In yesterday’s post, we looked at whether a morbidly-obese employee is protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Today, let’s apply yesterday’s discussion to a “real-world” example. Is Homer Simpson disabled? And is the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant legally obligated to offer him a reasonable accommodation? The answers after the jump…
* * *
Recently, the EEOC sued a Texas company, alleging that the company engaged in disability discrimination, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, when it fired a 680-pound worker because he was morbidly obese.
Is that right? Can being overweight be considered a “disability” under federal law? And, if so, what can companies do to find themselves staring down the barrel of loaded ADA lawsuit? I’ll answer these questions after the jump.
* * *
Your business drug tests job applicants as a condition of employment. What would happen if a male applicant refused to take a urine test because he claimed that he had paruresis, otherwise known as “shy bladder syndrome” or “bashful bladder syndrome”? Would you have to accommodate the applicant with a different type of drug test? Or could you just refuse to hire the applicant?
The EEOC recently addressed this topic and I have the answer — along with some self-deprecation — after the jump…
* * *
An eligible employee may take up to 12 workweeks of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act in a 12-month period. If an employee exhausts all of her FMLA leave and fails to return to work after the 12 weeks are up, can’t the company simply fire the employee? Well, it may not be that easy, as you’ll find out after the jump…
That’s right folks. It’s time for another edition of “Fact or Fiction” a/k/a “Quick Answers to Quick Questions” a/k/a QATQQ f/k/a “I don’t feel like writing a long blog post”.
The answer to today’s question is fact.
i·ro·ny (noun) [ahy-ruh-nee]: an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has sued The Scooter Store, a purveyor of power chairs for the disabled, for disability discrimination.
That’s right folks. It’s time for another edition of “Fact or Fiction” a/k/a “Quick Answers to Quick Questions” a/k/a QATQQ f/k/a “I don’t feel like writing a long blog post”.
The answer to today’s question is fiction. Pregnancy is not a “disability” for purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act. To be considered a disability under the ADA, covered persons must actually have physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities. Pregnancy is not considered an impairment under the law.
Management-side employment lawyers preach it until they are blue in the face: companies should always document employee performance and disciplinary issues.
Why is this so important? A real-world example follows after the jump…
Welcome back to “Fact or Fiction” a/k/a “Quick Answers to Quick Questions” a/k/a QATQQ f/k/a “I don’t feel like writing a long blog post”.
So, is a miniature horse a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act? Maybe.
The Employment Law Blog Carnival has finally rolled into town.
What is a blog carnival? It is a collection of links on a particular topic — here, employment law — that bloggers have submitted to me, which I then arrange around a particular theme.
For this edition of the Carnival, it’s DJ-ESkeelz on the one and two, with a music-themed employment-law blog carnival. I’ve got 13 hot joints (read: 13 links to employment-law articles from some of the blogosphere’s best…)
The Employer Handbook Blog