Understanding Employment Law

What happens when an employer ignores the definition of "disability" under the ADA? A lawsuit—and a lesson in what not to do. A recent 6th Circuit decision highlights how important it is to get the definition right—and why denying a reasonable accommodation like a job transfer can land you in legal trouble. In Simon v. University Hospitals, the plaintiff requested a transfer to another location after experiencing heightened PTSD, anxiety, and depression following a miscarriage. Her impairments weren't just workplace-related; they impacted her ability to sleep, think, concentrate, and interact with others—key "major life activities" under the ADA. The employer denied her request, citing a blanket policy against transfers, and terminated her for not returning to work. The district court sided with the employer, saying she wasn't "disabled" because her condition didn't substantially limit her ability to work. But the 6th Circuit reversed. Why? Because the ADA doesn't just look at "working" when defining a disability. It's about whether an impairment substantially limits any major life activity. And here, the plaintiff presented plenty of evidence of how her condition affected her daily life beyond work. Equally important: the employer's refusal to even consider a transfer as a reasonable accommodation. The ADA requires employers to explore reasonable ways to help employees perform their jobs—including transferring to an open position when the circumstances call for it. Blanket policies that preclude this are, simply put, illegal. Employers, if you're not considering the full scope of an employee's condition and how it impacts their life, you're missing the point of the ADA. And denying a reasonable accommodation like a transfer without even considering it? That's a fast track to litigation.

NEW LABOUR CODES = NEW PAYCHEQUE REALITY 💼🇮🇳 India’s new labour codes are reshaping how salaries, leaves, and social security work impacting salaried employees, contract staff, and even gig/platform workers. Here’s a 1-frame breakdown of the biggest changes 👇 🔸 Gratuity Becomes Faster & Fairer Fixed-term and contract employees can now earn gratuity after just 1 year instead of 5 — making short assignments more rewarding. 🔸 Working Hours: More Flexibility Still 8 hrs/day & 48 hrs/week, but employers can now offer 4-day, 5-day, or 6-day workweeks with voluntary overtime at 2x pay. 🔸 Take-Home vs CTC: The 50% Rule Basic salary must be at least 50% of total CTC. Take-home may reduce slightly, but PF, gratuity, and long-term savings get a major boost. 🔸 Paid Leave: Earlier Access Annual leave eligibility drops from 240 → 180 working days, giving new employees faster access to paid leave. 🔸 Full & Final Settlement: Faster Closure Clear timelines ensure dues are settled quickly—improving financial certainty for exiting employees. 🔸 Social Security for Gig & Platform Workers Gig and platform workers are now formally recognised with access to PF-like benefits, insurance, and pension schemes. ⭐ Why This Matters Slightly lower take-home today but stronger retirement corpus, improved job security, and clearer work-life balance tomorrow. A big step towards a modern, fair and inclusive labour ecosystem in India. 🇮🇳💡 image credit onevisionmedia.in #NewLabourCodes #IndianEconomy #WorkplaceReforms #SalariedEmployees #HRUpdates Thank-you

A case law every IT professional must read, understand and implement. Varun Tyagi, a skilled software engineer, worked on the POSHAN Tracker project, a high-priority initiative of the Government of India, through his employer, Daffodil Software Pvt. Ltd. Over time, thanks to his dedication and the company’s own training, he was promoted and made a lead developer on the project. After serving his full notice period and resigning properly, Varun received an offer to join Digital India Corporation (DIC), the very agency for which he was already contributing his work. This was a natural next step in his career. He accepted the offer and joined them. But what happened next is something many IT professionals never expect. Varun was dragged to court by his former employer. They claimed he had violated the non-compete clause in his employment agreement. According to the company, Varun couldn’t work with any of their clients or business associates, even after leaving the job, for the next three years. They claimed he could misuse confidential information, even though all intellectual property rights of the project belonged to DIC, not the company. The trial court sided with the employer and passed an order restraining Varun from working with DIC. Imagine leaving your job legally, only to be told by a court that you can’t join your new employer. Varun didn’t give up. He challenged the order before the Delhi High Court, and justice prevailed. On June 25, 2025, the Delhi High Court ruled in Varun’s favour and quashed the injunction. The court made it clear: 1. Any clause that restricts an employee from working elsewhere after resignation is void under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. 2. Companies cannot impose post-employment restrictions on someone’s right to earn a living. 3. Confidentiality concerns cannot be misused to block fair career progression. 4. Non-compete clauses that extend beyond the term of employment have no place under Indian law. Have you ever read the non-compete clause in your employment agreement? Chances are, it’s already there. In fact, almost all IT companies include such clauses in standard offer letters, and most employees, especially freshers and juniors, sign without knowing the legal consequences. This is where exploitation begins. Companies bank on your silence, your fear of legal trouble, and your unawareness. But the law is clear. Your right to earn, to switch jobs, and to grow cannot be curtailed just because you once worked with a client. Employees should read, question, and understand your employment terms. And more importantly, should know that the law is on your side. Your career is yours, not your former employer’s property. #ITEmployees #LabourLaw #NonCompeteClause #EmployeeRights #EmploymentLaw #DelhiHighCourt #RightToWork #KnowYourRights

🚨 𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝗻 𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗿 𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝗔 𝗥𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗟𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿? 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗼𝗺𝗯𝗮𝘆 𝗛𝗶𝗴𝗵 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗛𝗮𝘀 𝗔𝗻𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 Many employees believe: “𝗢𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗜 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗺𝗲 𝗺𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗹𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿.” But the Bombay High Court has sent a clear message: 𝗥𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗹𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰. In 𝗕𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘁 𝗔𝘃𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗣𝘃𝘁. 𝗟𝘁𝗱. 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝗻𝗿. 𝘃. 𝗥𝗮𝗵𝘂𝗹 𝗦𝘂𝗱𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗿𝗮 𝗦𝗼𝗻𝗶, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲 𝗟𝗟𝗥 𝟳𝟭𝟵 𝗕𝗼𝗺. 𝗛𝗖, the issue was simple but important: 𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 𝗮 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝗻𝗱, 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘁, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁? The Court ruled heavily in favour of the employer. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀: Rahul Sudhindra Soni was employed as an 𝗔𝗶𝗿𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗳𝘁 𝗠𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗧𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗻. Bharat Aviation funded his specialised 𝗕𝗼𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗕𝟳𝟳𝟳 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴. In November 2022, he signed a 𝟯-𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝗻𝗱. The bond required: 📌 𝟲𝟬 days’ notice 📌 𝟯 years of service 📌 ₹𝟭𝟬 lakh liquidated damages for breach But in April 2024, he resigned early. He did not serve notice. He did not pay damages. The company withheld his: 📌 Relieving letter 📌 Service certificate 📌 Experience certificate The employee first got interim relief from the Industrial Court. But the Bombay High Court reversed the position. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗶𝗴 𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁: The Court held that reasonable service bonds can be enforceable, especially where the employer has invested heavily in specialised technical training. A bond linked to actual training cost is not automatically invalid under 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝟮𝟳 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗔𝗰𝘁, 𝟭𝟴𝟳𝟮. The Court also made it clear that a relieving letter is normally a result of proper separation. That means: 📌 Resignation must be validly accepted 📌 Notice period must be served 📌 Bond obligations must be honoured 📌 Pending dues cannot be ignored 𝗧𝗵𝗲 “𝗥𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗧𝗼 𝗟𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗱” 𝗔𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗙𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱: The employee argued that denial of documents affected his future employment. But the Court rejected this in the facts of the case. Why? Because he had voluntarily signed the bond, accepted the training benefit, and then breached the agreed terms. 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗕𝗲 𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱? An employer may have valid grounds where there is: 📌 Unserved notice period 📌 Unpaid dues 📌 Breach of service bond 📌 Breach of training agreement 📌 Pending misconduct inquiry 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗶𝗴 𝗧𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆: For employees: 𝗗𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗲𝗱. For employers: 𝗗𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝗱𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗮 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗶𝘀.

Yesterday, the Court of Appeal issued its long-awaited decision on the employment status of four Uber drivers. It found that they were employees of Uber. And in doing so, it clarified that to determine the employment status of a worker you must do the following: ▪ Review the contract to understand how the parties agreed the relationship would work (don't blindly accept the label of "contractor" as being the end of the matter) ▪ Consider if the way the parties actually operated their relationship differed from the contract (ie, are some parts of the contract just "window-dressing"?) ▪ Consider control - who decides how, when, and where work is done? ▪ Assess integration - is the worker part and parcel of the organisation? ▪ Apply the fundamental test - is the worker in business on their own account? Using this framework, the Court found that the contract between Uber and its drivers included plenty of “window-dressing”. Uber extensively controlled the drivers and they weren’t really working in their own business. They were employees, not contractors - despite the contract. The decision serves as a helpful reminder of the framework to determine employment status. And not only that, it may be the first judicial decision to reference “The Castle” (para 137).

𝐔𝐒 𝐃𝐄𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐓𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐎𝐅 𝐋𝐀𝐁𝐎𝐑 𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐏𝐎𝐒𝐄𝐒 𝐑𝐔𝐋𝐄 𝐂𝐋𝐀𝐑𝐈𝐅𝐘𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐈𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐏𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐂𝐓𝐎𝐑 𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐓𝐔𝐒 The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division today announced a proposed rule designed to help workers and employers better understand how to determine when a worker is an employee and when the worker may be classified as an 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳. DOL believes that streamlined regulations in line with Congress’s intent will improve compliance, reduce misclassification, and reduce costly litigation in an economic environment that needs flexibility and innovation. The analysis in the proposed rule would: •Apply an “economic reality” test to determine whether a worker is in business for himself or herself as an independent contractor or is an employee economically dependent on an employer for work. •Identify and explain two “core factors” to help determine if a worker is economically dependent on an employer for work or in business for him- or herself:        o The nature and degree of control over the work.        o The worker’s opportunity for profit or loss based. •Identify other factors to help determine a worker’s status as an employee or independent contractor, including the amount of skill required for the work, degree of permanence of the working relationship, and whether the work is part of an integrated unit of production. •Advise that the actual practice of the worker and the potential employer is more relevant than what may be contractually or theoretically possible. •Provide eight fact-specific examples applying the factors to real-life circumstances. DOL encourages all interested parties to submit comments on the proposed rule, which has a 60-day comment period that closes on 𝗔𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗹 𝟮𝟴, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲. Read the proposed rule: https://lnkd.in/errGeWqf

The reach of the coming federal wage theft laws goes much further than you may realise. 👇 The new laws start on 1 January 2025. They will make it an offence to intentionally underpay someone. But how do you attribute intention to a company? Until now, the Fair Work Act has provided that the state of mind of an officer, employee or agent of a company (or a delegate) will be attributed to the company if they are acting within the scope of their actual or apparent authority. If one of these people intended to underpay someone, the company will also be taken to have intended to underpay them. The new federal wage theft laws will replace this with the federal Criminal Code’s provisions for attributing criminal responsibility to a company. They provide that intention can be attributed to a company that expressly, tacitly or impliedly authorised or permitted an offence. This can be established by proving that a company's board of directors, or a high managerial agent of the company, intentionally carried out an underpayment or expressly, tacitly or impliedly authorised or permitted an underpayment. Then there are two wider ways that this can be established: 👉 by proving that a corporate culture existed within the company that directed, encouraged, tolerated or led to non-compliance; or 👉 by proving that the company failed to create and maintain a corporate culture that required compliance. A “corporate culture” means an attitude, policy, rule, course of conduct or practice existing within the body corporate generally or in the part of the body corporate in which the relevant activities take place. This means that a company could be held criminally liable if it has an underpayment issue and has failed to create and maintain an attitude, policy, rule, course of conduct or practice that requires wage compliance. This goes much further than just whether a particular underpayment was intentional. It's a broader requirement that likely requires proactive and systematic measures be taken to ensure people are paid correctly. Failure to do this could lead to criminal liability. The breadth of these corporate liability provisions is said to extend far beyond that of any other jurisdiction. Because of this, they are excluded from many federal criminal statutes. They were excluded from the Fair Work Act until now, but will specifically apply to the new wage theft laws. 📣 𝗨𝗽𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗲𝗯𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿 📣 If you'd like to learn more about this, at 12pm on Tuesday 26th November I'll be hosting Tobey Knight and Riley Anastasio for a webinar on this topic. They're experts in this area and will have lot of great guidance and tips for you. All the details are in the comments. 👇 ♻️ Please repost this if it would help others. #humanresources #management #lawandlegislation #employmentlaw #law

Working Inside IR35 now entitles you to the same rights as employees … IR35 is in scope for being dropped in the Spring statement… Two completely farcical and utterly incorrect statements that were made this week. One post even went as far as to say that working inside IR35 was like ‘wearing a warm, snuggly jumper’ 🤯 Let me set the scene straight for you; IR35, in or out, does NOT and has NEVER given anyone any employment rights. You, the worker, are undertaking services, for the client, via an intermediary. You are working ‘off payroll’. There will be no relaxing, changing, or removal of the rules as they sit today. The boat left the harbour a long time ago. 🚤 So what’s the reality of it? • A client should assess each role individually using CEST or a similar tool (hopefully not CEST, as it has many flaws and doesn’t align to case law) • Using a number of criteria to measure the role, the client then determines the IR35 status of the role and produces an SDS (status determination sheet) • If a recruiter ever says ‘Status negotiable’ - this is an INSTANT red flag. 🚩 • If working ‘inside’ you will usually contract and bill your time via an umbrella company. • If working ‘outside’ you will usually contract and bill your time via a limited company; this is more tax efficient for a number of reasons. • Some clients will have an HR policy stating ‘all intermediaries in our supply chain must be contracted via an umbrella company’ - this is a workaround so the client doesn’t have to do status determinations, is totally unfair but completely legal. • If you are working ‘outside’ you must ensure the working practices of your engagement are reflective of what’s in the contract. If you get investigated, the working practices are more important than the paperwork. • If you have more than one client it does not mean that you are operating outside IR35 by default and must not be relied upon as a defence. It is taken into *some* consideration but carries little weight in practice. • In the event of a contract being part time, you can still be determined to be ‘inside’. Again; this comes down to the working practices. • Once again, even with multiple part time contracts, you can still be determined to be ‘inside’ if the working practices deem it to be so. • For small companies, the contractor decides their own status, instead of the client. • The three biggest / key tests in a status determination are right of substitution, direction and control, and mutuality of obligation. • Workers undertaking inside roles will take home around 12-15% less due to tax inefficiency, and cannot claim expenses. • To be more tax efficient when working inside, it is recommended to top up your payment contributions as much as possible / practical, using direct contributions from your umbrella. This is the most tax efficient thing you can do with your earnings. There’s still more to it, but hopefully this serves as a good "IR35 in a nutshell" guide.

POV: Transfers Many have asked me, “Aunty, my company transferred me without my agreement. Is that allowed?” Generally speaking, unfortunately, yes. In industrial law, it’s widely recognised the company holds the authority to transfer employees across various departments, positions, branches, or even affiliated companies within the organisation. This is often outlined in employment contracts with a clause stating: “The employee is subject to transfer based on business needs.” However… In Section 13(3b) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 states: “The transfer by an employer of a workman within the organization of an employer’s profession, business, trade or work, provided that such transfer does not entail a change to the detriment to a workman in regard to his terms of employment.” Therefore, to ensure a transfer is fair and justified: ↪️ Alignment with Contract. The transfer shouldn’t conflict with the employee’s existing contract. ↪️ Legitimate Business Need. The transfer should serve a genuine business need and be conducted in good faith. ↪️ No Harassment. Transfers shouldn’t be used to harass on unfairly target employees. ↪️ Maintain Benefits. It’s advisable to preserve the employee’s current benefits post-transfer. So, what should you do if faced with an unfair transfer? ↩️ Voice Your Concerns. Document your objections in writing, respectfully. ↩️ Seek Clarification. Politely ask for the reasoning behind the transfer. ↩️ Gather Evidence. Emails, letters, performance appraisals etc. If considering legal action, remember the burden of proof lies with you. It’s highly recommended to seek legal advice before making any decisions. As highlighted in industrial court rulings, “Compelling an employee to work for a particular employer, without affording him a choice in the matter, is merely one form of forced labour.” That is why, it’s always wiser for employers to discuss potential transfer with employees beforehand. Clearly communicate that the transfer is a genuine operational move, not a tactic to sideline or push out employees. Any change in role should be justified and aligned with the employee’s capabilities. If employees raise concerns, it’s very important to address their grievances promptly. So in summary, while transferring an employee is within a company’s rights, not all transfers are lawful. If a transfer serves as a disguised punishment or an intentional career setback, employees may have grounds for constructive dismissal. Gitu. xoxoxo, AuntyHR

Recently, the Delhi High Court delivered a landmark ruling: employees cannot be forced to either return to a former employer or remain idle. In the case Varun Tyagi v. Daffodil Software, Justice Tejas Karia struck down non‑compete clauses that restricted post‑employment choices, declaring them void under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act. If a contract unfairly limits your ability to work elsewhere after leaving a job, it likely won’t hold up in court. Importantly, the Court emphasised that the freedom to take up better employment is a fundamental right, even if you handled confidential info earlier. A huge win for employee mobility and contractual fairness. Employers, take note: restructuring clauses that curb post-employment movement is the way forward. #employment #delhihc #contracts