There is no federal law that specifically prohibits obesity discrimination. But is the Americans with Disabilities Act broad enough to cover discrimination against the obese? Well, if you read my blog regularly — Hi Dad! — you know that a hyper-obese Homer Simpson is not disabled, but this 680-pound Texas may be. So, we need a tiebreaker! And, it just so happens that I have one, after the jump…
Back in June, I discussed here how the EEOC was discussing the use of leave from work as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. The question I asked back then was how much leave is reasonable? When is enough, enough?
Well, I can tell you now — and I suppose I could have told you then — that indefinite leave is generally not an option for employees (unless the employer acquiesces). At least that’s what one federal court ruled last week. Details after the jump…
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…
The Employer Handbook Blog