Across the country, many states and localities have enacted ban-the-box legislation. In a nutshell, ban the box means that employers cannot inquire about an applicant’s criminal history until after the first job interview.

For example, Philadelphia has ban the box. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not.

Still, Pennsylvania does have the Criminal History Record Information Act. But, indeed, a Pennsylvania federal court ruled on Wednesday that the Act and ban the box are two separate things:

CHRIA does not preclude an employer from revoking a conditional offer of employment based on a good faith belief than an applicant intentionally withheld material information on his employment application in violation of the employer’s policies.

Just be sure that, if you are asking about criminal history on a job application, you don’t operate in a ban-the-box town or city. And, even if you don’t, remember that under the Act precludes employers from basing employment decisions on misdemeanors and summary convictions that do not render an applicant unsuitable for employment. And basing an employment decision on a mere arrest…fuggedaboudit. Like my arrest for male prostitution doesn’t make me unfit to be a lawyer.

(If only my blogging platform had a double strikethrough).

You're Invited.jpg

What if…

I’m just saying, what if you could attend an event — a free event, with breakfast — and you get to hear me speak for an hour and fifteen about social media in the workplace and other hot workplace issues, and then grill me during a Q&A?

That would suck, right? Because, apart from the breakfast, who wants to hear me speak for an hour and fifteen minutes?

So, how about something better — couldn’t be worse, amirite?

How about a panel discussion featuring, oh, I dunno…

Well, hey now! Direct access to three of the most influential workplace decisionmakers in our government. And I’m the moderator. (Oh, alright! You get the free breakfast too).

Is your heart racing? Your pulse quickening? That’s not the morning coffee you’re feeling. 

Geared to human resources professionals, business owners, and in-house counsel, this incredible collaboration will dish at an event entitled “Social Media @Work – The #BalancingAct Between Employer and Employee.” We’ll cover a variety of hot topics such as: 

  • Establishing social media policies that withstand legal scrutiny
  • Exploring the impact of social media on hiring decisions
  • Determining how far is too far when it comes to sharing workplace information online

Beyond social media, each speaker will address other emerging workplace issues at their respective agencies and take your questions. And, because I love you guys, this program has been approved for 1.25 HR/General recertification credit hours toward PHR, SPHR and GPHR recertification through the HR Certification Institute.

You want in on this? Yeah, you do…

Social Media @Work
The #BalancingAct Between Employer and Employee

Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Breakfast: 8 a.m.
Program: 8:45 a.m. – 10 a.m.
National Constitution Center
525 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106

Limited tickets available here.

.

littletwitter.pngBoth before and during the event, follow along and tweet using #BalancingActlittletwitter.png

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…

Continue reading

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 ***

* * *

Continue reading

After scoring a touchdown on Monday night, Kansas City Chiefs safety Husain Abdullah dropped to his knees and prayed.

Kinda like this.

As Kevin Draper at Deadspin.com reports (here), a tweet from Abdullah’s brother further confirmed that the player’s post-TD celebration was a Muslim prayer.

Except the referees responded with a 15-yard penalty to the Chiefs for excessive celebration, for which the NFL later later accepted blame.

Oops.

What can employers learn from the NFL’s mistake? A few lessons on accommodating prayer in the workplace after the jump…

* * *

Continue reading

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….

* * *

Continue reading

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 **