Yesterday, the EEOC released its FY2015 Enforcement and Litigation Data. Consistent with prior years, claims of retaliation continue to dominate (44.5% of all claims filed with the EEOC). Race is second (34.7%). But, it’s disability discrimination — up a whopping 6% from 2014 — that should have your attention.
Like a couple of sexting rabbits, a female employee and her male supervisor carrying on like, well, a pair of sexting rabbits. And, then, after the defendant-company fires the plaintiff-employee, she sues and claims that she was subjected to quid pro quo sexual harassment.
So, could it have gotten to the point that unwelcomed sexting became a required term or condition of the plaintiff’s employment?
YASSSSS!!!!
Oh, thank you blogging gods for this generous clusterfunked bounty. Please accept this offering from your humble minion.
Happy Monday. Like my amateur Photoshop? No? Well, then, how about a little music….
(You can put your middle fingers down now).
When was the last time that you trained your managers and supervisors on how to address disability accommodation requests? Or, how about the last time that you reminded your supervisors and managers that an employee with a disability needs to be treated respectfully?
If it’s been a while (or, maybe, I dunno, forever), have I got a case for you!
I’ve blogged (here) that grilling a medical marijuana user about her disability, just before firing the employee, could give rise to a viable disability-discrimination claim. In other words, where the disability (as opposed to the medical marijuana use) motivates the employment action, that’s discrimination.
I’ve blogged before (here) that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not protect illegal drug use by employees. So, if the illegal drug use, and not the disability, motivates a company to fire an employee, that’s perfectly legal.
That was my KitKat! Spit it out! Spit it out, dammit! Hey, hey, turn off that camera!
Over the weekend, after the Hershey’s Chocolate World shenanigans, I read a Fifth Circuit FMLA retaliation opinion that, unfortunately, read like so many prior employment legal skirmishes.
You know, being a client of the Blogger King has its perks. (That’s me. I’m the Blogger King). When I’m not litigating and counseling on employment-related issues, I’m taking blog post requests and emailing weekly updates of HR goodies that don’t make it onto the blog.
But, with my DropBox and Pocket chock full of recent cases, I’ll summarize the recent biggies.
Yesterday, I had one of those moments. You know the ones.
For me, it was when a client asked me when I was going to blog about the Muslim workers in Colorado who were denied prayer breaks and, then, allegedly fired for protesting.
So, I did what any self respecting employment-lawyer-blogger would do: I Googled “Muslim Prayer Employee Protest Colorado Fired,” and I promised a client-inspired Wednesday post.
Last year, I discussed (here) a case in which the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued an employer for retaliation under Title VII. Now, retaliation is the most common claim employment discrimination claim. But, what made this particular claim unusual was the EEOC’s attack on the employer’s use of knife-wielding monkeys to coerce settlement fairly common settlement provisions that you guys probably use in your severance agreements (e.g., a general release, a non-disparagement obligation, a confidentiality provision, a covenant not to sue, and a cooperation clause).
Late last year, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in. And it didn’t end well for the EEOC.
The Employer Handbook Blog
