Seems one employer may not have received the memo. Now, the EEOC is taking aim. More on this and some tips for employers to avoid pregnancy-accommodation traps, after the jump…
Remember that Americans with Disabilities Act case involving Walgreens and the $1.39 bag of chips. In that one, the store appeared to really step in it by firing a diabetic who ate a bag of chips from the store without paying for it. The employee claimed that she needed the chips for her diabetes. The store defended its actions by arguing that the employee violated its no-grazing policy. $180,000 later, that case settled.
I don’t know how much the chicken poppers sell for at Wal-Mart. And the case I read over the weekend involving the company’s no-grazing policy didn’t settle either…
Click for more…
Have you noticed a theme here at the blog this week?
I mean, other than the crappy posts.
Well, that and the crotch grabbing.
It’s been all about religious discrimination. Good ahead, scroll down the page, there they are.
And yesterday, the Supreme Court announced that it is going to decide EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., a case involving an employee who wore a headscarf (or “hijab”) to work for religious reasons, but was told to remove because it conflicted with Abercrombie’s clothing policy. The lower court granted summary judgment to the EEOC. The Tenth Circuit reversed and granted summary judgment for Abercrombie, concluding that the employee never informed Abercrombie that she needed a religious accommodation to wear the hijab at work.
Now, the Supreme Court will have to decide whether an employer can be liable under Title VII for refusing to hire an applicant or discharging an employee based on a “religious observance and practice” only if the employer has actual knowledge that a religious accommodation was required and the employer’s actual knowledge resulted from direct, explicit notice from the applicant or employee.
Prediction: Abercrombie wins. I can’t see how a majority of the Court concludes that anything less than actual notice of a particular individual’s sincerely-held beliefs would create a duty to accommodate them.
Remember yesterday, when I was talking about religious accommodations, I said, “Treat all religions equally.”
That same rule applies to casting out the evil devil of religious discrimination generally. Church!
After the jump, from my bloggerdome pulpit, I’m preaching my religion: employment law. All ye harassers, there is still time to repent! I will bring workplace salvation.
*** dodges lightning strike ***
After scoring a touchdown on Monday night, Kansas City Chiefs safety Husain Abdullah dropped to his knees and prayed.
Kinda like this.
Except the referees responded with a 15-yard penalty to the Chiefs for excessive celebration, for which the NFL later later accepted blame.
What can employers learn from the NFL’s mistake? A few lessons on accommodating prayer in the workplace after the jump…
Ok, technically, he was a “parking services officer.” But, he was working in a police department. And when you work in a police department as an officer, the odds are that you’ll need some weapons training.
Well, cue the jump where we learn whether a police department has to accommodate the religious beliefs of a Jehovah’s Witness who refuses weapons training….
The opinion contains the words “fingered,” “genital area,” and “sexual assault,” plus an allegation that the assailant tried to hit the plaintiff with her car in the mall parking lot. But, the court concluded that there was no sexual harassment, because none of these events “affected the conditions of her employment.”
** napalms Washington-bound resume; shreds ashes **
Bending iPhone6’s? Derek Jeter’s last home game in Yankee pinstripes? Attorney General Eric Holder to resign?
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was the one stealing the headlines yesterday — err, doing something that I decided to be most blogworthy.
Details on two historic lawsuits after the jump…
Wouldn’t it be great if two employment lawyers, one representing employees, another representing management, would discuss the employment-law implications of social media in the workplace on a Twitter chat? Then some other lawyers could chime in. And we’d have a moderator.
What’s the word I’m looking for? Dorky? A little. But no dorkier than what the rest of you dorks discuss on Twitter.
Well, anyway, we did all this yesterday. If you missed it, k
eep one eye open tonight; I’m coming for you in your sleep here it is!.