Search
The Employer Handbook BlogDon’t tolerate a supervisor’s racial slurs. Not even a few. Just don’t.
Even a few stray remarks can land your business in hot water…as one employer recently learned.
More after the jump…
* * *
Articles Posted in Discrimination and Unlawful Harassment
No, really. Demanding an employee’s social security number isn’t religious discrimination
Remember that blog post I had from July of last year, the one you contemplated getting tattooed on your back.
Yeah, you know the one. This one, silly. About the Fundamentalist Christian, who, upon filling out his new-employee paperwork, refused to provide a social security number because it would cause him to have the “Mark of the Beast.” So, he sought a religious accommodation, which the company refused to provide because obtaining a social security number is a federal requirement.
Welp, the employee appealed the decision to a federal appellate court?
How you think that turned out? Find out after the jump…
* * *
Goodbye, Ruby Tuesday. EEOC hung sex discrimination on you.
I’ve got some apples reverse sex discrimination on the menu today.
How you like dem apples?
More after the jump…
* * *
152,000 reasons for employers to consider discrimination with drug testing and haircuts
After the jump, what employers can learn from a possibly botched drug test and the failure to hire a Rastafarian
(Or an excuse for me to make gratuitous True Romance references).
* * *
#SOTU and the #Workplace: A full debriefing of last night’s Presidential address
I had every intention of watching the President address the Nation last night. I really did.
But, then I got sucked into the Director’s Cut of The Harlem Globetrotters on Gilligan’s Island, the one where the Washington Generals show up first and replace all the confetti with lice. Then poor Lovie Howell takes some shrapnel and, frankly, I didn’t realize that Thurston could order a hit squad so quickly to a remote Island.
By the time I remembered the SOTU, the Harlem Globetrotters were busting out a ladder — sorry, Krusty — and que sera.
Fortunately for me, and, by extension, you, the White House printed a copy of the SOTU, which I could cut and paste expertly analyze for you after the jump…
* * *
FACT OR FICTION: To protect a pregnant employee, a company can make her stay home.
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.”
Oh, if I had a nickel for every time I got this question from an employer, “Hey Eric. We have this pregnant employee and she is very close to term. We’re concerned that if she continues working all the way up to childbirth, she may harm herself or the fetus. Can we require her to stay home?”
Eek! Check out this recent press release from the EEOC in which the agency announced that it is suing an employer, which allegedly required a pregnant employee to take unpaid leave until she was cleared by a doctor indicating that she could work despite her pregnancy. The EEOC further alleges, when the employee failed to provide a release, and after she and her mother disputed the legality of the requirement, the employee was fired in retaliation.
I was right. This appellate court employment-law decision was one of the worst of 2014.
About a year ago, I blogged here about a dreadful Sixth Circuit opinion, in which the court concluded that the plaintiff may have a discrimination claim for receiving the specific transfer he requested (after having interviewed for the position).
Now, if you read the comments on my post, you’ll see that some of my readers took issue with my analysis of the case.
Well, I see your comments and raise you a scathing Justice Alito dissent from the United States Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari:
Saks claims transsexual discrimination is legal. And here’s why they’re probably right.
Over the weekend, I joined a Facebook thread discussing a recent federal court complaint filed in Texas by a former Saks employee, Leyth O. Jamal. Ms. Jamal claims that Saks violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by discriminating against her because she is transsexual.
Saks claims (here) that the complaint lacks merit because Title VII doesn’t prohibit discrimination against transgender employees.
Writing for Slate.com, Mark Joseph Stern calls out Saks’ “trans-bashing legal strategy” as “legally untenable.” Underscoring the Supreme Court’s decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, Mr. Stern notes that Title VII forbids sexual stereotyping. For example, in Price Waterhouse, the company allegedly treated Ms. Hopkins differently because she was “macho,” was “tough talking” and used “foul language.” That is, she didn’t conform to the company’s expectations of how a woman should act in the workplace.
It’s prolly not retaliation when you fire an employee who masturbates in your parking lot
Or, at least, when you honestly believe that one of your employees is masturbating in the parking lot.
(Unless, of course, you’re like by buddy Fred, who operates Parking Lot Self-Gratification, LLC).
Let’s just pretend that parenthetical remained in my head, ok?
After the jump, it’s a lesson on the law of retaliation involving the case of a school district employee who was fired for allegedly masturbating in a car…in the school parking lot…during school hours. And he claimed that his firing was retaliatory in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Allow that to sink in for a sec, then hit jump while I kiss the head of my golden blogging statuette and rub her belly…
* * *