Search
The Employer Handbook BlogCaught playing golf during his leave, court slices plaintiff’s ADEA claim
See what I did there?
(Yes, folks, it was either that or a riff on clown’s mouths and windmills).
Articles Posted in Discrimination and Unlawful Harassment
Consider requiring your new independent contractors to release employment claims
What the hell are you talking about, Eric? Why would we make an independent contractor sign a release of employment claims before starting work for our company?
So glad you asked. Although, I’m not sure I like your tone.
*** takes pills ***
Many years ago, Allstate Insurance restructured its business, where it decided to longer have employees; only independent contractors. So, it offered its employees a bunch of options. One option was a severance; another was the ability to convert to independent contractor status. Either way, the individual had to release all past and presented employment-related claims agains the company.
When the EEOC got wind of the conversion option, they cried retaliation.
Fired from her job, a “sleepy” “armed security guard” may have an ADA claim
Yesterday, I read about a woman who alleged that her former employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it fired her from her “armed security guard” position because of a medical condition. This notwithstanding that, in her complaint, the plaintiff admitted to being presented with pictures taken of her which appeared to show her sleeping on the job. In response, the plaintiff told the company that she was taking medication that made her “sleepy.”
Does this sound familiar?
Well, it should, because we’ve covered this before. An employee who, because is a disability, may have a tendency to fall asleep at work, could still be qualified to perform the essential functions of the job.
Don’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…
* * *
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.