Talk about a pissed-off plaintiff.
When the new amendments to the the Americans with Disabilities Act took effect in 2009, the law became more employee-friendly by expanding the definition of what constitutes a disability.
That said, the law doesn’t (yet) require an employer to have a sixth sense about whether a disabled employee requires a reasonable accommodation.
Generally, an employee has to ask for it. Or, as we find out after the jump, an ADA failure-to-accommodate lawsuit is pretty much doomed.
Why, just the other night, I playing my 5-year-old son in a friendly game of Uno.
Well, it was friendly-ish in a cutthroat sorta way. At least, that’s what the look on his tear-stained face suggested to me when I mouthed “Uno,” shimmied, and spiked my final card to win my fourth game in a row.
Now, some would say that I took it a bit too far when I collected his tears, and then painted them on my face to mock his crying.
On the clock or off, when employees do dumb stuff on Facebook, it could cost them their jobs. And, apparently, their discrimination claims against their former employer too.
Yep, another employee screwed up online. Go figure.
More on that 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.”
Peep this ADA failure-to-accommodate case. Plaintiff is disabled and requests light duty. However, the evidence presented showed that there were no light duty positions available and the plaintiff presented no evidence to the contrary.
In denying the plaintiff’s ADA claim, the court underscored that it’s the plaintiff’s burden to show that a requested reasonable accommodation exists and is available. Otherwise, my friends, if it’s not available, then it’s not reasonable.
Plus, it may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act too.
How one company’s alleged blunder turned into an ADA lawsuit and a blog post at https://www.theemployerhandbook.com…after the jump…
Because all the other blogs will say “paramour” or “lover” in the lede, and I need to remain relevant (or “down,” if you will) with my more trendy readers.
Over the weekend, I read this case in which a male plaintiff alleged discrimination because his supervisor was allegedly schtupping a female subordinate and treating her better.
(The court said “voluntary romantic affiliation,” but why say in three words, what you can say in one).
Just in case you thought that the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission uses a soft touch towards any business that may discriminate — let alone a charity.
Earlier this week, the EEOC announced here that Goodwill Industries will pay $100,000 to settle a long-standing retaliation lawsuit.
In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that Goodwill retaliated against a worker by firing her after she testified on behalf of another Goodwill employee in a previous federal sex and age discrimination lawsuit.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RvNS7JfcMM
Before law school was even on the radar for me, I knew that coitus on office furniture was a workplace no-no. And ignorance is not a defense.
But, maybe Seinfeld isn’t a thing in Indiana.
The Employer Handbook Blog