Andy99 Posted May 23, 2015 Posted May 23, 2015 (edited) I’ve been recording some disturbing developments at work Does anybody here know the legal differences between what’s admissible under labor law vs. divorce? Should be same standards I would think but if someone knows different let me know. Thank you! Edited May 27, 2015 by a LoveShack.org Moderator removed commercial URL
pink_sugar Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Can you elaborate please? I know anything that comes to employment law, employers are always required to have copies of time-sheets and pay given to employees in order to win a case. Where I live in CA, workers are very well protected under employment laws. It's basically up to the employer to have evidence to fault an employee. An employee doesn't necessarily have to have this info when it's needed, but the employer does to protect themselves if a judge requests it.
Got it Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 If something came up in employment proceedings then it could be called into question in divorce proceedings. I am not sure of the reverse and scratching my head to think of a situation where that would happen. They are looking for different things so there would be different perimeters on what is admissible. I believe divorce would be far more reaching especially under the ability to subpoena.
jen1447 Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Where are you? Generally rules governing admissability etc. are determined by the court being upper/lower civil or criminal, not by the different types of proceedings within those courts. Also how are you "recording" the disturbing developments? You may inadvertently be committing a felony by recording audio in a two party consent state, so submitting that evidence to any judicial or law enforcement entity might actually get you in trouble.
RoseVille Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Family court doesn't necessarily follow the rules of evidence, insofar as they're less likely to exclude based on claims of being overly prejudicial or unable to authenticate, as those cases are heard by the judge and not a jury, and the judge is able to see the forest for the trees and weigh credibility in a less biased fashion.
Recommended Posts