Today we have a guest blogger at The Employer Handbook. It’s Mary Ellen Ellis. May Ellen writes for Paralegal 411, a career resource for individuals interested in starting a career in the paralegal field.
(Want to guest blog at The Employer Handbook? Email me).
Notwithstanding three social media advice memoranda, and another ruling from the National Labor Relations Board slamming Costco’s social media policy, you’d think employers would have a better idea how to revise their social media policies so as not to risk violating the National Labor Relations Act.
Well, not so much.
Except, the Board has recently issued guidance which attempts to clarify certain policy issues for employers. Does it? Well, sort of. It’s worth a read. Click through…
* * *
William Wengert is HIV-positive. He worked as a certified nursing assistant for Phoebe Ministries, until he was terminated last year following an incident in which a resident suffered a broken leg. The company claimed that the incident with the resident precipitated the firing. Conversely, Wengert alleged that the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by terminating him because of his HIV-positive status.
Now, let’s pause there for a second. I think we can all agree that just because a disabled employee — unquestionably, being HIV-positive is an ADA-disability — is fired, does not mean that the employer has violated the ADA. There could be many legitimate business reasons that could trigger an adverse employment actions (e.g., $$$, performance, discipline, etc.).
Legitimate business reasons aside, the Wengert Court (opinion here) highlighted that “disabilities are often unknown to the employer.” Therefore, “the requirement that plaintiff show he is disabled implies a requirement that the plaintiff show employer knew of employee’s disability.” In Wengert, the plaintiff could not demonstrate that anyone involved in his firing knew that he was HIV-positive. Therefore, Wengert’s disability could not have motivated his termination. Thus, no disability discrimination.
Alright folks. Kindly remove your lawyer and HR hats for a moment and don the judicial robe and gavel.
Your Honor, what you must decide, based on the facts that I will lay out below for you after the jump, is whether the release that the Plaintiff-employee signed is enforceable, such that she is precluded from pursuing discrimination claims against her former employer, the Defendant.
Click through if you’re up to the task…
Today we have a guest blogger at The Employer Handbook. It’s one of my readers, Joseph Ginarte. Joseph is an employment lawyer with Ginarte, O’Dwyer, Gonzalez, Gallardo Winograd.
Like his post? Feel free to email him some comments!
(Want to guest blog at The Employer Handbook? Email me).
* * *
I’d better remember to post this now before I get bitten and turn into a zombie and munch on your face..
[Note to self: Less of “The Walking Dead,” more sleep].
On November 19, 2012, this new law will take effect in NJ, which will require employers of 50 or more employees (zombies not included) to notify their workforce about “the right to be free of gender inequity or bias in pay, compensation, benefits or other terms or conditions of employment under the ‘Law Against Discrimination.”
An employee getting fired for caustic social-media posts is so 2011. Having an application for unemployment-compensation benefits denied because of Twitter stupidity — that’s the new black.
Details of a recent Commonwealth of Pennsylvania decision — don’t tread on me, Idaho — after the jump…
Take a few minutes to read this decision. It will blow your mind.
Here’s the long and short of it:
Three black employees sue for race discrimination claiming that they were subjected to a racially-hostile work environment. The court actually did the math:
From the blog that brought you “Can a bridge worker with a fear of heights have a viable ADA claim?,” comes news of a recent federal-court decision which — well — you read the title to this blog post.
In RRRRRRRRRRRRRRico v. Xcel Energy, Inc. [cue music] the plaintiff, an apprentice lineman working for a utility company, was ordered by his doctor not to climb utility poles due to a back injury suffered on the job. The plaintiff alleges that he sought a transfer and, instead of getting that transfer, was terminated and told to apply for long-term-disability benefits. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant then offered him a job at a lower rate of pay as a “substation electrician,” which the plaintiff accepted. The defendant allegedly also eliminated Plaintiff’s three years of seniority as an apprentice lineman.
The plaintiff subsequently sued for disability discrimination. The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s back injury was not a disability, as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act. The court, however, disagreed and kept the case alive so that the plaintiff could develop a factual record which may indicate that his back injury “substantially limits [his] to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.”
The Employer Handbook Blog
1. Yoga