Many of us, including me, have a loved one or friend who has suffered through mental illness. With proper treatment, counseling and support, the symptoms may be controllable. However, sometimes medication and treatment aren’t enough.
Mental illness, which generally qualifies as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, can disrupt the workplace. And, it can create a big problem where the employee is a threat to himself or others. Continue reading
Can a person whose job is to ensure that the company follows a particular standard of care; i.e., a watchdog employee, bring an action against the company under New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), the state’s whistleblower law?
In case you missed it, earlier this month, the New Jersey Supreme Court answered this question (here) with a resounding yes! The logic is that CEPA is a very broad, remedial statute, and there is nothing in the letter of the law that carves away protections for watchdog employees. Therefore, when an employee “blows the whistle” on an unlawful (or what he/she reasonably believes is an unlawful) employer activity, that employee may have a claim under CEPA — even if the whistleblower is employed as, well, a whistleblower.
Image Credit: By Metal_whistle.jpg: Markus Schweissderivative work: MichaelFrey (Metal_whistle.jpg) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons
Yesterday, the Americans with Disabilities Act turned 25. To celebrate the 25th anniversary, the EEOC has created a new resource (here), which addresses the state of the ADA, lists important milestones, and offers links to a series of ADA resources.
Back when I first started this blog, when I believed that my blogging success would translate into Aston Martins and beach homes, rather than “Can you please email me a copy of your FMLA PowerPoint?”, I had a series of “Third Circuit Employment Law 101” posts. Well, I don’t think I’ve done a “101” post for nearly 5 years. Time to break that streak.
Oh, hold on a sec, I need to respond to another PowerPoint-request email…
On Monday, I got into last week’s EEOC ruling that sexual-orientation discrimination is sex discrimination and, therefore, violates Title VII. Yesterday, I took up the First Amendment Defense Act, which has been described by the ACLU as “Indiana on Steroids.”
Last Friday, I briefly mentioned the EEOC’s recent decision, in which it concluded that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal anti-discrimination law that bans employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, and sex, also forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual). The EEOC concluded that sex discrimination also takes into account “sex-based considerations,” which includes sexual orientation. Continue reading