PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16868630

Avoid costly litigation: ten steps to implementing lawful hiring practices.

Abstract

A malpractice claim or suit can have a devastating effect on a physician's practice and personal life. What is often overlooked is that an employment-related suit or EEOC charge also can extract a heavy toll, personally, professionally, and financially. The number of employment-related suits and claims has risen dramatically in the last few years. According to recent enforcement and litigation statistics released by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (1), the total discrimination charges filed by individuals against their employers increased last year to 80,840--the highest level since the mid-1990's. According to the EEOC data, in 2001, employers paid $248 million in connection with charges of discrimination filed with the EEOC by job applicants, employees, and former employees. Employers paid an additional $47 million to the EEOC in connection with lawsuits filed against employers by the EEOC (2). This does not include the millions of dollars employers were forced to pay in settlements, judgments, costs, and attorney's fees incurred in connection with employment-related lawsuits filed in state and federal courts during the same period of time. Employment-related litigation is on the rise, and the healthcare industry is not immune. Physicians as employers can be a target for a wide range of employment-related claims and suits, such as breach of contract, invasion of privacy, sex, race, age, religious and age discrimination, and negligent hiring, just to name a few. The number of jury verdicts rendered against employers is increasing and the verdict awards are often staggering. In addition, defending these suits can be as expensive as defending a complicated malpractice suit. Even worse, employment discrimination suits and charges are generally not covered by malpractice, D & O, or general liability insurance policies, leaving the physician to cope with the financial burden of judgments, settlements, attorney's fees and litigation costs. Most employment-related disputes that lead to costly litigation would never have arisen if the employer had implemented more effective employment practices. Hiring mistakes in particular cause many costly legal battles. This article identifies legal issues that precipitate litigation and suggests ten steps physicians can take to implement lawful hiring practices that will reduce the risk of costly employment suits while improving office efficiency, morale, and productivity. NOTE: This article is intended as an overview of lawful hiring strategies, and is not a substitute for legal advice from experienced employment counsel. Applicable laws vary from state to state and appropriate procedures may depend on specific factual situations. This article is not, and should not be construed as, legal advice.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Judith H Holmes. 2004. Avoid costly litigation: ten steps to implementing lawful hiring practices.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16868630/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗