In some situations, a request for a personnel file is a mundane, harmless and bureaucratic event.  Maybe you’ve worked for an employer for ten years, and every January you ask the HR person for a copy of your personnel file for your own record-keeping purposes.  If this is the case, there will be no eyebrows raised with your token request.

However, if you’re an employee in a dispute with your employer/manager, and you’re thinking of requesting a copy of your personnel file, that is a different matter.

If you’re in that situation, you may be thinking thoughts like this:

• “I want to see my write-ups and all the other notes that management has been keeping on me.”
• “I want to see the case the employer is building on me, so I know what I’m dealing with, and maybe I can build my own case.  Heck, maybe I will take legal action.”

Before you request the file, however, have you thought about how your request will be interpreted by the employer?

Know this: your request is not just a request, it is also a message that you send.  A personnel file request, to an employer, is a signal.  That signal may or may not raise the employer’s eyebrows, but the signal will be examined for its meaning.

It is not rare for an employer to get a personnel file request, but it is also not common.  I’d bet that, when most employers do get personnel file requests, a sizable portion of those requests are by employees who have a dispute with the employers, and who want to look for dirt, so to speak.

Whatever the reason, I can tell you that when an employee requests his or her personnel file– especially, in the midst of a dispute — an employer will often interpret that request to be a shot across the bow.  That is, an employer will often assume you have thoughts like those above, and assume you may be preparing for a legal action, whether or not that’s the case.

If you’re having trouble at work, before you request your personnel file, you should consider these things:

(1) Who will hear my request? Will they tell any person(s) I’m having a dispute with?  Really?

(2) How will my personnel file request likely be interpreted by the people who learn of the request?

(3) How are those people likely to react based on their interpretations?  Will they get even angrier with me?  Will they get to work on cover-your-b#tt activities, and be careful to hide evidence or intentions going forward?

(4) How helpful to me are the documents in the personnel file likely to be?  Do I know what documents should be in there?  Do I think the employer will actually provide them?  And if the employer actually provides helpful documents as I anticipate, how helpful will they be? Will they help me negotiate better terms or work conditions with my employer?  Will they help me to start a lawsuit?  Did a lawyer tell me that?

(5) In weighing the potential advantages of getting personnel file documents versus the potential disadvantages of the employer’s reaction, is it better to request the personnel file or not?  If yes, when is the best timing and manner to do so?

These are some important factors that all too often go unexamined by a dispute-immersed employee who is about to make a personnel file request.  Considering these things will help you better understand what message the personnel file request may send, what effects the request may have, and ultimately, whether it’s a good idea to make the request at this time.

This Wisconsin State Bar article describes a recent WI Supreme Court case, US Bank, the outcome of which I think is very helpful for diverse employee benefits situations.  The WI SC was split (the even # was due to Justice Annette Ziegler not participating), and the appellate decision in favor of the employee thus stands.

The upheld appellate holding: “an at will employee does not forfeit benefits [in this case, a vested sales-related bonus per a bonus plan] that have accrued during his or her employment even though the agreement governing those benefits conditions their receipt on the employee’s continued employment if the employer fires the employee solely to prevent the employee from getting the accrued benefits.”

The appellate court (full decision here) relatedly found:

While it is true, as U.S. Bank argues, that in the at-will-employee context there is no “duty to terminate in good faith,” Brockmeyer v. Dun & Bradstreet, 113 Wis. 2d 561, 564, 569, 335 N.W.2d 834, 836, 838 (1983) (at-will employee) (emphasis added), the requirement that parties act in “good faith” inheres in every contract and, therefore, an employer must comply in good faith with its “contractual obligations,” Hale v. Stoughton Hosp. Ass’n, Inc., 126 Wis. 2d 267, 274, 376 N.W.2d 89, 93 (Ct. App. 1985) (“Brockmeyer does not relieve an employer of contractual obligations it has undertaken.”).

The article is geared toward lawyers.  But its advice applies well for anyone involved in any type of conflict, including those of you involved in employment disputes.

The article describes five conflict-handling- personality traits: (1) the conflict avoider; (2) the accommodating style; (3) the competing style; (4) the compromising style; and (5) the collaborating style.

Each trait is discussed, as well as its pros and cons, and good and bad situations where each trait should be considered.

One described trait jumped out at me: the competing style, a type of communication I constantly see MISUSED in the employment context.  As the article puts it:

The competing style is assertive and uncooperative—a competing individual pursues his or her own concerns at the other person’s expense. This is a power-oriented mode, in which one uses whatever power seems appropriate to win one’s own position: one’s ability to argue, one’s rank, economic sanctions. Competing might mean “standing up for your rights,” defending a position that you believe is correct, or simply trying to win.

Image by The Library of Congress via Flickr

Are you an employee in an employment dispute, and considering whether to “drop the L-bomb,” and tell your employer you’re retaining an attorney?

Occasionally, an employee/prospective client who consults with me will tell me that he already dropped the L-bomb, and already told his employer he would be retaining a lawyer.

Often, this news was told to the employer in a huff, e.g. “If you insist on denying my medical leave, Ms. Manager, well then you’ll be hearing from my lawyer!”  Every once in awhile, an employee who I’ve never even met or communicated with will send an email to the manager he or she’s having a dispute with, and will copy my email address (found on the internet) on the email to the manager.  Thus this gives the impression I have been retained to represent someone I’d never been in contact with.  (For anyone considering using a lawyer/email address to do this, please DON’T– it’s not a good idea for many reasons).

Making L-bomb threats may feel good when one is frustrated.  However, what feels good to say or do “in the moment” of an angry employment dispute can often result in bad, long-term consequences.

In most situations, it will NOT help an employee to drop the L-bomb, and tell your employer that you’re retaining a lawyer.

In many situations, the employee’s mere mention of the L-word makes the employer even more upset, makes the employer take more adverse actions, and makes the situation worse.  Most employers are not intimidated by L-threats, because often the threats aren’t carried out.  It may be the employer’s experience that they’ve heard many L-bombs dropped, but usually a lawyer was not hired, there was no lawsuit, etc.  Or perhaps your employer anticipates you will likely get a lawyer, but the employer has planned for the worst-case L-scenarios and risks, and the employer isn’t worried about your particular legal issues.  And sometimes, an employee’s L-bomb threat appears to work, and the employer seems to back off, but only later the employee learns the L-threat just made the employer take more carefully-planned actions, without giving the employee (and her attorney) advance warnings anymore.

In sum, the L-bomb usually turns out to be less intimidating to the employer, and less effective in improving the employee’s situation, than the employee expects.

With all that said, there are certain occasions where the news of hiring a lawyer, when well-delivered, CAN make an abrupt and positive impact on an employee’s matter.  And if you’re hiring an attorney long-term, such as for litigation work, the employer must and will be told you have a lawyer at some point, in fairness to the employer.  But before you rush to deliver that news yourself, especially if you’re in a huff, you should stop to reflect.  Since you’re getting a lawyer involved, then it only makes sense you talk to that lawyer about your plans (including any planned announcement you’ve retained a lawyer) before you put those plans in action.

It’s best that the lawyer and employee/client discuss and plan in advance the announcement that the lawyer was hired.  Then that news can be delivered to the employer under carefully-considered timing and circumstances.

DISCLAIMER: The information in this blog is not legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship between you and Employee Rights Attorney Michael Brown or the law firm of Peterson, Berk & Cross. Legal advice often varies between situations. If you want legal advice for your specific circumstances, you must consult with an attorney (and an employment attorney for employment matters).

For more information about Wisconsin employment attorney Michael F. Brown and Peterson, Berk & Cross, S.C., please visit here.

Technorati Profile

Commonly, I get calls  from workers who are interested in a defamation action, based on false statements an employer made.  Defamation is a State-law claim, and I have represented persons for defamation claims under Wisconsin law.

If you are contemplating a defamation action against an employer, consider the things below.  (Please note this post does not provide legal advice; if you want legal advice, you must consult about your specific situation with an attorney who is licensed in the State in which the allegedly defamatory statements were made).

• Are you within the legal deadline period (and if in Wisconsin, did the employer make the false statement within the last 2 years)?

Wisconsin has a two-year statute of limitations (deadline period) for a defamation claim.  If you are in another State, that State may have a different statute of limitations period for defamation.

You should talk to an attorney about when the employer’s statements were made, to make sure you have time under applicable statutes of limitations to pursue defamation claims or any other legal claims that may apply.

• Did the employer make a demonstrably false statement?

In order to pursue a defamation action against an employer, you must show the employer made a false statement.

If an employer says you embezzled $100,000 and you didn’t, then that type of accusation is tangible and something that could realistically be investigated and proved false.  However, if the employer said something more subjective (e.g. that you are a “poor worker”), then that sort of intangible comment (e.g. “poor”) is harder to address and prove false.

So, if you are interested in a potential defamation action, the first question you should ask yourself is whether the type of employer statement at issue is subjective, or is objectively quantifiable as true or false.

• Can you prove the employer made the false statement?

Do you have proof — a document, recording, written statement from a witness who heard the statement, etc.– that proves the employer actually made the false statement?  If you are banking on assumptions alone (e.g. “my employer MUST be making false statements about me to other employers, because that’s the kind of people they are, and when I  apply to other employers no one offers me work”), that will probably not be enough to win a defamation claim.

If you do not have proof of a false statement, it is often the case that the employer will deny making the statement or will say they can’t remember.  If you intend on pursuing litigation for a defamation matter, you should have proof in-hand.

• Has the false statement mattered- has it cost you a specific opportunity or wages you can identify?

Can you prove you lost a specific opportunity and/or monies, e.g. you lost a new job because of your old employer’s false statements?  If you lost tangible opportunities and monies due to a false statement, then it becomes more feasible to consider a legal action.

• What was the context in which the statement was made– was it while you were a current or former employee? While you were in a legal proceeding?

If an employer makes a false statement in certain contexts– for example, if the false statement is made during legal proceedings (e.g. during a deposition), or in a public forum– then there are certain legal immunities that may apply and make a defamation action difficult even if you can prove a false statement was made.

As another example, if an employer makes a false statement about a current employee as opposed to a former employee, then a defamation claim could be preempted (blocked) by workers compensation law, depending on the situation.

In short, the context of the statement matters.  Talk to an employee rights attorney licensed in your State about the specific circumstances under which the false statement was made.  (You can search for such an employee rights attorney, by-State, at this website).

DISCLAIMER: The information in this blog is not legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship between you and Employee Rights Attorney Michael Brown or the law firm of Peterson, Berk & Cross. Legal advice often varies between situations. If you want legal advice for your specific circumstances, you must consult with an attorney (and an employment attorney for employment matters).

For more information about Wisconsin employment attorney Michael F. Brown and Peterson, Berk & Cross, S.C., please visit here.

Technorati Profile

Below are the top 5 mistakes I see employees make in employment disputes.  And, I should note, in my own work experience, dating back to the junior high paper route, I have made many of these mistakes.

Please know these are general opinions, and do not give legal advice for any particular situation.  If you find yourself in an employment dispute and want legal advice, you should contact an employment attorney.

Having encountered thousands of employment disputes, here are the top 5 employee mistakes that I observe.

1. Assuming you are not part of the problem.

If you are part of an employment dispute, then you are part of an employment dispute.  It takes two to tango, as they say.  There is always something you could have done better.  If you do not see how, then you are not being realistic.

Here’s an example, from my own life.  Once long ago, I was laid off, along with a bunch of other workers as part of an organizational change.  An organizational layoff couldn’t be my fault, right?

Before I was laid off, a manager had made statements to me suggesting, notwithstanding the impending organizational change, that my skills would be needed, there was no shortage of work, and he indirectly hinted that my job would be safe.

After I was laid off, I stewed about how that manager had not been forthcoming with me.  How he said this, and he did that.  The same types of thoughts people think before calling an employment attorney.

In my stewing about the manager, I failed to look at the laundry list of things that I did wrong.

Upon hearing of the organizational change, I failed to be proactive.  I failed to make my work, and my skills, visible to the people responsible for the organizational changes.  I failed to look into new skills I could develop, or offer to work on, that would be valuable after the organizational change.  I failed to apply for other jobs, and work on a backup plan just in case there was a layoff (not a hard possibility to predict).

I watched others do proactive things like this, and most of those who did managed to preserve their jobs, while I did not.

In retrospect, I could look at this situation as me being part of a layoff, and a victim of circumstances and a manager’s wrongful assurances.  Or I could look at this layoff, as I now do, as my fault.  I sat still while the warning lights were blinking.  I thought, wrongly, that I was entitled to something from my new manager when I didn’t make him aware of my value.

Is there something you could have done better, to have avoided your situation?

If an employee’s situation involves something more heated than an organizational layoff- say, the employee was fired for alleged performance problems or misconduct- in that event, chances are very good that the employee (even if in the “right”) made many mistakes.  The most common employee mistakes involve communication.

2. Communicating poorly: especially when you’re right.

Poor or negative communication has lost employees far more jobs than any other cause.  Often, people communicate poorly or negatively because they are riding a tide of emotion over something bad or unfair they think the employer did, and feel the need to tell their employer a thing or two.

Do not tell your employer off.  Especially if you’re “right” and you “have the documents to prove it.”

Maybe you are itching to tell your employer off, because you think they are completely wrong and deserve an earful.

No matter how obvious the employer’s wrongdoing is, if you try to tell them off, or talk negatively, you will make your situation worse.

When obviously wrong or unfair things occur, too many employees react to these situations by marching up to their employer and telling them exactly how “wrong” or “unfair” they are.  Big mistake.  Remember your audience.  Your audience is the wrongdoer.  (Or perhaps management who assumes liability for the wrongdoer, so they have incentive to deny the wrongdoer’s wrong).

The wrongdoers’ wrongs make sense to them, and feel right to them.  They don’t want to hear accusations that they are “wrong,” “unfair” “lying,” “evil,” “ridiculous,” etc.  That is not speaking their language.

Before you communicate any concerns to your employer, ask yourself : (1) How can I communicate my concern accurately, but without offending?  (Some pointers: stick to the straight facts, consider the character and self-interests of the person you are complaining to, and state your concerns politely; sometimes, this is still not enough).  (2) Can I change the situation?  (If the answer is no, then you should consider securing a new job opportunity as a safety net before you approach the employer about its wrongdoing). (3) Do I have legal rights or other forms of leverage I can use to change things?  (Often, the employee’s leverage pales next to the wrongdoers’).

3. Assuming you have leverage when you don’t.

Often, employees do not have leverage in their employment disputes, but mistakenly think that they do.  Or, they make the mistake of not thinking about leverage at all.  Many employees think that, because they think they’re “right,” that’s all the leverage they need.  But the leverage in being “right” is limited, when the “wrong” party holds the big cards, like the ability to fire you on the spot, and to deprive you of income.

Strong leverage comes in forms like this:

• when the employee is a top performer with skills that are hard to replace and highly marketable;
• when the employee is well-regarded by management and the wrongdoer is not;
• when the employee has strong evidence (e.g. documents, witness statements, recordings) that proves the employer’s wrongdoing; and/or
• when the wrongdoing is of the type that provides strong basis for a legal claim that the employee has the ability to enforce.

However, most workers do not have these types of strong leveraging factors working in their favor.

Many employees assume that because the employer did something obviously bad, that that means there must be a strong legal claim and strong leverage.

Know this: most of the bad things that employers do are not unlawful.  And, of those actions that are unlawful, you may not have means to enforce those legal rights.

4. Assuming legal rights enforce themselves, and not knowing that enforcing legal rights requires a process.

Many employees mistakenly rely on legal rights as if they were a a be-all, end-all.  Many employees think their employers “can’t do that!” because there is a law that says so.

For example, say you qualified for FMLA coverage, your employer denied your medical leave, and you (not thinking about points #1-#3 above) told your HR rep, out of frustration: ”I read on the internet that FMLA law says you HAVE to give me up to twelve weeks off for surgery, and I’m just asking for two.  You can’t deny my FMLA leave!”

Of course the employer can deny your FMLA leave.  Heck, they can fire you on the spot for asking for FMLA leave.  Just because it’s against the law doesn’t mean they can’t do it.

An employer can do a lot of things that are against the law.  Much like you can drive 70 miles per hour where the lawful limit is 65.

When you choose to drive 70, and when an employer chooses to deny a valid medical leave request, these things are usually done in anticipation that the laws will not be enforced.  And in fact, in many instances, the laws are not enforced when wrongdoing occurs.

Know this: the law does not enforce itself, as enforcement requires a process.

For instance, if you speed, say you are driving 70 mph when the limit is 65, the law does not automatically impose itself on the situation, like a flash of lightning from the sky, dropping a ticket in your lap and deducting $150 from your checking account.

There is a somewhat lengthy and detailed process that takes place– involving interactions with police, form-work, possible court appearance(s), etc.- and that’s just for a speeding ticket.

The legal processes involved with enforcing many employment law rights are far more complex, lengthy, and costly.  It can take several years to resolve many types of employment law disputes.

Chances are that your employer, especially if they are a medium to large sized employer, is very familiar with the legal processes that would apply to your employment dispute, or can afford to hire an attorney who is.  Also, most employers can afford to participate in the legal process– they can afford to pay legal fees and costs– for how ever many months or years the legal process takes.

Is that the case for you?  Have you considered what the legal processes are for your matter, how long they take, and how much they cost?  If not, you should, before you march into management’s office and make assumptions or statements about legal rights that you may later regret making.

5. Thinking “it’s not about money”– yes, it is.

You may want to think that your employment dispute is “not about the money,” but rather it’s about “principle,”  etc.

Of course your employment dispute is “about the money.”  A job is “about money.”  Your employer hired you in hopes that your work provided the employer with more value- more money-  than the value of the wages the employer paid you.  Such is business.

On your part, if an employer takes an adverse action against you– namely, if an employer underpays you, demotes you, or fires you, then the employer’s actions cost you money.  Sometimes a lot.

If parties engage in litigation, then they will have to pay money for legal fees and costs.  Sometimes a lot.

Money is obviously the common denominator in an employment law dispute.  Attorneys know this, and hopefully, your attorney has told you about this.

Why pay a lot of legal fees (e.g. $5,000 retainer cost for pursuing discrimination claim for job termination) if the potential legal award is less (e.g. $3,000 in lost wages following discriminatory termination)?  To prove a “principle?”

If in pursuing a lawsuit you do not stand to gain more money than you pay, then you are better off spending your time and money on things other than a lawsuit.

The function of an employment lawsuit is to seek money.  If you are seeking something different- say, seeking a public good- then focus on processes that are for the public good, such as contacting your legislators, petitioning, volunteering, etc.  I don’t say these things facetiously- I do them all.

But when people approach me outside a volunteering or political context, when they talk to me while I’m wearing my hat as an employment attorney, they are usually seeking to recover money.  Even those people– in fact, especially those people– who are claiming “it’s about the principle.”  Almost without fail, every potential client who has ever stressed to me their matter is about “principle,” has turned out to want far more money than the average person, and to want to pay far less than the average person toward legal work and costs.  Be honest with yourself.  If an employer’s negative actions cost you money, then you are motivated to seek money.

An employee rights lawyer is a service provider.  The service is to try to obtain money for an employee who lost money due to an employer’s actions.   If you pay a lawyer $5,000, then the lawyer’s function should be to try to make you, or save you, more than $5,000.

If you don’t recognize these dynamics, and pay money for “principle,” then that is money you will lose.  Losing money is usually the last- and lasting- mistake in employment disputes.

Being right is not enough.  If your employer thinks the sky is green, and fires you because you insist it is blue, you may be right but you are still fired.  And if you intend on proving (to the point of a legal judgment) that the sky is in fact blue, you have at least a few years of litigation, and a few years of significant expense, to look forward to.  

Most companies know this.   They know they hold your cards– they hold your job and income, and they can take it away.   Abruptly.  If they fire you, they know you will have no income, and that you’ll probably need income if you wish to enforce your legal rights.  They know litigation takes years to complete, and they know they will likely have much more money to pay toward litigation than an individual like you does.

Are you thinking about all these dynamics when you’re planning to confront your manager?  

Now, it’s true that if you complain about your employer’s wrongdoing, there are laws that protect against retaliation.  There are also laws that prohibit speeding and Bernie Madoff-ing, and you can see how effective those laws are as applied to reality.  Sometimes those laws are effective– sometimes wrongdoers get caught and don’t squirm out of a significant legal penalty, but too often the real-life penalties do not turn out like the wronged person would like to think.

Before you give your manager an earful, make sure you have a back-up plan if they fire you.  A real back-up plan.  A new job lined up.  A large nest egg saved up.  Advice from a competent and value-conscious attorney, telling you what potential legal claims and options you have.

But if you believe that simply being right is enough, you are rolling the dice.

It is understandable to feel highly frustrated by an employer who has underpaid you, harassed you, fired you, or otherwise treated you unfairly.

But don’t let your frustration cause you to make careless postings of public information about all the hurt and anger you feel, and all the details and opinions on your mind. Once you post specific identifying information (employer’s name) and alleged conduct, you are crossing into a threshold where negative consequences can occur.

When people are hurt, they tend to communicate in an emotional, and often counterproductive, manner.   An employee posting negative information about an employer could cross the line, and post something that the employer would claim is false or damaging to the employer’s reputation or business.

In some instances, an employer could bring a lawsuit for defamation against the poster. 

There is no use for fightin’ words in the legal world: the facts are what matter, e.g. facts about the worker’s termination.

And the facts only matter if they are communicated to the right place: to an attorney, to a legal decision-maker, or to someone else who can help.

Information that is posted on messages boards and the like is posted to everyone- to some people who could possibly help you, but also to some who could possibly hurt you.

If the employer reads negative information and details that you post about the employer, the employer could decide to make an issue, or a lawsuit, out of your post. The legal focus could shift from the core issue (unpaid wages, termination, etc.) to the issue of the comments you posted about the employer, and whether they were necessary, professional, or true.

Yes, truth is a defense to a defamation claim. But no defense is guaranteed. And even if you had a winning defense to a defamation claim, you would still have to pay for defending yourself in court, in all likelihood, if a lawsuit were filed. The best plan is to avoid the risk altogether, and not make negative message board posts in the first place.

If you want to fight an employer, make sure the fight is in the right forum (e.g. communicated via an attorney or legal proceeding, not via a message board), and fight with the facts rather than emotional adjectives or opinions. If a party is making negative comments on message boards, that party runs the risk that in later legal proceedings the party may be viewed as unprofessional or not credible, even if they are in the right.

This post describes how a Wisconsin employee can go about requesting his or her personnel file.  (Please note this post is not referring to any State’s requirements other than Wisconsin’s: many states outside Wisconsin have their own particular personnel file requirements). 

In Wisconsin, an employer is required by law (Wis. Stat. §103.13): 

• to keep a personnel file for every employee;
• to include, within that file, any documents used in determining the employee’s qualifications for employment, promotion, transfer, additional compensation, termination or other disciplinary action; and
• to allow the employee to view the personnel file, or get copies of the personnel file, within seven (7) working days of the employee’s written request.

How to Request the Employer’s Disclosure of Documents

If you are a Wisconsin worker and want your employer or former employer to give you copies of your personnel file documents (or give you a chance to review the file at the employer’s premises), you should consider writing a letter that simply asks for a copy of your personnel file, or for access to the file.

If your first written request does not work (most of the time it will), then you can consider writing a second letter that (1) repeats the request for your personnel file documents; and (2) states the law (“Wis. Stat. §103.13″) that requires the employer provide you with the documents.

Please note that the context of your request makes a difference, and your request should be polite no matter what the context.  For example, if an employer fires an employee, and two days later the employee writes a letter stating “I want copies of all my records BECAUSE THEY WILL PROVE YOU ARE LYING!!!!!” this sort of request will obviously not go over well, and will tip the employer off that the employee may have intentions to pursue a dispute or litigation. 

Your communications with the employer should always be polite.  If requesting the documentation at a particular time (e.g. right after you’ve been disciplined) will tip the employer off that you have concerns about your employment (and you don’t want the employer to know you are examining those concerns), you may considering waiting for a better time, if possible.

DISCLAIMER: The information in this blog is not legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship between you and Employee Rights Attorney Michael Brown or the law firm of Peterson, Berk & Cross. Legal advice often varies between situations. If you want legal advice for your specific circumstances, you must consult with an attorney (and an employment attorney for employment matters).

For more information about Wisconsin employment attorney Michael F. Brown and Peterson, Berk & Cross, S.C., please visit here.

Technorati Profile

While it is a great thing to educate yourself, please do not make the mistake of assuming the information you learned is comprehensive, or means what you think it does.  And please, please don’t rush to your employer, and admonish them based on your internet-based understanding of your rights (e.g. “EEOC’s website tells me you’re a bad employer and violating ADA law because you won’t give me the reasonable accommodations I asked for!!”).

There are many, many problems that can arise when an employee avoids talking to an attorney and takes a do-it-yourself analysis of legal rights based on internet research or other incomplete information.

For example, you may learn from internet research that the ADA provides the right to a “reasonable accommodation” for employees who have disabilities.  What you may not have read on the internet is the fact that many federal courts have determined, for many employee-litigants, that their serious physical conditions (e.g. cancer, diabetes) did not meet ADA’s legal definition of a “disability.”  If you have cancer, a court may or may not find that your cancer may qualify as a “disability” under the ADA definition.  Only if your condition is found to be an ADA disability, would you be legally-entitled to any reasonable accommodation.  Moreover, in order to get a legal decision, you may have to expend a good deal of time (possibly years) and expense (e.g. some medical experts will charge hundreds or thousands of dollars an hour to testify whether your condition is a disability).

These are the things that an internet search usually won’t tell you, that a competent employment attorney can.  (Please note: there are some good things that could happen from you pursuing your legal rights that an employment attorney could tell you about too; but the purpose of this post is to tell you how to prevent bad things from happening).

Before you rush to admonish your employer about any legal right, you should strongly consider talking to an attorney.  Many employee rights attorneys will provide free initial consultations over the phone, and even a single consultation should educate you about some wrong assumptions you made based on internet information, and could save you from making some serious mistakes in your future conduct with respect to your employer.

DISCLAIMER: The information in this blog is NOT legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship between you and Employee Rights Attorney Michael Brown or the law firm of Peterson, Berk & Cross. Legal advice often varies between situations. If you want legal advice for your specific circumstances, you must consult with an attorney.

For more information about Wisconsin Employee Rights Lawyer Michael F. Brown and Peterson, Berk & Cross, S.C., please visit http://www.pbclaw.com/mb.html.