When Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendment Act, which went into effect on January 1, 2009, it indicated that one of its purposes was to “convey that the question of whether an individual’s impairment is a disability under the ADA should not demand extensive analysis.”
I vaguely recall some of the floor discussion in anticipation of the passage of the ADAAA:
“I yield to the Senator.”
Last night, I read this press release from the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, announcing a $2 million recovery for 50 male employees of a New Mexico automobile dealership.
What happened, you say? From the press release:
“In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged a former lot manager, James Gallegos, under the direction of Charles Ratliff, Jr., then general manager, with subjecting a class of men to egregious forms of sexual harassment, including shocking sexual comments, frequent solicitations for oral sex, and regular touching, grabbing, and biting of male workers on their buttocks and genitals. The EEOC also alleged that Pitre retaliated against male employees who objected to the sexually hostile work environment. During the pendency of the lawsuit, the retaliatory actions of Pitre raised such concern that a U.S. District Court judge granted a preliminary injunction against Pitre, prohibiting the dealership and all of its agents from threatening or engaging in retaliatory actions against case participants.”
On Monday, it was public urination.
Yesterday, we had indecent proposals.
And today, the blogging gods, in which I hold a sincerely-held belief, serve me up this federal court opinion about an alcoholic named David Crosby — not that David Crosby, but still — who sued his former employer for supposedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, as a result of his termination of employment after a 30-day stint in rehab.
Oh, sweet child! Someone catch me; I do believe I have the vapors.
Let us rejoice in the bounty together, after the jump…
Terribly sorry about the confusion created by my sloppy use of possessive pronouns in today’s lede. The “his” wife refers to the employee’s wife. Otherwise, this post doesn’t make any sense, does it? (Don’t spend too much time contemplating the question, ok).
Yep, just another Tuesday at The Employer Handbook.
Click through for what should prove to be a cluster of a gender discrimination claim contain many valuable takeaways for proactive employers.
I’m pretty sure Larry David had this written into the Seinfeld Parking Garage episode before making a last-minute script change to uromysitis.
I would have stuck with the former. But, Mr. David is a comedic genius and I just write this crappy blog.
How bad is this blog, you ask? I was contemplating using the words “wicked pissah” in the lede, only to realize that I’d already used them.
Then again, you’re the ones reading this. Go ahead. Click through to read more after the jump…
* * *
Let’s say that you have an employee whom the Americans with Disabilities Act would consider disabled and to whom you have afforded a reasonable accommodation for a long time.
Maybe it’s a few years of light duty to accommodate your employee’s bad back. Maybe it’s keeping your employee with medically-documented sleeping issues off of the graveyard shift.
Or maybe, like in this case, it’s allowing an employee who takes morning meds for ADD and bipolar disorder to arrive to work a late, so the meds can kick in. Indeed, for 2 1/2 years, the employee in this particular situation was accommodated with modified start time.
Yesterday, I read with interest Jon Hyman’s post at the Ohio Employer’s Law Blog about how Target has employed a 14-minute training video to help keep its workplace union free. Gawker has posted a copy of the video here. Like a bear crapping in the woods, Gawker pokes fun of the Target video. Cheesiness aside, I find it to be pretty effective.
But Target ain’t got nothing on Subaru of Wichita. (h/t Jeff Nowak)
(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1”; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));
Has the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Vance v. Ball State been keeping you up at night?
*** logs IP numbers; obtains restraining orders ***
Well, ok. I can see why some of you are sour on the 2013 Supreme Court decision holding that an employee is a “supervisor” for purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only if he or she is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim.
I can actually feel the daggers that some of you are staring into me.
So, please allow me to reintroduce myself. My name is H-O explain.
How to demonstrate sexual harassment
Late last year, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission scored a big victory when a federal judge found apparel company Abercrombie & Fitch liable for religious discrimination when it fired a Muslim employee for wearing her hijab (a religious headscarf) in the workplace, rather than accommodating her religious beliefs.
On the heels of this win, the EEOC has just issued new guidance about how federal employment discrimination law applies to religious dress and grooming practices, and what steps employers can take to meet their legal responsibilities in this area.
You can view the press release here, a fact sheet here, and a FAQ here.
The Employer Handbook Blog