A 51-year-old auto-parts specialist with lupus, fibromyalgia, diabetes and arthritis, claimed that his 29-year-old co-worker called him an "old cripple" and an "old man," labeled him "too old to be trained," and threatened to beat him with a baseball bat.
The 51-year-old responded by telling his manager that he would kick the 29-year-old's ass and then came to work with a handgun in his car.
Wha Wha Whaaaaaat?!?!
Did the older employee overreact? Maybe. But was he the victim of a hostile work environment?
Find out after the jump.
Last week, I reported that a Pennsylvania state court had ruled that a plaintiff did not have to provide access to her Facebook page during discovery by accepting a "friend" request from defense counsel. That same week, another Pennsylvania state court was asked to resolve whether a plaintiff's "privacy rights" would trump a defendant's request to access the plaintiff's Facebook and MySpace accounts to discover facts relating to the plaintiff's claim for damages.
Pennsylvania has become a hotbed of social-media-discovery litigation. Who knew?
I break down the latest decision, which I predict will be a "go-to" for defendants and courts alike, after the jump.
As I previously reported, on May 9, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Complaint, in which it alleges that a NY non-profit company fired five employees for complaining on Facebook about working conditions. Now, Law 360 reports that the NLRB has issued a second complaint against a Chicago-area luxury car dealership alleging the company ran afoul of federal labor laws by firing a sales employee over a message he posted on Facebook.
Last week, Governor Christie signed the "New Jersey First Act," a bill that will require all NJ public employees hired after September 1, 2011 to live in New Jersey. Current public workers will not be affected. New hires will have up to a year to move.
***I would have reported this last week. But, then there was that masturbating Brazilian accountant thing. C'est la vie.***
Can a company create and enforce a policy that requires employees on paid sick leave to remain close to their homes, unless they obtain the company's permission?
Would that policy infringe on an employee's FMLA rights?
The answers are after the jump.
As some of you may know, word has surfaced about a Complaint that the National Labor Relations Board filed last week against a NY non-profit. The NLRB alleges that company fired five employees for complaining on Facebook about working conditions.
The NLRB has issued a press release and much has already been written about this Complaint by some great employment-law bloggers. So be sure to check out the links below:
- "NLRB Issues Another Complaint Against An Employer For Facebook-Related Terminations" by Seth Borden at Labor Relations Today
- "NLRB issues another complaint over a Facebook termination" by Jon Hyman at Ohio Employer's Law Blog.
- "NLRB vs. Social Media: The Battle Continues" by Molly DiBianca at The Delaware Employment Law Blog
- "Another NLRB Facebook Case" by Jeffrey M. Hirsch at Workplace Prof Blog
Have a great weekend.
Photo credit: moremashup.com
More on this amazing story after the jump.
If, in a pending civil action, the defendant requests to Facebook "friend" the plaintiff in order to learn more about the plaintiff's claims, must the plaintiff accept the friend request?
This is precisely the issue that a PA Court of Common Pleas recently faced.
So, what happened? Find out after the jump.
Earlier this month, a Pennsylvania federal court held that plaintiffs in a contractual-dispute matter must reimburse the defendants, who prevailed on summary judgment, for all costs that the defendants incurred in the production of e-discovery.
Now that's a hammer!
More on this decision and how it might apply in an employee lawsuit against an employer, after the jump.
Although the Americans with Disabilities Act does not protect employees or applicants who use illegal drugs, it does protect those who are "participating in a supervised rehabilitation program, have successfully such a program, or who have otherwise been rehabilitated successfully."
Does that mean that an employer cannot refuse to hire someone who, on the day after he completes a drug rehab program, applies for work?
Find out, after the jump.
I had trouble sleeping last night.
If you read yesterday's post, you know that when deciding between a post about an NFL cheerleader who was fired for risque pictures mailed to the Indianapolis Colts versus labor law and Twitter, I chose labor law and Twitter.
I won't make the same mistake twice. So, without further ado, I have the
pictures federal-court complaint of the fired cheerleader and a brief rundown of her chances of success.
***Oh, Twitter. I can't stay mad at you. I'll give you a foot rub -- right after I finish this can of Four Loko.***
Don't judge me. Just skip past the jump. TGIF, yo.
I was considering three topics for today's post:
- A teacher who was fired for watching 67 seconds of pornography;
- This smokin-hot cheerleader, fired for the NSFW-version of the photo on the right, who has filed a national-origin discrimination claim against the Indianapolis Colts; or
- A National Labor Relations Board Advice Memorandum on employee use of Twitter in the workplace.
I went with No. 3. I stand by my decision.
Now, how do I erase my browser history?
While I figure that out, you hit jump for more on why the National Labor Relations Board found no unfair labor practice when: (a) a unionized newspaper company, (b) with no social media policy, (c) which encouraged its employees to use Twitter, fired a reporter based on a few tweets.
* * *
If you guessed 15 minutes, you would be right, according to a recent decision from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
And you don't need to point a gun at the employee's head? A
rusty fork in the doo-dads "knowing and intelligent" waiver based on a "totality of the circumstances" will suffice.
What are those circumstances? Find out after the jump.
* * *