Discrimination and Unlawful Harassment

Yahoo! has a new no-telecommuting rule. Here’s why it may be unlawful.

February 25, 2013 | by Eric B. Meyer

Over the weekend, I read this article from Kara Swisher on AllThingsD.com, in which she reports that Yahoo!, under its new leadership, will implement a no-telecommuting rule, effective June 1.

Ms. Swisher posted a copy of the internal Yahoo! memorandum to its employees, in which the company underscores the “critical” need to be at the office versus working form home where “speed and quality are often compromised.”

Sounds good in theory. But I have a little monkey-wrench.

@Eric_B_Meyer on DriveThruHR #dthr

February 22, 2013 | by Eric B. Meyer

Have you checked out DriveThruHR yet?

DriveThruHR is the baby of Bryan Wempen and William Tincup, a half-hour radio show on which these two HR leaders, along with a guest, discuss the latest trends, thoughts and sentiment within the industry.

Yesterday, I was on DriveThruHR, Human Resource’s #1 Daily Radio, talking social media and the workplace, Americans with Disabilities Act, hockey, and gettin’ freaky with the mashed potatoes. Yeah, that’s right. Hockey.

Manager’s drunk Facebook threats + Boss’s Buddha blogging = retaliation claim?

February 19, 2013 | by Eric B. Meyer

No body shots here; just a swift federal court kick to Coyote Ugly’s social-media jewels.

You get the ice. I’ll pour a double and serve up the details after the jump…

* * *

GUEST POST: The ADA and Test-Taking

February 15, 2013 | by Eric B. Meyer

Today we have a guest blogger at The Employer Handbook. It’s my colleague, Katharine Hartman. Katharine is an associate in Dilworth Paxson’s Labor & Employment Group, but also asked that I give a little shoutout to our new Test Publishing, Certification and Licensure Group.

So holla!

After the jump is a little cross-over between the two. Hope you like it.

(Want to guest blog at The Employer Handbook? Email me).

Discrimination claims drop in ’12; The Employer Handbook go BOOM!

January 29, 2013 | by Eric B. Meyer

Thumbnail image for ebmpuzzle.jpg Kudos to this blog for the drop in discrimination claims. Yeah, I’m giving this blog credit, and so is my mother — probably.

{Mom couldn’t be reached for comment and, strangely, the EEOC press release touting the new FY12 charge statistics is silent about this blog}

The year-end data shows that retaliation (37,836), race (33,512) and sex discrimination (30,356), which includes allegations of sexual harassment and pregnancy were, respectively, still the most frequently filed charges. However, the total number of claims in FY12 dipped below FY10 levels.

OMG! Must we grant our employee’s religious-accommodation request?

January 28, 2013 | by Eric B. Meyer

An employer must accommodate the sincerely-held religious beliefs of its employees unless the employer demonstrates that doing so would cause undue hardship for the business.

Undue hardship?!? What the heck is that? And how can you make sure that your managers are prepared to address — let alone spot — these issues when they arise.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Calm down. I’ve got your back, after the jump…

* * *

Fact or Fiction: Your employee’s nasty facial scar may be a disability

January 23, 2013 | by Eric B. Meyer

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.”

Your new employee at local pizzeria has what we’ll call a “facial deformity.” So, rather than having him work the cash register, or otherwise emerge from the kitchen, you mandate that he work in the back so that no customers will ever see him.

Have you violated the Americans with Disabilities Act?

Supreme Court to decide how an employee must prove Title VII retaliation

January 22, 2013 | by Eric B. Meyer

What makes retaliation the most common discrimination claim in America?

I suspect it’s because other forms of discrimination (e.g., race, gender, disability) are more difficult to prove and don’t always result in an adverse employment action, such as termination of employment. And since most people like to keep their jobs, they’re more reluctant to rock the boat.

Conversely, retaliation always includes adverse action — quite often a firing — and follows what the law terms a “protected activity” (opposition to discrimination or participation in the statutory complaint process). So, you have a situation where an employee suspects discrimination is afoot, complains about it, and then gets fired.

Who are YOU to tell ME that I’m not offended by sexual harassment?!?

January 16, 2013 | by Eric B. Meyer

The original working title for the post was “The Third Circuit takes a deuce on my ‘Pottymouths’ post.” I meant it in the figurative sense. Otherwise, I would be at a loss for words with IT.

More so than usual…

{Napalms browser history}

But, fortunately, good taste and high morals — we’re all about that here at the Handbook {cough} {fart} — prevailed.

Click through to see what a federal appellate court had to say about whether a female plaintiff with an apparent propensity for the cursey-cursey may successfully pursue her sexual-harassment claims.

* * *

HOW TO: Properly address disability accommodation when hiring

January 15, 2013 | by Eric B. Meyer

I was reading this federal court opinion over the weekend. It involves a disability-discrimination claim brought by a deaf man who applied to become a lifeguard at a county pool, but didn’t get the job because the county thought his disability would compromise swimmer safety. Plus, the town was not convinced that it could accommodate the deaf applicant because it couldn’t be 100% certain that he could safely be on the lifeguard stand alone, without someone constantly by his side.

Folks, I’m guilty.

I’ll admit, that when I started reading this opinion, I immediately jumped to the same conclusion as the county-defendant. How could it possibly be safe to employ a deaf lifeguard?