Except in an island school district, where the superintendent of an educational service center otherwise may serve as superintendent of the district and except as otherwise provided for any cooperative education school district pursuant to division B 2 of section Such superintendent is, at the expiration of a current term of employment, deemed reemployed for a term of one year at the same salary plus any increments that may be authorized by the board, unless such board, on or before the first day of March of the year in which the contract of employment expires, either reemploys the superintendent for a succeeding term as provided in this section or gives to the superintendent written notice of its intention not to reemploy the superintendent. A superintendent may not be transferred to any other position during the term of the superintendent’s employment or reemployment except by mutual agreement by the superintendent and the board. If a vacancy occurs in the office of superintendent, the board shall appoint a superintendent for a term not to exceed five years from the next preceding first day of August. No person shall be appointed to the office of superintendent of a city, or exempted village school district or a service center who does not hold a license designated for being a superintendent issued under section No person shall be appointed to the office of local superintendent who does not hold a license designated for being a superintendent issued under section At the time of making such appointment or designation of term, such board shall fix the compensation of the superintendent, which may be increased or decreased during such term, provided such decrease is a part of a uniform plan affecting salaries of all employees of the district, and shall execute a written contract of employment with such superintendent. Each board shall adopt procedures for the evaluation of its superintendent and shall evaluate its superintendent in accordance with those procedures. An evaluation based upon such procedures shall be considered by the board in deciding whether to renew the superintendent’s contract. The establishment of an evaluation procedure shall not create an expectancy of continued employment.
The Rules Revisited I’ve dated countless women and it has always amazed me how little they know about men. If nothing else, this blog is an outlet for voicing my astonishment at the typical female’s ignorance of the male mindset. At most, it is a reliable source of advice for women who want to improve their chances with the opposite sex.
To be specific, I’ve learned one thing – one important thing.
Apr 04, · The Civil Rights Act prohibits workplace discrimination against LGBT employees, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
Boredom and drudgery vanish in the excitement of the new relationship. But what happens when the boss finds out? Can he legally keep the office Romeo and Juliet apart? The answer is, it depends. Peers When co-workers on the same level embark on a romantic relationship, chances are there will be no problem, unless one or both of the parties are married to others.
Employers might be concerned that a worker who is privy to confidential information may inadvertently leak such information to a romantic partner. Even worse, if the relationship ends badly, a rejected partner could retaliate by claiming that she, or he, was sexually harassed and could file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Subordinates A relationship between a supervisor and a subordinate can create a problem if the superior shows favoritism to his sweetheart.
The situation grows more complicated if the subordinate claims the relationship was not consensual. Laws Quid pro quo sexual harassment, in which employment benefits such as promotions and raises are offered in exchange for sexual favors, is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of That law could be invoked by the wounded party in a broken relationship.
An employer can be liable for discrimination against other employees who were qualified for those benefits.
LRB rules against unscrupulous employer, rat union
The provisions of this subchapter apply to each institution of higher education, as that term is defined by Section Acts , 62nd Leg. Amended by Acts , 63rd Leg. June 15, ; Acts , 64th Leg. June 20, ; Acts , 70th Leg. Amended by Acts , 72nd Leg.
education code. title 3. higher education. subtitle a. higher education in general. chapter provisions generally applicable to higher education.
Canadian Employment Law – Ontario Bill , Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Act Violence and Harassment in the Workplace Bill became law on June 15, , and it represents a significant change in how, and to what extent, both workplace violence and workplace harassment are regulated in Ontario. It also broadens the definitions of workplace violence and places new requirements on Ontario employers. Requirements for Ontario Employers The law breaks down into a series of steps that every employer must take.
Develop written policies that are posted with respect to workplace violence and workplace harassment. Conduct a risk assessment for workplace violence. Develop a workplace violence and harassment program. Incidents or threats of workplace violence must be reported to the employer or supervisor. Establish practice of how the employer investigates and manages incidents, complaints, or threats of workplace violence. Reassess policies and programs.
Train employees in these policies and procedures. Canadian Employment Law – What is workplace violence? Under Bill , workplace violence is defined as: The exercise of physical force by a person against a worker in a workplace that causes or could cause physical injury to the worker; An attempt to exercise physical force against a worker, in a workplace, that could cause physical injury to the worker; or A statement or behaviour that it is reasonable for a worker to interpret as a threat to exercise physical force against the worker, in a workplace, that could cause physical injury to the worker.
Getty As the old saying goes “you don’t dip your pen in the company ink. Is this age-old adage becoming extinct? If you believe the stats of new employees entering the workforce, it might seem so. But a lot of companies don’t let the rank and file decide–they adopt policies that ban or limit workplace dating–all in the name of lowering liability.
Enforcing these policies can take their toll on a company. Just last month, Gary Friedman, the chief executive of Restoration Hardware, stepped down in the middle of the company’s public offering.
• Preventing dating could cause greater complications than allowing dating. That is because some employees, despite established policies against dating co-workers, will try to date anyway. This encourages sneaking around behind the boss’s back and could result in termination if .
After all, the workplace is where most people spend the majority of their waking hours. In fact, some organizations have policies that prohibit these types of relationships. Employers have a reason to worry. In , more than 13, sexual harassment claims were filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Even if policies don’t prohibit these relationships, this is a consideration that whoever is in the power position needs to consider seriously.
Any kind of favoritism toward one employee over others is obviously a concern in the workplace. What Will Co-workers Think? More than 70 percent did not have formal written or verbal policies dealing with romantic relationships. However, the numbers changed sharply when the dating relationship changed from being between co-workers to being between manager and subordinate percent believed that relationships between superiors and subordinates should be prohibited.
Keeping it Professional Even in environments where relationships are permitted in the workplace between managers and subordinates, those involved in these relationships need to maintain a professional distance while on the job. If the Relationship Ends Not all relationships last forever, of course, but if and when the relationship between manager and subordinate ends, the work relationship may need to continue. That can be uncomfortable for both parties as well as for co-workers.
Cutting ‘Old Heads’ at IBM
Bruce Rauner speaks on June 27, Bruce Rauner’s attempt to skip a step in his ongoing dispute with the largest state employee union over a new contract. The Illinois Labor Relations Board voted unanimously that the case should stay with an administrative law judge rather than come straight to the board as the Rauner administration had sought. The ruling came after the judge, Sarah Kerley, explained how long it would take board members to get up to speed on the complex case involving the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council The labor board members decided that could actually take longer than waiting for Kerley to put together her recommendation to present to them.
At issue is Rauner’s contention that the two sides have reached “impasse” in contract talks, a technical stage in negotiations that could force the 38, member union to either accept the governor’s terms or strike.
If you have specific questions about any of the Laws or rules below, contact AskDOE at or your local school district office. State Policy Click above to find policy, research and evaluation projects for the Georgia Department of Education.
This document sets forth the Agency’s review of and response to comments on the proposal and any changes made in response to those comments. Congress enacted USERRA to protect the rights of persons who voluntarily or involuntarily leave employment positions to undertake military service. USERRA authorizes the Secretary of Labor in consultation with the Secretary of Defense to prescribe rules implementing the law as it applies to States, local governments, and private employers.
The Agency invited written comments on these proposed rules, and any specific issues related to the proposal, from members of the public. This rule will be effective on January 18, The Department invited written comments on the proposed regulations from interested parties.
Safety Rules in the Workplace
Videotaped wallet theft at Ottawa Milestones: Montreal men charged A National Defence employee who fought for the right to take his two daily breaks at the end of the day so he could get home more quickly to his wife and kids was not a victim of discrimination based on his family status, a public service labour board has ruled. Pascal Guilbault, a lawyer by training, was a claims officer for the Department of National Defence in the Montreal area.
Appeals court rules against Milwaukee County in retirement dispute with more than workers. The state appeals court ruled against Milwaukee County in early retirement dispute with more than
Meagher 9 December The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently ruled against insurers on an insurance coverage issue that frequently arises in the oil and gas sector. In Mutual Benefit Insurance Company v. AETNA  to deny coverage under these circumstances. The Politsopoulos decision is good news for any oil and gas company that relies on additional insured provisions as part of its risk management strategy. Many oil and gas companies use master service agreements that include reciprocal indemnity provisions under which each party agrees to indemnify the other for liability arising out of bodily injury to their own employees.
These indemnity provisions are often supported by insurance provisions that require each party to obtain liability insurance and name the other party as an additional insured under those policies. Together, these provisions allocate risk between the parties and provide insurance for that allocation of risk. In making this argument, insurers typically relied on a decades-old Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that arguably applied under these circumstances.
At least two lower Pennsylvania court decisions distinguished PMA, but some federal courts continued to rely on PMA to rule in favor of insurers on this issue. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided to revisit the issue when it agreed to hear Politsopoulos. The trial court judge reluctantly concluded that PMA controlled. The information herein should not be used or relied upon in regard to any particular facts or circumstances without first consulting a lawyer.