I’ve blogged (here) that grilling a medical marijuana user about her disability, just before firing the employee, could give rise to a viable disability-discrimination claim. In other words, where the disability (as opposed to the medical marijuana use) motivates the employment action, that’s discrimination.
I’ve blogged before (here) that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not protect illegal drug use by employees. So, if the illegal drug use, and not the disability, motivates a company to fire an employee, that’s perfectly legal.
Because all of the images of Colonel Jessup ordering a Code Red are copyright protected, you get this one of Jack. But, better than Jack, today you get
Wednesday’s Powerball jackpot numbers a guest post from my colleague, Jordan Rand. In addition to having a half-decent jump shot, Jordan is developing a niche practice in cyber insurance, which could come in handy for many of you given the data breach risks that your employees present.
Anyway, check out Jordan’s post below. And, if you’re in or around Denver on February 17, check him out at the University Risk Management and Insurance Association’s Western Regional Conference, where he’s presenting “Cyber 2.0: What We’ve Learned So Far and What We Haven’t.”
You know, being a client of the Blogger King has its perks. (That’s me. I’m the Blogger King). When I’m not litigating and counseling on employment-related issues, I’m taking blog post requests and emailing weekly updates of HR goodies that don’t make it onto the blog.
But, with my DropBox and Pocket chock full of recent cases, I’ll summarize the recent biggies.
Yesterday, I had one of those moments. You know the ones.
For me, it was when a client asked me when I was going to blog about the Muslim workers in Colorado who were denied prayer breaks and, then, allegedly fired for protesting.
So, I did what any self respecting employment-lawyer-blogger would do: I Googled “Muslim Prayer Employee Protest Colorado Fired,” and I promised a client-inspired Wednesday post.
Last year, I discussed (here) a case in which the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued an employer for retaliation under Title VII. Now, retaliation is the most common claim employment discrimination claim. But, what made this particular claim unusual was the EEOC’s attack on the employer’s use of
knife-wielding monkeys to coerce settlement fairly common settlement provisions that you guys probably use in your severance agreements (e.g., a general release, a non-disparagement obligation, a confidentiality provision, a covenant not to sue, and a cooperation clause).
Late last year, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in. And it didn’t end well for the EEOC.
Back when the Lamborghini Countach poster was in your bedroom, spinach and artichoke dip was on the menu, and it was hip to be square, this image would have been fitting for this blog — what’s a blog?!?! — post.
Yes, there was a time when a secret recording in the workplace implied an expectation of privacy in whatever conversation was recorded. But, now, everyone has a smartphone and, with a few quick thumb taps, an easy way to audio or video record anything and everything.
So, who among us has a reasonable expectation of privacy at work?
According to the National Labor Relations Board, practically no one who works for the company.