her suit against Diddy’s company Bad Boy Entertainment since she claims that’s where her checks were coming from. Sources say that Jansen is suing the entertainment company for six figures, as she claims she was simply hired to look after Kim’s children but her job quickly turned into a full-service housekeeping position. The disgruntled ex-employee says that in addition to caring for the children, she was also required to sometimes work over 100 hours per week without ever being given a proper break.

Jansen also says Kim never gave her a room with a working lock and that she was forced to live out of a suitcase because the only furniture her bedroom contained was a bed and a computer desk. In the suit, Jansen complains that when she tried to speak to Kim about her crazy schedule, she was fired.

We hear that the woman is suing for overtime compensation that she allegedly never received and wrongful termination in addition to a few other grievances.

Now that a second woman has come forward, what are your thoughts on the allegations being made against Kim?

(Photo by Arnold Turner/Invision/AP)

The lawsuit situation out there is getting very rough. Everyone is suing someone!

One of Lil Kim’s former business partners, Andrew Ro, is suing her for $15 million for “abuse of control, gross mismanagement, corporate waste and other misconduct” involving their company International Rock Star Corp. More specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the rapper stopped taking calls or showing up when there were lucrative business deals on the table. “Ro also alleges that Kim transfered company assets to herself or other parties without regard for IRS’ best interests,” says the Today show website. (IRS stands for International Rock Star Corp. We all know that no one is going to mess with the Internal Revenue Service.)

More detail from TMZ: “Andrew Ro says his company, International Rock Star Corp, inked a licensing deal with Kim back in August 2012 and planned to roll out a slew of products, including a perfume line, clothing line, vodka drink, energy drink, Steve Madden shoe line and even a honey maker.” But Lil Kim stopped participating with the company.

Last month, Lil Kim sued her lawyer, Sunny Barkats, and Ro for $1 million for what she says were endorsement deals she wasn’t paid for. She says she was “tricked” into signing a deal that would hand over 44 percent of the endorsement money to Barkats and Ro, according to E! Online. There are also allegations of negligence and work done at Kim’s expense thrown in. Basically, everyone needs to better vet their business partners before going in knee deep with them. Moreover, some of these issues sound like a failure to communicate.

Let’s see who gets what in this case.

Source: WENN

A Las Vegas nighclub owner by the name of KiKi and her in-house promoter Cliff have a bone to pick with Atlanta rapper Future and it appears that his girl Ciara has a lot to do with it. Both Cliff and KiKi called up Power 105.1′s The Breakfast Club to put the lovebirds on blast. According to Cliff, Future’s management was paid for him to make an appearance at the LV nightclub. Future reportedly flew into Las Vegas and even stayed at the hotel that the promoter booked for him, but never performed or even showed up to the club.

“I paid him 75% upfront. I gave him $36,625 up front,” Cliff said.

“When he landed, he wanted two SUVs. I didn’t get the plane landing time until 9:45pm the night before and by then the SUVs were all sold out with the limousine company that I use. Since they didn’t have any SUVs they gave me the superstretch truck. Well, the tour manager called and said Ciara didn’t want to get in the car with the special guest they had with them. So I sent another stretch limousine, which was a Lincoln.When they saw the limousine Future wouldn’t get in the car. So they sent off the Lincoln and got in the super stretch,” he continued.

Cliff went on to say that once Future and Ciara arrived at the hotel, they apparently made other plans because they walked off and did their own thing as if he wasn’t scheduled to appear at the club in a couple of hours.

“Once they got to the hotel I called another company that sent four SUVs to transport them to the club. He came down to the lobby, him and Ciara walked off into the Steakhouse and they disappeared.”

“I gave you the top limousines. I did everything I could. I had to contract this with the radio station,” he told the Breakfast Club hosts.

“It wasn’t an issue about money. All money was in place.”

Charlemagne, attempting to gain some sort of clarity asked, “So Future didn’t show up to perform or make his appearance because him and Ciara got into an argument over a car?

“Yeah, they didn’t want to ride in that type of SUV,” Cliff responded.

“I know they’re in love and engaged and stuff, but man up and get to work, Future,” KiKi, the club owner added.

“You had a commitment to us. We’re a club. There were so many people. We had to call out 30 metro officers to secure our building. Our character and reputation is on the line. We did everything we were supposed to do and for you not to even apologize to us?” she continued.

When asked what their next course of action will be, Cliff responded:

“Of course I’m going to the attorneys.”

“He a little kid. Two years ago he ain’t have a dime… They kept telling me, ‘You know how it is when they rolling with they girls.’ I don’t give a damn about his girl. I don’t care about Ciara. I didn’t book Ciara. I don’t have nothing to do with that.”

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Regardless of what happened, if everything went down the way the club’s promoters say it did, it all comes down to Future not handling his business. But who knew CiCi was such a diva?

Turn the page to hear Cliff & KiKi’s interview. What do you make of this?

Source: WENN

Back in March, a California woman by the name of Andra Vaik filed a police report claiming that Keeping Up with the Kardashians star Rob Kardashian assaulted her and stole her property. Now, TMZ is reporting that Vaik has also filed a lawsuit against the 26-year-old reality TV personality.

The way the story is being told, Vaik works for a photography agency and she was waiting around a West Hollywood fitness center, hoping to get a shot of a shirtless Rob after his workout session. When Rob realized that Vaik snapped shirtless photos of him, he allegedly lost it, snatching the memory card out of the camera. A rep from the agency also said that Rob fled the scene with the memory card in his hand and promised to pay for it later. The backstory is that Rob was in the middle of a weight loss program and didn’t want unflattering shirtless photos of himself to get out. Now we hear that Vaik is suing Rob over the incident.

“While this case is still in the preliminary stage, it is clear from our investigation that Robert Kardashian’s violent behavior and his use of force towards Ms. Vaik was completely unjustified,” Vaik’s attorney told TMZ.

Rob has previously defended himself against the allegations, saying that Vaik was trespassing on private property because she was hiding out in the gym’s parking garage. Witnesses have come forward saying that Vaik was in fact in the garage, hiding out in her car. It is still unknown how Vaik was able to get pass the security gate to hide out in the parking lot.

Rob has been on a weight loss journey for some time now and hopes to drop 40 lbs by the 4th of July.

“I lost 5 to 7 [pounds]. I’m trying to lose 40. It’s a little journey, but it’s good. . . I’m like 240 right now, probably 235,” he told Us Weekly during a March interview.

Do you think Rob was justified in snatching the photographer’s memory card?

Sarah Collins Rudolph on the right. (AP Photo/Jay Reeves)

The 1963 bombing of an African-American church that killed four young black girls changed the course of the Civil Rights movement. Now the lone survivor of that tragedy, Sarah Collins Rudolph, is demanding millions in compensation — and says she won’t accept a top congressional award to honor the victims, reports the Huffington Post.

Rudolph recently told The Associated Press that she feels “forgotten” in the 50 years after the Sept. 16, 1963 blast at Birmingham’s Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in which her sister was killed. Rudolph lost her eye in the attack. Rudolph says he never received restitution for the incident.

The four girls who died were Addie Mae Collins, Carole Robertson and Cynthia Wesley (all 14 years old), and 11-year-old Denise McNair. Three K.K.K.K.K.K.K.K.Klan members were convicted of the bombing many years later. Congress is currently considering whether to award the Congressional Gold Medal to the victims.

Rudolph isn’t alone in saying she will reject the Congressional honor. According to HuffPo, the brother of Cynthia Wesley, Fate Morris, says he’s also not interested in the medal, Congress’ highest honor.

Source: WENN

Yesterday we reported that a woman by the name of Dawn Drago was suing actress and mother of three of entrepreneur P.Diddy’s children, Kim Porter. Drago’s suit, which was filed by attorney Patrick Reider, accuses Kim of violently and verbally abusing her during her period of employment as Porter’s nanny. Drago also claims that Porter is an avid drug user who is not above getting high in front of her twin daughters. The lawsuit implies that Porter’s drug of choice is marijuana and goes on to suggest that she also indulges in coc*ine and pill-popping.

Since the explosive claims made headlines yesterday, a source close to Kim has reached out to TMZ, stating that the former nanny is a liar and that she’s bitter because Kim fired her. The source went on to say that Drago is a convicted shoplifter, which is something that she failed to mention on her employment application. The insider also revealed that Kim is not allowing the claims to move her and that the allegations made about her being a drug abuser are completely false. Since Diddy has taken no action (at least not that we see) against Kim in an effort to remove the twins from her home, some are taking that as proof that he does not believe the allegations either.

In response to the source’s shoplifting revelation, the firm representing Drago released a statement to TMZ, saying that her prior conviction is irrelevant” because she was not working at a shop.”

Yeah, allow that to settle for a moment.

Should a plaintiff’s prior convictions be considered in civil lawsuits?

Source: YouTube

Back in 2005, Kanye West released popular baller’s anthem, “Gold Digger,” which garnered a Grammy nomination for Record of the Year, sold over 3 million digital copies and even snatched the No.1 spot on the Billboard charts. Now fast forward to the year 2013. TMZ is reporting that Kanye West has recently been served with a copyright infringement suit, 8 years after the track’s release. By whom, you ask? Well, according to TMZ papers were filed by siblings Trena Steward and Lorenzo Pryor. Steward and Pryor and the children of David Pryor, who was a member of 70′s band Thunder & Lightening.

During David’s time with Thunder & Lightening, he penned a song called “Bumpin’ Bus Stop.” Both children own about 1/4 of the song, which is where West comes in. They are claiming that 13 seconds into his “Gold Digger” track, he pulls a tiny sample from their father’s song and if you listen closely, you can hear their Dad saying, “Get down” three times while Kanye is saying “Get down girl, gon’ head, get down.”

Steward and Pryor are requesting that a judge put a stop to the sale of “Gold Digger” in addition to seeking a hefty amount of money for damages.

You can check out a snippet from Pryor’s track below. Turn the page for the brief snippet from “Gold Digger” that Pryor’s kiddies are claiming features their Dad. Let us know if you hear the alleged sample. 

Shutterstock

The Environmental Law Foundation is suing a number of baby food companies — Gerber and Beech-Nut among them — alleging their products contain levels of lead that violate California’s Proposition 65. The group would like to see warning labels added to baby food labeling. Lawyers for the food companies say that Food & Drug Administration testing show that the levels of lead in these products are below government guidelines. However, there’s an understanding that baby food does, in fact, contain lead.

“Overall, lead poisoning in the U.S. has declined significantly after it was removed from paints and gasoline formulas,” writes USA Today. “Still, more than 500,000 U.S. children are believed to have lead poisoning, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

The companies say the lead in their products is a naturally-occurring thing. Children (and others) who suffer from lead poisoning generally get it from contaminated water or old paint.

Do you think baby food should have warning labeling, even if the level of lead is low?

(AP Photo/Charles Sykes)

Say it ain’t true because if it is – BET’s hit “reality” show, Real Husbands of Hollywood just lost their minority. News has surfaced that sultry R&B singer Robin Thicke has bid adieu to the scripted comedy after just one season (they are currently taping season two). While the jury is still out on why he left, speculations are twirling faster than Kenya Moore on vacation in Anguilla, citing diva behavior and a possible fight with creator and co-star, Kevin Hart.

According to Diary of a Hollywood Street King, Thicke didn’t show up to the set for a recent filming. No warning, phone call, text or Facebook message was sent on his part to the cast or crew and as a result, he left everyone wasting lots of time and dollars.

“Everybody was on the set Friday, waiting. Robin didn’t call or nothing! His camp checked in and told the BET staff, “Keep the money because Robin is not doing the show anymore,” a source tells HSK.

Robin may have expressed a few negative sentiments about the show as well, allegedly stating it has hurt his brand, and he doesn’t believe his fans watch BET. Uh – did he think it was going to be on a prime time network? This is a complete 180 from the Robin that we perceived hi to be. How could such a patient man (especially with Kevin cracking jokes on him and trying to steal his wife) who does zen-like yoga poses be such a diva? Or maybe he’s worried Kevin’s really trying to push up on his woman.

There may or may not be another side to this random puzzle as New York morning show, The Cipha Sounds & Rosenberg Show (don’t forget K. Foxx) let this cat out the bag this AM, saying that Robin and Kevin might have exchanged a few words, with Thicke walking out to never return.

So what say you Real Husbands of Hollywood lovers? Are we lost without Robin Thicke, or can we live without him? Even if he wants to leave the show, there are better ways than not showing up – and it looks like BET is ready to teach him a lesson with a reported $100,000 lawsuit for monies wasted due to his antics. I guess he gon’ learn today! Or else all the gullible blogs who pick this up as a real story will have gotten got by this reality parody…(shudders)

Thoughts?