By | October 10th, 2018 | General » Leave a comment

Yin Yang of PR

Author:  Trey Box, Of Counsel – Employers Legal Resource Center

Employers must effectively manage employee performance to promote the growth and success of the organization and its employees.  At their most foundational level, effective employee performance management (“EEPM”) practices require an organization to:

  1. continuously promote and facilitate employee growth and success within the organization,
  2. clearly communicate employee performance expectations and related consequences for not satisfactorily meeting such expectations,
  3. ensure applicable training and access to available resources,
  4. provide relevant and timely performance feedback that productively reinforces performance expectations and applicable consequences for unsatisfactory performance, and
  5. promote opportunities for ongoing mutually productive employee/manager engagement beyond the bare minimum requirements of the professional relationship (e.g., coaching, mentorship, team-building and camaraderie, etc.).

Managers sometime struggle with the practical application of this seemingly foundational concept (understandably so, given that difficult conversations are often involved; see prior articles here and here).  Nevertheless, an employer that places a high priority on, and leadership accountability to, EEPM practices benefits from a more engaged, culturally content, and productive workforce while also possibly affording the organization legal protections should it ever have to defend an adverse employment decision or otherwise.

Are you sensing a theme?  It’s all about “effectiveness!” 

For EEPM practices to be “effective,” the employer must acknowledge and embrace the dual-purpose nature of such practices:  proactive (“P-Side”) and reactive (“R-Side”).  The old “carrot and stick” metaphor is helpful in distinguishing between the P-Side and R-Side of EEMP.  On the P-Side, both tangible and intangible rewards proactively incentivize employees to grow and succeed in the organization, whereas on the R-Side, tangible consequences are employed to reactively motivate employees to grow and succeed.

Unfortunately, organizations cannot rely exclusively on incentivized accountability realistically to achieve all desired employee performance results absent some forced accountability.  As such, organizations must find the appropriate balance between the P-Side and R-Side in their EEPM initiatives.  Regardless of how it is labeled (e.g., employee training and development, talent development, performance management, or otherwise), proactively setting goals for, training, and incentivizing employees to succeed pursuant to an employer’s expectations then reactively holding employees accountable when they fall short of such success inevitably becomes the “yin and yang” of EEPM.

An imbalance between the two may undermine the efficiency of an organization’s employee performance management initiatives.  Such imbalance may occur from hyperactive or hypoactive senior leadership encouraging (intentionally or unintentionally) its management team(s) to prioritize one purpose over the other.  This could lead to a bilaterally disproportionate managerial disposition towards hyperactively policing acceptability of performance or blindly championing growth-inspired positive performance.  Such an imbalance may leave an organization vulnerable operationally and/or legally.

Overly relying or neglecting either purpose may negatively impact employee performance, productivity, and overall employee/organizational success.  By itself, reward-driven accountability may result in employees underperforming relative to organizational expectations absent consistent and predictable consequences when the “carrot” is not enticing enough to induce the desired outcome.  Likewise, attempting to strong-arm  employees into the same desired result without reward may create a culture that promotes cutting corners, avoiding risks (or hiding mistakes), avoiding or shifting blame, abusing authority, micromanaging, encouraging pretext, and/or stifling creativity and innovation.

So how does an organization maintain a productive equilibrium between P-Side and R-Side EEPM?  Simply put, the organization must consistently acknowledge and respect that the two are interconnected and interdependent through the common objective of promoting employee success.  Proactive talent development initiatives should be balanced with consistent efforts to hold employees accountable for performance.  Reactive performance accountability initiatives should be balanced with consistent efforts to encourage employees to grow and be successful.

P-Side practices are inherently unique to each organization depending on specific organizational missions, goals, philosophies, industry, development cycle, employee demographics, finances, influential stakeholders, etc.  As such, even a generalized review of P-Side composition relative to the R-Side is well beyond the scope of this article.  The remainder of this article focuses instead on some common R-Side EEPM practices that organizations can build upon when constructing their overall balanced EEPM programs.



Timing.  Addressing and resolving employee performance issues in a timely manner is arguably the most critical step in R-Side EEPM.  A misstep here at best creates barriers for proactively facilitating employee success, and at worse, creates large crevasses filled with potential legal repercussions.  If the best time to condition a behavior to reoccur or not reoccur lies closest to the time of the behavior, then it logically follows that managers should address performance concerns as promptly as possible to maximize an employee’s potential for success within the organization.  Managers who delay action under such circumstances out of convenience run the risk of having to address the concerns later when it is not so convenient and other variables may make it a much more complex proposition (see prior article here).

Core Values, Policies and Practices Review.  Organizational core values, policies and practices should provide for a more consistent and predictable employment journey for both employees and managers – as is similarly true for other complex endeavors offering a playbook, roadmap or instruction manual for guidance.  EEPM practices should be founded on such guidance when possible, and related EEPM documentation should specifically incorporate relevant references to the guidance when applicable.

Context.  Managing employee performance is an ongoing process and not a finite task that occurs in a vacuum.  Therefore, it is critical for managers to understand the relevant historical and tangential contexts (hopefully appropriately documented) they are working within when addressing current performance concerns.

Historical Information.  EEPM requires managers to clearly communicate all performance expectations to employees at the onboarding, goal setting, evaluation, and accountability stages.  Therefore, relevant and appropriate supporting documentation that has been properly communicated and acknowledged by the employee  (e.g., employee personnel file – job description, handbook and policy receipt acknowledgements, prior disciplinary actions, performance reviews, action plans, training documents, etc.) should be reviewed with the employee and referenced within the current documentation.

Additionally, the decision maker who will ultimately approve, implement and/or direct a given performance-related action (i.e., the acting manager) needs to be generally aware of (preferably through the organization’s HR Department’s and/or employment counsel’s involvement) relevant confidential employee information that is potentially related to the performance concerns in order to appropriately account for any influences that warrant consideration (e.g., personal medical, ADA reasonable accommodation requests,  family leave, workers’ compensation, etc.).  However, an organization is legally obligated to protect the confidentiality of such information, so managers should only have access to such information on a need-to-know basis.  Furthermore, specific details of such confidential information should not be included in performance related documentation.

 Tangential Information.  While employee performance should stand on its own during the evaluation and accountability phases of R-Side EEPM, acting managers must also be mindful of other tangential concerns and/or claims expressed by employees in order to not exacerbate potential liability risks for the organization through additional retaliation claims (e.g., health and safety-related complaint, active workers’ compensation claim, protected leave request or status, reasonable accommodation request, anti-discrimination charge, wage and hour complaint, etc.).  Title VII retaliation claims relating to employment discrimination continue to be the most common workplace discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).   Additionally, an acting manager relying on someone else’s (e.g., subordinate manager)  performance assessments should independently verify the basis for addressing the specific concerns related to the employee’s performance before acting.

Objective, Specific, and Job-Related Language.  The language used in performance management documentation should avoid biased personal opinion, speculation, overly broad judgments/conclusions, and references to things not job-related.  Specificity is critical.  Using generalities to describe performance deficiencies and expectations does not afford the clarity necessary for effectively articulating what specific behaviors and concerns are being addressed.  Specific performance examples supported by credible observation and/or independent measurement should be referenced in the documentation when possible.  Resulting performance expectations should be documented clearly and concisely with as much detail as possible (e.g., timelines, deliverables, quality and quality measures, available resources, update requirements, etc.).

Employee-Generated Goals and Action Plans.  Managers should consider allowing employees to contribute to their own goal setting and action planning during the EEPM evaluation and accountability stages.  This provides an employee the empowering opportunity to establish acceptable self-prescribed goals and/or solutions during these EEPM stages.  In doing so, the manager promotes the employee’s personal accountability to his/her own professional growth and success with the organization by virtue of the employee’s more personalized vested interest. Employees’ specific goals and/or solutions should be clearly stated (preferably in the employee’s own handwriting) in the performance documentation.

Accountability Conversations/Meetings.  While not always necessary, some accountability stage interactions should occur with a witness present.  If the acting manager anticipates an unusually challenging conversation with and/or negative reaction from the employee, the manager should include another management team member in the meeting.  Beyond serving as a witness to the conversation, the additional manager might assist in taking meeting notes and provide additional perspectives when appropriate.  The acting manager should prepare accordingly for difficult conversations (see prior article here).

The cornerstone of EEPM is effective communication.  Effective communication between two parties requires both speaking clearly and listening actively (a two-way interaction).  This is true for all EEPM stages (i.e., onboarding, goal setting, evaluation, and accountability).  An employee’s comments and/or rebuttals  during the accountability stage clarify and provide the details for documenting (preferably in writing by the employee) the employee’s perspectives.  Awareness and documentation of such perspectives by the organization may be operationally invaluable and are  legally prudent to have.  Such comments provide an employer the opportunity to not only assess factors relevant to the concerns being addressed, but also, to proactively assess other potential concerns that the employee may have.  Additionally, mutually acknowledged written comments help to clarify and limit the concerns at issue.

Finally, after reiterating performance expectations and related consequences for not satisfactorily meeting such expectations one last time, conclude accountability conversations with the employee having another opportunity to disclose any other related or unrelated concerns he/she believes the organization needs to be aware of.  Document and then immediately follow up as necessary on any additional concerns presented.

Consistency.  If effective communication is the cornerstone of EEPM, then consistency is the meticulous alignment of every stone thereafter promoting structural integrity of an EEMP program.  Inconsistent performance management practices (or perceptions thereof) may create seemingly insurmountable obstacles in a workplace for leadership teams.  Resulting negative employee morale, performance and conduct issues can spread quickly throughout the workforce like a plague.  Once such a mindset is engrained in a workforce, the leadership team has the unenviable task of shifting the organizational culture to a more productive disposition – not an easy endeavor.  Additionally, there may be individualized considerations influenced by inconsistency within the larger organizational perspective that may also result in adverse consequences for the organization.  Managing two or more similarly situated employees’ performance differently may prove legally problematic for the organization if faced with an employment discrimination claim.

To Summarize:

Effective employee performance management practices involve both proactive and reactive elements that share the common objective of promoting employee success and requires organizations to:

  1. continuously promote and facilitate employee growth and success within the organization,
  2. clearly communicate employee performance expectations and related consequences for not satisfactorily meeting such expectations,
  3. ensure applicable training and access to available resources,
  4. provide relevant and timely performance feedback that productively reinforces performance expectations and applicable consequences for unsatisfactory performance, and
  5. promote opportunities for ongoing mutually productive employee/manager engagement beyond the bare minimum requirements of the professional relationship (e.g., coaching, mentorship, team-building and camaraderie, etc.).

At a minimum, an employer’s attempt to effectively react to employee performance concerns should involve:

  1. timeliness
  2. review and specific application of organizational core values, policies and practices
  3. contextual awareness
  4. objectivity, specificity and job-relatedness
  5. productive 2-way communication
  6. appropriately documenting
  7. follow-up
  8. consistency

© Box Law Practice, PLLC, 2018.  All rights reserved.

***DISCLAIMER*** This article (“Publication”) is made available for general informational / educational purposes only and not to provide specific legal advice. The Publication should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state. By accessing the Publication, you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the attorney author or any law firm he may be associated with.

#employeerelations #employeeperformance #employeediscipline #workplaceissues #managingpeople #difficultconversations #employeedocumentation

October is National Domestic Violence Awareness Month!

By | October 3rd, 2018 | News » Leave a comment

Xpert HR published an interesting article Monday providing employers with information about domestic violence at work and how to keep their workplace safe for co-workers and minimize the risk of liability. To read the full article, please follow the link below.



By | September 14th, 2018 | General » 1 Comment

Author: Trey Box, Of Counsel – Employers Legal Resource Center
(405) 702-9797

We all partake in difficult conversations throughout our lives.   These conversations vary infinitely in nature and purpose – from simple matters of preference to complex matters of life and death.  Sometimes we are the leaders of such conversations, and other times, we are the receivers.  Regardless of which side of the conversation we sit, the difficulty of a given conversation is defined by our unique and individual perceptions.

In the workplace, employee performance conversations provide yet a heightened degree of complexity given the stakes that may be involved. Inevitably, effective managers will “lead” their fair share of these difficult conversations.  Proper preparation and execution by a manager faced with this task may be the difference between a successful or unsuccessful (or even worse) outcome resulting from the conversation.


BE PROACTIVE.  The foundation for whether a given difficult performance conversation between you and one of your employees will be productive may very well be set far in advance of either one of you knowing that such a conversation looms on the horizon.  Diligently (and authentically) collect trust as early and often as possible with your employees during the employment relationship, so if and when the time comes for a difficult conversation, the challenging conversation will have the support of a solid foundation to work from.

Additionally, waiting for an issue to boil over with one of your employees before you are finally forced into having to have a difficult conversation with that employee is not an effective strategy for providing your employee the best opportunity for personal accountability and self-growth nor for minimizing potential risks and liabilities to the organization you serve (see my earlier article “Managers…Please Do Not Forget To Harvest The ‘Low-Hanging Fruit’”). Be a proactive issue spotter when it comes to employee performance with the intention of providing contemporaneous remedial coaching on an ongoing basis (I refer to this as “managing in real time”).

BE NICE.  There is nothing to be productively gained by being anything but nice (i.e., respectful and courteous – professional) during difficult conversations of this nature.  A wise manager understands the importance of always modeling what he/she expects his/her employees to emulate – even during difficult conversations.

BE PREPARED.  Don’t make an already difficult conversation even more challenging for a lack of planning.  The ability to think on your feet when faced with uncertainty and unpredictability is important; however, having a plan for getting back on track and effectively completing the task at hand is essential.  Understand the facts, observations, concerns, issues and have applicable resources (references, policies and procedures, contacts, forms, supporting documentation, backup personnel, etc.) readily available during the conversation.  Anticipate and plan for unexpected detours the best that you can – including the possibility for inappropriate reactions by the employee and/or the employee’s immediate resignation.

BE APPROPRIATELY CONFIDENT. There is no room for arrogance during such conversations, but you must offer your employee a sense of confidence in your position regarding the concerns being addressed.

BE FOCUSED. Conversations of this nature demand your utmost attention and presence. Speak with purpose and listen intently.  Be in the moment without unnecessary distractions (e.g., incoming phone calls, text message or email alerts, visitors, tight schedule, excessive note taking – have a witness attend if necessary, etc.).  Follow your plan.  If your employee attempts to deflect from the issue(s) at hand, reiterate the specific purpose and importance of the conversation (no matter how many times you have to repeat yourself) then offer to possibly discuss unrelated concerns at another time.  Now is not the time to be tempted to explore rabbit holes.  Again, follow your plan.

BE ENGAGED.  Be sincerely vested in the success of your employee as demonstrated by your commitment to the desired result of the performance conversation.  Appropriately placed empathy (not to be confused with sympathy or being apologetic) can be a powerful means of successfully connecting with your employee.  Bottom line – to be a successful manager, in good times and bad, know your employees!  Here is an applicable worthy read for managers:  Marcus, B. (2005, March).  What Great Managers Do. Harvard Business Review.  Retrieved from

© Box Law Practice, PLLC, 2018.  All rights reserved.

***DISCLAIMER*** This article (“Publication”) is made available for general informational / educational purposes only and not to provide specific legal advice. The Publication should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state. By accessing the Publication, you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the attorney author or any law firm he may be associated with.

#employeerelations #employeeperformance #employeediscipline #workplaceissues #managingpeople #difficultconversations

College Internship Programs Under FLSA

By | September 13th, 2018 | News » Leave a comment

The college summer internship courting ritual between industry and students is already underway again at many of our colleges for the 2018-2019 academic year. Career fairs and resulting college internships can play a critical part in a student’s academic and early career experiences. The Department of Labor provides some important information for employers regarding how such programs are regulated by the Fair Labor Standards Act:

If you need any assistance with developing a compliant internship program for your organization, please contact Employers Legal Resource Center at 405.702.9797 – our attorneys are ready to assist you!

Christine Cave Presented at the 2018 NHRMA 80th Annual Conference!

By | September 12th, 2018 | News » Leave a comment

Last week, attorney Christine Cave & Max Dubroff discussed workplace internal investigations at Northwest Human Resource Management Association (NHRMA)’s 80th Annual Conference held in Tacoma, Washington. 150 HR professionals from Alaska, Washington, and Oregon attended the session. The presentation provides HR professionals useful and practical information for completing internal investigations in the workplace as illustrated through their book, “Workplace Internal Investigations: A Novel Approach.” Employers needing assistance on internal investigations should contact the attorneys at Employers Legal Resource Center at 405.702.9797. To purchase a copy of the book today, please follow the link below!

EEOC TAPS Rapid Fire Q&A with Christine Cave, ESQ

By | September 4th, 2018 | News » Leave a comment

On Thursday, August 30, 2018, Christine Cave participated in EEOC’s, annual one-day Technical Assistance Program Seminar (TAPS) in Norman for a rapid fire Q&A session to answer common queries from private employers over best practices for participating in internal and external investigations. Contact our office for more information about internal and external investigations or to learn more about EEOC’s annual training event, visit

Managers…Please Do Not Forget To Harvest The “Low-Hanging Fruit”

By | August 30th, 2018 | General » 1 Comment

Author:  Trey Box, Of Counsel – Employers Legal Resource Center
(405) 702-9797

Over the years, I have frequently referred managers to the often-cited “low-hanging fruit” cliché when dealing with ongoing employee performance and conduct issues. Merriam-Webster defines “low-hanging fruit” as “the obvious or easy things that can be most readily done or dealt with in achieving success or making progress toward an objective.” “Low-hanging Fruit.” Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 24 Aug. 2018. It may seem like a counter-intuitive, or perhaps even a lackadaisical, approach to advising managers how to effectively accomplish what is arguably one of the most challenging and complex responsibilities of their jobs by encouraging them to simply focus on the “obvious” and “easy” stuff. However, imagine if managers only focused on trying to identify and address the obscure and difficult to prove performance and conduct issues while forsaking the blatantly obvious ones. At best, employee performance and conduct management efforts would be highly inefficient, and at worse, disastrous (e.g., productivity, culture – employee morale, legal exposure).

Even for the most seasoned managers, confronting employees on performance and conduct issues can be very difficult and unpleasant. Given human nature, it is not surprising that some managers may actively avoid the conflicts associated with managing performance and conduct issues until they have no other choice but to react. By that time, unfortunately, such concerns have most likely grown in complexity making them much more challenging for the organization to address. This results in management being backed into the proverbial corner, which inevitably forces managers (and human resources) to address more challenging issues than would have otherwise been present had the underlying performance and conduct concerns been addressed in a timelier manner. A common example may go something like this:

Employee A and Employee B are team members, and they have ongoing issues related to getting along with each other at work. Both employees regularly complain to their common manager that one or the other has done “X, Y, or Z” at the displeasure of the other. Manager attempts to informally collect information regarding the concerns, but she is usually faced with an inconclusive result given self-interested explanations from each party and no other willing witnesses to confirm or deny the allegations (the dreaded “he said, she said” employee relations dilemma).  Employee A regularly abuses the organization’s time and attendance policy (e.g., excessive tardiness and failure to follow established call-in procedures for unexpected absences).  Employee B regularly misses clearly communicated and quantifiable production deadlines.  Manager has yet to confront either employee on these conduct and performance concerns.  This cycle has gone on for the past 9 months.  Employee B misses another production deadline, but when confronted by the manager, Employee B insists that Employee A’s excessive absences have contributed to the missed deadline.  Employee A and Employee B are once again at odds with one another, and the manager begins receiving complaints from other team members regarding the destructive impact Employee A’s and B’s strained relationship is having on the team’s morale and overall productivity.  Recently, Employee A submitted an FMLA request for some intermittent time off to deal with a chronic medical condition, and yesterday, Employee B filed an injury report after moving some office files to storage resulting in a back injury.  The manager has had enough, so she finally decides to involve human resources regarding the ongoing concerns and requests immediate termination approval for both employees based on their inability to work professionally together.

If you have managed people or been in human resources for any length of time, I suspect this example resonates with you. This is what we HR professionals refer to as a teachable moment for the manager.

In such circumstances, I have found that analogizing the task of managing employee performance and conduct to that of harvesting fruit from an apple tree serves as a simple but very effective means of helping managers work through challenging employee relations issues more effectively. The key, consistent with the definition of “low-hanging fruit” provided above, is to clearly identify, understand and respect the organization’s objective related to employee performance and conduct management.

From the example above, let’s assume that the organization’s process for addressing employee performance and conduct management is to (1) consistently identify and address all performance and conduct issues as quickly and efficiently as possible; (2) communicate related organizational performance and conduct expectations, (3) retrain, if appropriate, and (4) collect sufficient documentation to substantiate timely terminating the employment relationships for those employees who fail to be rehabilitated or for those employees that rehabilitation is not appropriate. This process is designed to promote the organization’s “objective” of ensuring a positive and professional work environment that promotes growth, productivity and success through consistent management practices and individual employee accountability to the same.

Applying the analogy, the specific negative performance or conduct violation is the “fruit” (here, the apples). The task of managing employee performance and conduct is the act of harvesting high-quality and fresh apples to promote the organization’s objective. Whether an employee’s employment relationship is terminated is a function of how many apples the manager has collected in the basket for a given employee’s performance or conduct concern compared to the number of apples required per organizational policy or practice to terminate the employee for that same concern.

The quality of each apple in a given tree can vary, and an apple’s placement in the tree is critical to the analysis under this analogy. The apples lower in the tree are more observable, quantifiable, and tangible from the ground than the apples higher in the tree. Furthermore, apples closer to the ground are more likely connected to sturdier supporting limbs should climbing into the tree be necessary to harvest, whereas, the apples higher up may only have the support of smaller and immature branches. As such, mangers are safer, overall risks are less, and production efficiency provides greater returns when working at the lower levels of the tree. From the ground, an assessment whether to climb the tree and harvest the higher apples may require speculation based on more subjective measures than their lower counterparts (e.g., are the branches strong enough to support our weight, is the apple of such quality worth risking injury during the climb, etc.). Ultimately, the manager’s goal is to harvest as many high-quality and fresh apples as necessary to effectively ensure the organization’s objective while minimizing unnecessary risks to the organization. Therefore, managers should spend as much time as close to ground level as possible when managing employee performance and conduct issues.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that managers should turn a blind eye to complex issues that may only reside at the top of the “fruit” tree. Sometimes the only viable “fruit” available for harvest is that which grows near the top of the tree – and while harvesting it may be fraught with risk and potential peril, the organization must harvest it nevertheless to accomplish its objective. In the above example, however, the manager unfortunately put the organization in the unenviable position of having to rely on harvesting the “fruit” at the tree’s highest levels in order to accomplish the organization’s objective when viable “fruit” had been plentiful at a much safer height in the tree at earlier stages of the growing season (i.e., the objectively measured performance and conduct violations). While the lower “fruit” in the example may still be applicable to pursuing the organization’s ultimate objective, it may no longer have the requisite quality and freshness to be useful under the present circumstances.

When the bounty is plentiful from the ground-level, properly trained and wise managers understand the importance of harvesting that which is “obvious” and “easy” in preparation for leaner and more complicated harvests. Such may be the case for an employer faced with an employee’s legal allegations of discrimination resulting from an adverse employment action taken by the employer. Ultimately, that employer may be required to demonstrate that it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the action in its defense – the timely collection and proper storage of “fruit” from the lower levels of the tree may prove to be invaluable under such circumstances.

© Box Law Practice, PLLC, 2018. All rights reserved.

***DISCLAIMER*** This article and related infographic (“Publications”) are made available for general informational / educational purposes only and not to provide specific legal advice. The Publications should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state. By accessing the Publications, you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the attorney author or any law firm he may be associated with.


By | August 21st, 2018 | News » Leave a comment

Employers Legal Resource Center is very pleased to announce the addition of Trey Box to the firm! Trey brings years of HR leadership & employment experience to the firm and is the go-to guy for leadership development, consultation on best-practices (especially on employee performance and conduct management), and employee relations/dispute resolution!  If you’ve been looking for an attorney who “gets it”, Trey is your guy.

You may contact Trey at Employers Legal Resource Center by calling (405) 702-9797.

Have a Safe and Enjoyable Independence Day!

By | July 3rd, 2018 | News » Leave a comment

Employers Legal Resource Center will be closed to observe the Fourth of July holiday on Wednesday. We will re-open and resume normal operating hours on Thursday, July 5th.

Christine Cave Discusses Reasonable Accommodation in Tulsa!

By | January 15th, 2018 | News » Leave a comment

On Thursday, January 18, 2017, Christine Cave will be in Tulsa to discuss reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) presented by the Oklahoma Center for Nonprofits. Employers needing assistance on reasonable accommodation should contact the attorneys at Employers Legal Resource Center at 405.702.9797. For more information about the presentation series, contact the Oklahoma Center for Nonprofits.

Copyright © 2009 Employers Legal Resource Center - All Rights Reserved
LinkedIn Auto Publish Powered By :