Search
The Employer Handbook Blog
Articles Posted in Discrimination and Unlawful Harassment
Three pitfalls to avoid when setting essential job functions and determining ADA accommodations
A few months ago, I was waxing poetic about plutonium, how to establish essential job functions, and quality-testing diet scrapple. What got into me?
Now, I’ve got a cautionary tale, in the form of a recent federal court opinion, to help you good folks navigate away from some of the Americans with Disabilities Act traps. Lest you like litigation and lawyer bills.
2d Cir kicks the can on LGBT rights at work under Title VII. None yet, but maybe soon…
It was déjà vu all over again yesterday.
In its much anticipated decision in Christiansen v. Omnicom Group, Inc. (opinion here), the Second Circuit concluded that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not cover discrimination based on sexual orientation.
70,000 reasons not to fire a witness for participating in a sexual harassment investigation
You wouldn’t fire someone because they complained to you about sexual harassment at work. For starters, that would violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
But, Title VII’s anti-retaliation provisions are much broader than that.
No, not even the ADA requires accommodating an alcoholic’s DUI-related incarceration
By Versageek (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons
Allowing an alcoholic to attend AA to remain clean and sober? That works.
But, accommodating an alcoholic who “falls off the wagon,” gets a DUI, and needs time off from work because he is incarcerated? Not so much.
2d Cir: Pharmacists must inject customers. Oh, word?
No, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals didn’t say, “Oh, word?” But, it did just toss a $2,600,000 jury award in favor of a pharmacist in an Americans With Disabilities Act case.
Skip the vodka, but consider some other bar rules for your workplace.
_in_Hamburg_2.jpg "By Achim Schleuning (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons")
A few weeks ago, a reader emailed me and asked if I would weigh in on how businesses should address employees talking about politics at work.
On the one hand, in the private sector, there are no First Amendment Rights. Free speech is a big myth. ( I suppose that the National Labor Relations Act could muddy the waters a bit; but, for this post, let’s pretend it doesn’t). And there’s practically nothing that would prevent a private employer from clamping down on employee discussions about politics at work.
On the other hand, an employer could violate bar rules and condone political speech. However, that could lead to problems for the employer, as in bad press or a lawsuit.
Which of you hot shot lawyers wants to join an employment law panel with me?
You folks in HR don’t have to read any further. Go do yeoman’s work today by putting the “human” in human resources. Or whatever it is you do each day.
But, the lawyers. Let’s see if I can thaw some of your icy hearts with an irresistible invitation and offer.
Doggone it! When an employee is allergic to a coworker’s service animal.
Who knew?
I received a lot of feedback on last week’s post. That was the one about an EEOC lawsuit alleging that a company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it allegedly failed to accommodate a disabled employee’s request to use a service dog.
Among the reader feedback was a question about what happens when permitting an employee to use a service dog would cause another employee’s pet allergies to flare up.
11th Circuit: It’s perfectly legal to discriminate against someone because she is gay
On Friday, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, generally considered one of the more conservative appellate courts, issued a mixed-bag ruling in a high-profile LGBT-rights case. Continue reading