The Employer Handbook generally likes to end the year on a classy, high note. Consequently….
The Smoking Gun reports here that, earlier this month, the Social Security Administration issued this 5-page formal reprimand to an employee for his “awful and unpleasant” flatulence.
{As opposed to my ambrosial flatulence. So lovely.}
“Oy, Sharon! Will you help me out here?”
“Come on, Ozzy! Yellow in the front, brown in —.”
“Bloody hell, Sharon! I’m trying to comprehend this federal court decision from the District of Minnesota.”
You have an employee who hurts herself on the job and becomes disabled. Although she recovers to the point where she can perform the essential functions of her position without the need for accommodation, she requests a transfer to another one of your facilities so that she has better access to ongoing medical treatment.
Does the law require you to grant that transfer?
In this recent case (Sanchez v. Vilsack), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination in federal employment, and courts interpret like the Americans with Disabilities Act, may require this.
Translation: Recent HR / employment law developments that Meyer missed a/k/a Meyer needs to clear out his folder of bookmarked employment-law items to make room for his dork dorkier Fantasy Baseball bookmarks. Pitchers and catchers report in just over two months.
- More courts weigh in on social-media discovery issues. “Good news. My doctor says that the itching and redness should subside in a few days.” Recent court decisions (here and here) roadmap how you can access this and other Facebook status updates from your former employee who is now suing you. Have fun with that.
- Other social-media-related litigation. A firefighter, allegedly terminated for critical Facebook comments, has settled his wrongful discharge claim (here). Facebook posts doom another employee’s FMLA claims (here). The National Labor Relations Board crapped all over another employer’s social-media policy (here). Choking back laughter (at least that’s how I envision it), a Massachusetts Court denied
another(the first ever?) hair salon’s claim that a former stylist’s job posting on Facebook violated a non-solicitation agreement agreement (here).
Today we have a guest blogger at The Employer Handbook. It’s Mary Ellen Ellis. May Ellen writes for Paralegal 411, a career resource for individuals interested in starting a career in the paralegal field.
(Want to guest blog at The Employer Handbook? Email me).
William Wengert is HIV-positive. He worked as a certified nursing assistant for Phoebe Ministries, until he was terminated last year following an incident in which a resident suffered a broken leg. The company claimed that the incident with the resident precipitated the firing. Conversely, Wengert alleged that the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by terminating him because of his HIV-positive status.
Now, let’s pause there for a second. I think we can all agree that just because a disabled employee — unquestionably, being HIV-positive is an ADA-disability — is fired, does not mean that the employer has violated the ADA. There could be many legitimate business reasons that could trigger an adverse employment actions (e.g., $$$, performance, discipline, etc.).
Legitimate business reasons aside, the Wengert Court (opinion here) highlighted that “disabilities are often unknown to the employer.” Therefore, “the requirement that plaintiff show he is disabled implies a requirement that the plaintiff show employer knew of employee’s disability.” In Wengert, the plaintiff could not demonstrate that anyone involved in his firing knew that he was HIV-positive. Therefore, Wengert’s disability could not have motivated his termination. Thus, no disability discrimination.
Today we have a guest blogger at The Employer Handbook. It’s one of my readers, Joseph Ginarte. Joseph is an employment lawyer with Ginarte, O’Dwyer, Gonzalez, Gallardo Winograd.
Like his post? Feel free to email him some comments!
(Want to guest blog at The Employer Handbook? Email me).
* * *
From the blog that brought you “Can a bridge worker with a fear of heights have a viable ADA claim?,” comes news of a recent federal-court decision which — well — you read the title to this blog post.
In RRRRRRRRRRRRRRico v. Xcel Energy, Inc. [cue music] the plaintiff, an apprentice lineman working for a utility company, was ordered by his doctor not to climb utility poles due to a back injury suffered on the job. The plaintiff alleges that he sought a transfer and, instead of getting that transfer, was terminated and told to apply for long-term-disability benefits. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant then offered him a job at a lower rate of pay as a “substation electrician,” which the plaintiff accepted. The defendant allegedly also eliminated Plaintiff’s three years of seniority as an apprentice lineman.
The plaintiff subsequently sued for disability discrimination. The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s back injury was not a disability, as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act. The court, however, disagreed and kept the case alive so that the plaintiff could develop a factual record which may indicate that his back injury “substantially limits [his] to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.”
Much has been written lately in the blawgosphere about telecommuting as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act for qualifying disabled employees.
Last month, Jon Hyman posted (here) about this case, in which a federal court in Ohio held that telecommuting may be a reasonable accommodation based on the unique facts concerning the employee and the workplace — and that issue was up to a jury to determine.
Earlier this month, I came across another case (EEOC v. Ford Motor Co.), in which a Michigan federal court also recognized that telecommuting may be a reasonable accommodation. However, unlike the prior Ohio decision, the Michigan court recognized that there are some telecommuting arrangements that are just so impractical that no jury would conclude that telecommuting is a reasonable accommodation.
The Employer Handbook Blog
1. Yoga