Search
Next time, just give her the damn stool.

Last night, I went shopping on Amazon for a new stool. Continue reading

Last night, I went shopping on Amazon for a new stool. Continue reading

I won’t bury the lede, which I’ll quote from the Fourth Circuit decision I read last night. Continue reading

You’re not a doctor.
(Unless you’re a doctor.)
So don’t act like one when deciding which of your employees may be a direct threat to others at work.
(Unless you like defending Americans with Disabilities Act claims). Continue reading

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with disabilities who are employees or applicants for employment. However, the ADA does not require an employer to assist a person without a disability due to that person’s association with someone with a disability. Still, an employer cannot discriminate against an employee or applicant because of that person’s association with someone with a disability.
It’s called associational discrimination.
Federal anti-discrimination laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, help ensure that individuals with disabilities have the same rights and opportunities at work as everyone else.
Both laws require employers to provide individuals with disabilities with reasonable accommodations if needed to perform the essential functions of their jobs. However, when a failure-to-accommodate claim gets litigated, the onus is on the employee to establish that they could perform their jobs, even with reasonable accommodations.

A few months ago, I blogged about a lawsuit in which the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleged that an employer denied a deaf job applicant’s accommodation request and terminated his candidacy because verbal communication and hearing were job requirements for the position in a remote setting.
Late last month, that case settled for $150,000.
But writing a check is only the beginning for this employer. Continue reading

Wait, Eric! Didn’t you blog about this yesterday? Continue reading

“Eric, we have an employee who needed four weeks off for hip surgery. We provided it. After the surgery, they requested three more months off to have a second surgery. We provided it. Then, they experienced even more complications that required even more surgery, and their doctor told us they couldn’t work with or without accommodations for an additional three to six months. Do we have to accommodate this too?” Continue reading

In my day, televisions had antennas, which you had to position just right to watch one of three channels, and I’m turning into my parents.
Let’s talk about Family and Medical Leave Act interference instead. Continue reading