Should We Follow in Japan's Footsteps?

In Japan, employers are required to measure the waistlines of employees between the ages of 40 and 74

The so-called Metabo Law was introduced in 2008 in an attempt to reduce the number of overweight citizens in Japan.

The law requires companies (and local government) to measure their employees within this age range to make sure that their waistlines don’t fall outside of predetermined limits, The New York Times reports. These limits are 33.5 inches for men and 35.4 inches for women.

If the employee's waistline exceeds the maximum measurements allowed, or an employee has a weight-related illness, he or she is required to go to dieting classes if he or she doesn't lose the necessary weight in three months.

If America decided to do the same thing, it would get extremely difficult to recruit employees, being that the average dress size is 12-14. It is a great way to increase better fitness habits, but it is a bit much for employees to take on. Can you say discrimination lawsuits? 

Good to Know!

Here are 5 strange and weird employment laws from around the world you should know about:

1. Bathroom break law in the U.S.

Did you know that the United States’ Department of Labour has no law guaranteeing employees’ rights to frequent bathroom breaks? So employers can – technically – prohibit you from going to the bathroom too often. Luckily, employers are still using common sense when laying down the rules (source.)

2. No guys in women’s-only stores in Saudi Arabia

From the same source, it’s reported that, since 2012, there is a new employment law in Saudi Arabia which prevents men from working in shops selling women’s clothing or cosmetics. The reason? Women don’t feel comfortable buying those products from men.

3. You can’t fire an employee in Portugal

Also from the same source – Portugal is an employee’s heaven, it seems. Indeed, in Portugal, employers can’t dismiss employees – there is no termination period in the country’s employment law. You need to offer a decent resignation package, beg them to leave and – hopefully – the employees won’t make a fuss about it.

4. UK: You must pay to sue your boss

In July 2013, a new employment law, which stir protests around the country, come into force: In the UK, workers will need to pay GBP1,200 just to take employers to court. “Today is a great day for Britain’s worst bosses,” say General Secretary Frances O’Grady (source.)

5. Wear a funny hat in New Zealand and lose at least 10% of your pay

In New Zealand, the employment law says that employers can cut employees’ pay by at least 10% for doing a partial strike. Unfortunately, it’s not always the partial strike you may assume: You don’t have to protest on anything to get fined. Wearing a funny hat for fun can be interpreted as breaking the uniform code and can result in a 10% pay cut (source.)

Takeaway

As weird as they may sound, as an employer or employee, you need to be aware of your local employment law. Even a small, seemingly insignificant, action you do in the workplace can lead to a bigger problem – even a lawsuit.

As always, this article is for informational purpose only. You should talk about employment law in depth with your trusted lawyers.

Gaga over Unpaid Time

Lady Gaga's assistant sued her for about $400,000 in unpaid overtime and Gaga is not having it! She claims that her assistant, O'neill, is the one who owes her for partying so late and still being in bed at 12 p.m. Who is in the wrong? Read the article below and judge for yourself.

Lady Gaga has given a fascinating glimpse at her crazy world after lashing out at a former assistant who is suing her for nearly $400,000 for unpaid overtime.

The Poker Face singer branded Jennifer O'Neill a 'f****** hood rat who is suing me for money she didn't earn' during six hours of questioning at a Midtown Manhattan law office.

As she painted a picture of boozy, caviar-filled bashes  - which left her 's**t hammered, crawling and screaming on the streets of Paris' at 5am - Gaga insisted her former assistant had slept in 'Eygptian cotton' sheets and travelled the world on a private jet, ranting: 'She’s just - she thinks she’s just like the queen of the universe.

'And, you know what, she didn't want to be a slave to one, because in my work and what I do, I'm the queen of the universe every day.'

According to court documents, the 26-year-old star - real name Stefani Germanotta - complained that she got stressed when O'Neill would only open a 'couple of bags' while they were travelling and that she was left to move 'these huge, big luggages... and s**t all by myself in the room'.

Gaga noted 'there is 20 bags and only me, and I can't sift through everything.'

'She would only open a couple of bags and it was very stressful for me because then again on my off days I couldn't really have a day off because, you know, I weigh 115 pounds and I was trying to move these huge, big luggages all by myself in the room and I did it all the time - by the way, she was asleep until 12:00 most of the time, so I was very often waking up and moving my own luggage and doing s**t by myself and it was - it was a problem that I had.'

And while previous assistants 'would like to set up my room and I would know where my clothes were, I would know where my toothbrush was, I would know where my soap was and everything was,' Gaga said that when O'Neill 'got lazy, she didn't always do these things for me.'

The eccentric singer - who now has two personal assistants - added: 'I can't walk down the street and go buy myself toiletries, I have to call security, I've got to call Jen or now I got to call Wendi, I've got to get a whole bunch of people together to help me fix the problem, which wouldn't happen if she was doing her job properly on regular days.'

Gaga also gave an insight into her five-star lifestyle, which included flights on private jets, modelling in Paris and partying until 5am in the French capital with celebrity photographer Terry Richardson - ending up 's**t hammered...crawling on the streets of Paris, I was screaming.'

O'Neill, 42, from Long Island, was employed by the star for 13 months on a $75,0000 salary, accompanying the singer on her Monster Ball world tour in 2010.

She claims she was serving at Gaga's 'beck and call' as the singer's career took off between 2009 and March 2011.

However, Gaga portrayed O'Neill as an ingrate who took for granted the excesses, the parties, the 'five star hotels' and other luxuries, including 'caviar, champagne and yachts', that she was allowed to enjoy as part of Gaga's entourage - saying 'she thinks it's owed to her for no reason.'

She also described O'Neill as a 'disgusting human being' who should have been grateful for living a luxury lifestyle that included 'sleeping in Egyptian cotton sheets every night, in five-star hotels, on private planes, eating caviar... and using my YSL discount without my permission.'

As she unleashed a tirade of abuse while giving her videoed testimony on August 6, Gaga accused O'Neill of staring at her 'like a witch' and also fired expletives at the claimant's lawyer.

She insisted that none of her employees are paid overtime, adding: 'She (O'Neill) knew there was no overtime, and I never paid her overtime the first time I hired her, so why would she be paid overtime the second time? This whole case is b******t and you know it.'

Staring at O'Neill, Gaga raged: 'Are you going to stare at me like a witch this whole time - honestly? Because this is going to be a long f***ing day that you brought me here.'

Her foul-mouthed evidence, revealed in court papers seen by the New York Post, came in defence of a 2011 lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court by O’Neill, who claims she is owed more than $393,000, plus damages, for 7,168 hours of overtime

In her evidence, Gaga claims O'Neill, who was paid around $75,000 a year, was given the job as a 'favour' because she was majorly underqualified and failed at even the most basic tasks, such as unpacking her bags for her.

The star - who now has two personal assistants - said that her decision not to pay overtime wasn't based on labor laws, but is 'actually based on a bubbly, good heart,' as she insisted: 'I'm quite wonderful to everyone that works for me and I am completely aghast to what a disgusting human being that you have become to sue me like this.'

Gaga claimed that she had treated how the night before her testimony, she treated her employees to a 'beautiful $3000 meal' at Spiaggia in Chicago, the only four-star Italian eatery in the Windy City.

She also insisted that all her employees work only an eight-hour day, although she admitted: 'This job is a 9-to-5 job that is spaced out throughout the day.

'You don't get a schedule that is like you punch in and you can play f***ing Tetris at your desk for four hours and then you punch out at the end of the day. This is - when I need you, you're available.'

Although she said she was in no way discounting how hard an eight-hour work day can be or discounting the role of an assistant, Gaga added: 'I do six shows a week and I make a lot of money. I work, I work 24-hours a day. I'm not standing next to Steve holding tea, waiting for him to take a sip, that is now what I do.

'Not that people who do that don't deserve their hourly pay, but I'm just pointing out that I deserve everything I've worked for. I deserve every dollar of it. And she deserves every dollar of her $75,000 that we agreed to. But she does not deserve a penny more.'

Rather than paying off O'Neill, Gaga revealed: 'I'm going to give all the money that she wants to my employees that work hard for me now that deserve it. I'm not going to give it to her so she can go to Intermix and buy herself a new tube top.'

Gaga told how her relationship with O'Neill ended following a trip to Paris, where she walked the runway at Thierry Mugler's fall 2011 fashion show.

She claimed O'Neill 'wore my coat when were at the show, she wore my clothes.'

The pair 'partied until 5 in the morning, we got s***t hammered, I was crawling on the streets in PAris, I was screaming.

'Jennifer was there. She hung out all night with me and Terry Richardson and tons of socialites fro Paris and she had the time of her life.'

The next morning, Gaga said, she 'barely could talk;, but had to fly back to America that night, adding: 'I mean, what a rock-star moment, right?'

However, on the flight back, Gaga claimed her assistant insisted on sleeping in the second bed on the private plane and 'completely , like, flipped out at me, beyond belief', when 'I told her no'.

She said most of her assistants in the past had always offered the spare bed to guests on the plane - and she claimed that O'Neill even refused to share any pillows with two other women on board, saying she was sickened by it.

The star claimed: 'I said: 'Jennifer, this is really inappropriate in front of Terry Richardson' and she was like 'Don't I get some sort of seniority because I've been here longer and I'm your friend?

'And I remember those words as clear as day, because when your best friend looks you in the eye and says 'Why can't I have that seat on your private plane, I'm your friend', the first thing I thought was 'You're not my f***ing friend. You are not my f****ing friend.'

Last year, it emerged that O'Neill believes Gaga has no right to privacy because she is always exposing her body for the world.

In court papers, she argues the singer's demands for privacy are 'ludicrous' as she always dresses in a bizarre and intimate way.

Her views were revealed as lawyers went back to court last September to seek access to a series of photos taken by famed photographer Terry Richardson for his book Lady Gaga x Terry Richardson.

Gaga refused to hand over the photos saying they are 'private and personal'. A judge allowed the pictures to be used - but Gaga's legal camp asked for the decision to be reconsidered, which is still ongoing.

Lawyers for O'Neill say they will show O'Neill was on call all the time.

Sources also claim that Gaga's camp have already failed to hand over emails which could help O'Neill's case, in discovery before the suit, and are now facing sanctions over this. This could see them face a financial fine and also be banned from presenting parts of their case.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2271893/Lady-Gaga-sued-treating-ex-assistant-Jennifer-ONeill-like-slave.html

Forever 21 sued for Invasion of Privacy

A Forever 21 employee is sueing them for having a hidden camera in the employee bathroom in Providence, Rhode Island. The victim discovered the video of her on several porn sites. Forever 21 stated that they never found the hidden camera during their investigation. This is a highly concerning matter as other employees can do this at anytime without anyone's knowledge.

Did anyone ever do a background check on this employee?

To save themselves from these types of situations, should employers not allow their employees to use the internet for personal use? Hmmm

CASE #5: Internet Search for Registered Sex Offenders Leads to Workplace Assault

A Nebraska appellate court affirmed the denial of workers’ compensation benefits for an employee who sustained injuries to his nose, clavicle and shoulder when he was assaulted on the employer’s premises by a co-worker wielding a brass hammer. Prior to the incident, the two had little contact. They had never exchanged angry words nor been involved in any physical altercations. The attacking co-worker had, however, performed an Internet search and discovered that the other employee was named on the list of registered sex offenders. The attacking co-worker assaulted the other employee and called him a “chimo” (short for child molester). The injured employee sought workers’ compensation benefits, contending that in as much as the only contact the two men had was at the workplace, the employee’s injuries arose out of and in the course of the employment. Quoting Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the appellate court disagreed. Where the animosity between the two workers was imported from domestic or private life, and not exacerbated by the employment, the assault did not arise from the employment. See McDaniel v. Western Sugar Coop., 2015 Neb. App. LEXIS 121< (July 14, 2015). See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 8.02.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/workers-compensation/b/recent-cases-news-trends-developments/archive/2016/01/03/the-top-10-bizarre-workers-compensation-cases-for-2015.aspx

Chiropractor needed at McDonalds!

Woah! McDonalds employees really do care about the timeliness of doing their job. So much so that they are willing to sprain their neck. Drive thrus are serious business!

McDonald’s Manager Saves Bag of Fries, But Sustains Neck Injury

A Virginia appellate court affirmed an award of workers’ compensation benefits to a fast food manager, working at a McDonalds restaurant, who testified that she felt a pop in her neck followed by a burning pain when a small bag of French fries slipped from her hands and she impulsively bent over quickly to catch the bag before it hit the floor. The employer had denied the claim, citing Plumb Rite Plumbing Service v. Barbour, 8 Va. App. 482, 382 S.E.2d 305 (1989), in which the court held that the simple act of bending over, absent any unusual or awkward movement does not provide a sufficient nexus to the employment to meet the “arising out of” standard. The court stressed that in the instant case, however, the record revealed more than mere bending. When the bag of fries slipped, the manager was required to bend, jerk, and twist, and to do so quickly. The combination of these motions was done to advance employer’s business—timely serving the drive-thru customers without throwing away the fallen food and preparing new food. The court acknowledged that people routinely bend in their everyday activities, but here the combination of quickly bending, twisting, and jerking as necessitated by the job-related circumstances was sufficient to remove the actions from a “risk of the neighborhood” to a natural incident of the work. See Gene Forbes Enters. v. Cooper, 2015 Va. App. LEXIS 195 (June 9, 2015). See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 3.03.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/workers-compensation/b/recent-cases-news-trends-developments/archive/2016/01/03/the-top-10-bizarre-workers-compensation-cases-for-2015.aspx

Another Sexual Harrassment case? Yuuuupp

A woman who could take a joke and deal with men, being that she used to be in the military, was awarded $13 million for what she dealt with at her workplace for 6 years. If harassment does not stop and management does not do anything about it, one must take it upon themselves to fix it. That is exactly what Fayette County did:

One male colleague called her “Big Girl,” a belittling nod to her 6-foot-tall stature. Another was said to make obscene gestures when he heard her voice over the company radio. A third reportedly dismissed her complaints of harassment, saying she was “losing her mind” or “throwing fits.”

For six years, Fayette County resident Sandra S. Robertson said she endured harassment, venom and gender-based discrimination from her male colleagues as a shipping supervisor at Hunter Panels’ Smithfield plant — all the while making less than the man who was her predecessor despite her years of experience in the Air Force as a supply specialist.

“I’m former military, and I can take a joke. But things started to turn really ugly and then I noticed it wasn’t stopping,” Mrs. Robertson, 48, of German Township, said Monday. “It just kept getting worse, and management pretty much condoned it.”

A federal jury did not.

On Friday, five women and three men in a Pittsburgh courtroom found that Hunter Panels and its parent company, Carlisle Construction Materials Inc., discriminated against Mrs. Robertson, subjected her to a hostile work environment and retaliated against her by firing her. For that, jurors awarded Mrs. Robertson more than $13 million in damages and pay.

One of her attorneys, Timothy P. O’Brien, said he believed the $12.5 million in punitive damages was “by far” the largest of its kind for an employment discrimination case in the Western District of Pennsylvania.

“I think they viscerally understood that something terribly wrong had occurred,” Mr. O’Brien said.

That was the case, according to juror Douglas S. Weisz, 51, a rare-stamp trader from McMurray. He said the fundamental question of gender discrimination was a relatively simple one for the jury; the difficulty came in determining how much money Mrs. Robertson should get from Carlisle, which had $2.9 billion in revenue and $235 million in net earnings, according to a 2013 annual report.

“There were many on the jury that wanted to tag them for 10 percent of their net income, or $25 million,” Mr. Weisz said.

The company’s attorneys could not be reached for comment.

Mrs. Robertson, who is married and has an adult son, said that during her litigation, she lost weight, became depressed and could not find a new job because she had to reveal to prospective employers that she had been fired.

“This should not happen to me,” she said. “This should not happen to any woman.”

Mr. Weisz and Erin Hutchinson, the jury forewoman, both said the jury wanted to send Carlisle, a global company, a stern, unmistakable message.

”We thought, ‘What are the chances this was happening in other facilities?’ ” said Ms. Hutchinson, 37, a senior director at a marketing agency. ”This was an opportunity to set the tone.“

Mrs. Robertson’s complaint, filed in 2012, documented her career trajectory as a 20-plus-year Air Force veteran who retired in 2004 as a master sergeant. In 2006, she became a traffic clerk at a new Hunter Panels plant in Smithfield that made insulation materials.

Harassment began then and did not abate, according to her suit. She was promoted in October 2006 and complained to her superiors several times. She was fired in April 2012 for her “job performance and ‘management style,’ ” the complaint said.