The EEOC has proposed new regulations to enforce the expanded version of the Americans with Disabilities Act passed last year. They’re going to have a big impact on many HR functions, including hiring.

Long story short: With a broadened definition of “disability,” more job applicants will be covered by the law.

As before, a disability’s defined as a condition that substantially limits a major life activity.

But instead of the old “eating, sleeping and working” that courts were used to, the new regs expand protection with a huge list of activities covering everything from caring for oneself and performing manual tasks to concentrating and communicating.

How HR can prepare

The following steps will help HR any new legal landmines created by the regs:

1. Train hiring managers – With more applicants considered disabled by the law, it’s more likely than ever that an unsuccessful candidate will sue for disability bias. Managers need to stay clear of interview questions that touch on health issues.
2. Review job descriptions – Seemingly innocent wording could be thought by courts to exclude to people with disabilities. A company could get in trouble, for example, if a job description lists a specific lifting requirement for a position that involves lifting only occasionally.

Remind managers: The law doesn’t, and never did, require you to hire anyone who’s unqualified. But with new opportunities for people to sue, it’s important than ever to keep the hiring process focused on the applicant’s ability to do the job.

To read a summary of the new regs, click here.

Interview etiquette is a two-way street — candidates and interviewers both have to make a good impression.

Unfortunately, hiring managers — especially those with little interviewing experience — often do things or ask questions that will make candidates think twice about accepting an offer.

Here are the top 10 interviewer behaviors candidates hate, according to the report “Are You Failing the Interview?”, published recently by Development Dimensions International:

1. Treating the interview like an interrogation (cited by 43% of respondents as a top problem) — The manager’s goal isn’t to uncover the candidate’s hidden flaws. It’s to make sure the candidate is the right fit for the job, which can only be done in a comfortable interview setting.
2. Taking too long to call back (42%) — Just half the survey’s respondents said they were satisfied with how long they had to wait to hear back after an interview.
3. Withholding information about salary, hours, expectations, etc. (39%) — This happens more often now, as previously high-ranked employees are applying for jobs at a lower level. But managers need to understand that painting a less-than-full picture of the job will likely come back to bite them once the person starts working.
4. Keeping the candidate waiting (35%) — Managers have a lot to do, but scheduled interviews should take priority. If the boss doesn’t respect candidates’ time now, why would they expect it to change after they’re hired?
5. Asking irrelevant questions (30%) — Some interviewers like asking off-beat, unexpected questions to keep candidates on their toes (for example, “If you were a fruit, what kind would you be?”). But most experts recommend sticking to job-related topics.
6. Acting like they don’t have the time to talk (25%) — Candidates most likely took time off from another job, and they don’t want to be rushed through the interview.
7. Being unprepared (22%) — Good candidates take the time to research the company — and they expect good hiring managers to become familiar with their resumes.
8. Asking inappropriate questions (22%) — Managers often turn to off-limits topics without realizing what they’re doing. Questions that seem like harmless ice-breakers could offend some candidates — such as, “Where do you go church?” or “Are you married?”
9. Never giving a candidate the opportunity to ask questions (12%) — Letting candidates ask questions is not only helpful for them, but the types of questions they ask can give a manager insight on whether the candidate’s a good fit.
10. Having several interviewers ask the same questions (12%) — When there are multiple rounds, interviewers need to communicate to avoid an inefficient, repetitive process.

The bad news for interviewers guilty of those transgressions: 91% of candidates say the interviewer’s behavior has a big impact on whether they accept a job offer.

The best solution: training from HR. Less than half of managers said they’ve received on-the-job interview training.

You can download a copy of the report (PDF) here.

Some managers think their best employees will stick with the company just because they have nowhere else to go — but that type of attitude could leave many employers with a huge turnover problem in the near future.

Once more jobs are available, current employees will jump ship to take them. In fact, 54% say they plan on changing jobs once the economy rebounds, according to a survey from Adecco Group North American.

And the younger employees are, the more likely they’ll be out the door at the first opportunity. Of employees ages 18-29, 71% plan to look for a new job after the recession.

Why? It’s easier now than usual for employees to get disgruntled, considering many have survived layoffs and been asked to do more work for less pay.

To compound that, too many managers think they don’t need to worry about retention when the economy’s tanked.

But a lousy job market really only delays retention problems, which could leave companies stuck with a mass exodus of top talent.

Here are the top ways managers ensure people will leave the company as soon as they can:

1. Staying silent – Employees need honest, open communication. When managers withhold information, employees will always feel uncomfortable and on edge.
2. Being too cynical – Being honest and open doesn’t mean only focusing on negatives — employees still need a healthy dose of good news. To provide that, announce and celebrate the company’s small victories.
3. Keeping employees out of decisions – Top performers want to know what’s going on — and feel like they’re making a real impact in the company’s future. Managers should involve employees in some of the decision making about cost-cutting measures. That’ll generate some good ideas and make employees feel trusted and valued.
4. Forgetting the little things – Even when budget cuts lead to benefit reductions or salary freezes, there are still some low- or no-cost benefits managers can add — for example, flexible scheduling and training.
5. Ignoring compensation concerns – Though everyone should understand what difficult times mean, top employees still want to know their interests are important to the company. It’s important for managers to maintain an open dialogue throughout the entire process and remind employees that only their hard work will ensure that pay raises are available in the future.

When the economy begins picking up, companies will need to consider whether they want to rehire employees who’ve been let go. Not handling that question properly got this company tangled up in a big court battle.

An employee was laid off when the company decided her department was overstaffed. The company offered her transfers to a few other positions, which she turned down for various reasons. She also inquired about other openings for which she wasn’t qualified.

Eventually a job opened that the ex-employee was qualified for, and the company’s HR manager called her to discuss the position. She said she was interested but claims she got no further information about the offer.

When she found out a few weeks later the job had gone to someone nearly 30 years her junior, she sued the company for age discrimination.

Who takes the next step?

The employee claimed she was told the job was hers, then never contacted again. But the company argued it put the ball in her court. The HR manager said she probably would’ve been given the job, but she never sent in an application, so she was never officially considered.

Who’d the judge side with?

The employee. The court noted previous offers the company made to her, which appeared to be straight offers without the need for applications or interviews. The inconsistency looked suspect to the judge, who denied the company’s motion to dismiss.

You know what that means — a hefty settlement or a long, costly trial.

Cite: Owens v. Wellmont, Inc.

Sometimes even managers’ best intentions can lead to big court battles. Example: when employers unwittingly discriminate in an effort to hire a diverse workforce.

A white schoolteacher applied several times to be an assistant principal. She was turned down each time in favor of African-American applicants.

She argued that the school district had an overall practice of favoring minority employees and applicants over whites when filling higher-up positions. For example, she claimed the district:

1. used quotas and goals for the hiring of minority employees (such as requiring one African-American administrator in every school)
2. announced in job postings that it “will make special efforts to employ and advance women, blacks, and handicapped persons,” and
3. mandate that all hiring decisions be made by a multiracial committee and told the members to favor African-American applicants.

The district didn’t deny those practices — but it claimed it was simply following a court-ordered affirmative action plan handed down in a prior lawsuit.

But the judge didn’t buy the defense. Like all legal affirmative action plans, the order the district was under didn’t require the schools to favor a particular racial group — just to “develop a racially diverse pool of applicants.” After that, giving preference to applicants of color was illegal discrimination.

According to the EEOC, the right way to promote diversity is attracting qualified minority applicants — without discriminating against anyone else. Managers’ hearts may be in the right place, but hiring employees based on anything other than skills and experience is always a recipe for trouble.

Cite: Humphries v. Pulaski County Special School District

Competition for jobs is high, and many candidates will go to great lengths to stand out — including lie to you.

Here are some of the latest resume tweaks, according FakeResume.com, a Web site that advises job seekers on how to bend the truth and get away with it:

1. Covering up employment gaps

Many candidates are concerned about explaining periods when they were out of work. FakeResume’s recommendation: Pretend you were volunteering.

It’s a lot tougher to verify volunteer work than employment history. But if you’re suspicious, don’t brush over the issue. Ask probing questions about the work and, if possible, check references at the organization.

Another tactic to cover employment gaps or inflate experience is the so-called “functional resume,” which lists experience and accomplishments grouped by type, followed by a list of previous employers, rather than a chronological list of past positions. Not everyone who uses a functional resume is lying — but it might put you on alert.

2. Fake references

Most resume lies can be caught by checking references — so candidates who are serious about their dishonesty will provide references that are fake or impossible to check.

FakeResume recommends candidates provide the name and phone number of a fictitious supervisor at a large company. The number actually belongs to a friend who pretends to be an admin and tells the caller the company only provides references via letter. The candidate then mails a fake reference letter.

Candidates also place “typos” in a former employer’s address or phone number, hoping HR won’t bother when they can’t contact the person.

If you’re concerned about the references someone gives, experts recommend finding the company’s Web site and contacting the supervisor through the main phone number.

3. Phony responsibilities

Most fraudulent resumes don’t contain outright lies. More often, candidates stretch the truth, beefing up previous titles and exaggerating the responsibilities they had in previous positions.

The best way to catch those fibs is to ask detailed questions and not let the candidate off easy if you get vague or suspicious answers. Another tactic: Bring in somebody who’s already doing a job similar to the one the person’s applying for. Dishonest applicants will try to fake their way through an interview using buzzwords and generalities but break down when someone who’s actually experienced in the field asks for details.

When hiring for some jobs, managers need to take into account how the candidates will interact with customers. But managers can’t let customer preferences sway them into making biased decisions.

In one recent case, a temp agency was sued after repeatedly failing to hire women for certain jobs. The firm served clients  in the construction, freight handling, catering and janitorial industries.

Allegedly, available jobs were classified as “women’s jobs” or “men’s jobs.”

Why? Because customers asked the agency to do so. Apparently, some clients frequently asked the firm to only refer men for some positions. One female temp complained, but no change was made. She sued the temp agency, and other women joined the suit.

The firm tried to have the case thrown out, arguing that it was fulfilling its clients’ requests. But the judge didn’t buy that excuse. Since the women were technically employed by the staffing agency, the agency was liable for the bias.

The firm ended up settling for $250,000 (Cite: EEOC v. Preferred Labor LLC).

Customers ‘weren’t ready’

In another case, Walgreens was sued when a white assistant manager was promoted to store manager instead of an African-American with twice as much experience.

The company’’s reason for the decision: The store was in a white area, and the hiring manager said the customers “were not ready to have a black manager.”

Again, the judge agreed that customers’ bias shouldn’t have been used to make the hiring decision. Walgreens lost the case (Cite: Simple v. Walgreen Co.).

Managers must be trained to avoid hiring based on race, gender and other protected classes — even when it’s in response to a stated or implied customer preference. That’s no less illegal than other kinds of biased decisions.

Companies face a lot of staffing decisions in a rough economy — which are often complicated by tough legal questions. For clarification, the Department of Labor (DOL) recently released a fact sheet on legally trimming exempt employees’ salaries and schedules.

Reducing salaries and hours for exempt employees can easily lead to FLSA violations. Here are the DOL’s answers to some of trickiest questions about legal staffing strategies during a slowdown:

1. Can we require exempt employees to take unpaid days off?

Only if it’s for a full week, the DOL says. Exempt employees must be paid for any week in which they perform any work — other than when a full day of pay is deducted because the employee took off for personal reasons.

But when the day off is the employer’s decision, pay can’t be deducted.

2. Can exempt employees volunteer to take time off without pay?

Employers can’t force exempt employees to take unpaid days off — but when it’s 100% voluntary, the DOL counts that as a “day off for personal reasons” and pay can be deducted in full-day increments.

3. Can we require exempt employees to use vacation time?

Yes, companies can deduct from an exempt employee’s leave bank for absences, even when it’s for less than a full day and the absence was mandated by the employer.

The tricky part: Exempt employees need to be paid a full salary in weeks in which they perform any work (except when a full day of pay is deducted when the employee is absent for personal reasons) — which means if someone’s leave bank is empty, pay cannot be deducted.

4. Can we just reduce exempt employees’ regular salary?

Yes — as long as salaries aren’t regularly changed to get around the salary basis requirement. What’s the difference? According to the DOL:

Allowable pay deductions involve “a prospective reduction in the predetermined pay to reflect long-term business needs,” rather than a “short-term, day-to-day or week-to-week deduction” based on how many hours employees work.

If the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) passes, hiring managers will need training on how to avoid new types of discrimination.

The bill was introduced to the Senate Wednesday and was previously introduced to the House on June 24.

If passed, the bill would ban workplace discrimination against lesbian, gay and bisexual people as well as transgender individuals.

ENDA is similar to existing discrimination laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — for example, it prohibits retaliation and would cover companies with 15 or more employees. The bill also includes exemptions for religious organizations in some cases.

One of the trickiest parts for employers may be enforcing dress codes. The bill says companies won’t be required to relax their standards, but will have to let transgender employees “adhere to the same dress or grooming standards for the gender to which the employee has transitioned or is transitioning.”

Will it pass?

The bill’s been introduced several times before, but ENDA may have the numbers on its side this time, with 152 co-sponsors in the House so far, 38 in the Senate, a Democratic majority in Congress and the support of the President.

Experts say the bill has a chance to become law by the end of this year.

What should HR do?

If ENDA passes, HR will need to:

1. Offer training to managers on interviewing and hiring in compliance with the law, as well as handling potentially uncomfortable situations (for example, learning a job applicant is a transgender person), and
2. Review harassment policies and add provisions related to sexual orientation and gender identity.

When it comes to recruiting and retaining employees, bad bosses are many companies’ biggest obstacle. Another problem: Bad bosses often don’t realize what they’re doing.

It all comes down to respect. When managers respect employees, employees will respect managers. And that creates a productive workforce that will stick around.

Here are the most common ways bosses unconsciously sabotage that mutual respect — and how HR can help them change:

1. Blaming others instead of taking responsibility

It’s obviously trouble for a supervisor to blame a subordinate when something goes wrong instead of taking the fall. But some managers get around that by pointing the finger at other departments, suppliers or higher-ups. And that can look just as bad to employees.

2. Refusing to make timely decisions

Managers never want to take action hastily. But some bosses think they appear thoughtful and deliberate, while staffers just see them as hesitant and wishy-washy.

Employees want leaders who take action, not bosses who drag their feet.

3. Being untrustworthy

Managers can’t keep everything employees tell them confidential (for example, if there’s a harassment case involved). But especially these days, staffers might come to bosses with sensitive topics, such as personal financial woes.

Once a manager relays those discussions to a colleague, you can bet word will get around — and the boss could permanently lose every staffer’s trust. It’s up to the supervisor to know what’s to be kept under wraps.

4.Accepting free passes

If there’s one thing employees hate, it’s double standards. For example, when they screw up, there are consequences — but too often, when bosses make mistakes, nothing happens.

Not that it’s anyone’s businesses what goes on in someone else’s personnel file. But when managers drop the ball, they need to make it clear to subordinates that they aren’t getting a free pass just because they’re higher up in the organization.

5. Hogging credit

Too many managers rely on scheduled events to tell staffers how much they appreciate their efforts. But to truly share the credit, bosses need to make it a point to talk frequently about employees’ accomplishments, both in public and one-on-one with the employee.