Over the Summer, I reported here that about companion Pennsylvania bills introduced in the House and Senate that would outlaw both sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in the workplace.
Each bill had bipartisan support, but it was unclear how Governor Corbett (R) would act if a bill was placed on his desk for his signature.
* * *
Let’s talk (alleged) big butts and discrimination after the jump…
(Sir Mix-a-Lot is gonna be feelin’ this post).
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.”
Yesterday, I read this opinion about a white man who claimed that he lost out on a middle school boys basketball coaching job because the school didn’t like the fact that he was married to an Asian ethnic Chinese woman and they have seven mixed race children.
The plaintiff claimed that the school violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The school filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the man could not state a claim under Title VII. The school prevailed because, well, I’ll let the court tell you:
You’ve got an employee with performance issues. Big time! Initially, rather than fire her, you make fun of her behind her back put her on a series of performance improvement plans. But, that doesn’t result in — oh, what’s the word I’m looking for? — improvement.
So, you fire her.
Ah, but here’s the little wrinkle for today’s post. The poor performer experienced frequent migraine headaches and struggled with pain and other symptoms caused by endometriosis. As a result of these conditions, she frequently requested medical leave under the Family Medical Leave Act, which you afforded her.
Given the poor performer’s medical issues, before firing her, did you have an obligation to engage in an interactive dialogue with her, consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act to determine whether her health issues caused her performance issues?
The answer follows after the jump…
An employee-plaintiff who claims that she was discriminated against under the Americans with Disabilities Act due to her pregnancy alone, will lose her ADA claim 10 times out of 10. This is because pregnancy is not a disability under the ADA.
But what if that same employee plaintiff with an ADA claim alleges that the discrimination relates not to her pregnancy, but rather to her morning sickness?
Hmmm….
The answer after the jump…
Generally speaking, those who wait five years to complain about perceived sexual harassment in the workplace, don’t win lawsuits if they are eventually fired.
But what happens when the complaint takes the form of a status update on Facebook? Does that offer the employee extra protection?
Find out after the jump…
Play some Skynyrd, man!
(Just pretend the song is about reckless indulgences in the workplace, rather than drugs and needles and such, k?)
Well, this is a new one for me.
Welcome everyone to the Employment Law Blog Carnival. What you’ll find after the jump is the best, recent posts from around the employment-law blogosphere all organized around a common theme.
So, yeah, we need a theme.
[Lousy blog rules]
Two years ago, we spun some tunes with the “Employment Law Blog Carnival: Jukebox Edition.” That featured such hits like “If You Love HIPAA, Let Me See You Twerk It” and a Sex Pistols B-side hidden track about social media policies.
Last year, I went with the “Employment Law Blog Carnival: Hollywood Casting Call Edition.” To the casual internet user, my writing in that post may have seemed, oh, what’s the word, “deranged”? Here is an actual quote:
Stuart Rudner blogs “When trust has been destroyed: Just cause for dismissal.” The Canadian adaptation, “Haste Makes Waste,” is set for release next year and stars Dustin Diamond as Wayne Gretzky. No, not that Wayne Gretzky. Just some guy who plays a total screw-up and happens to have the same name as the “Great One,” which, in turn, helps him to keep his job.
But, to you, my fans, you recognize it as something more than the product of some bad salmon I ingested just before a marathon two-finger typing session. It’s gold!
So, mainly since my brain is fried from churning out this drivel — free drivel — every weekday, let’s stick with the Hollywood theme. How about the Employment Law Blog Carnival: Hollywood Villains Edition? Hannibal Lechter would approve, I’m sure. You may even see him after the jump.
So grab some liver, fava beans and nice chianti and click through to read the carnival offerings…
Last week, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission held a public meeting in Washington, D.C. at which invited panelists spoke on national origin discrimination issues in today’s workplace.
Participants discussed various recruitment and hiring issues; discriminatory treatment in assignments; pay discrimination; language and accent issues; effective communication and access issues; harassment; and retaliation.
The EEOC’s event press release highlighted some comments and issues of which employers should take note. Most notably, one management-side lawyer, Douglas Farmer, testified that the multi-cultural workplace presents challenges for employers. For example, based on their cultural background, some men may find it difficult to have a female supervisor.
Yeah, I know. Shocker, right?
A prison guard for the Arkansas Department of Corrections drove 27 work-release inmates in a van to a parking lot next to a fried chicken joint. Rather than hit the drive thru, the prison guard left the 27 criminals in the van and went inside to place his order.
For what it’s worth, the prison guard testified that there were no other customers ahead of him in line. Further, the prison guard thought that his chicken stop did not violate any employer policy or rule.
The Employer Handbook Blog