The Employer Handbook generally likes to end the year on a classy, high note. Consequently….
The Smoking Gun reports here that, earlier this month, the Social Security Administration issued this 5-page formal reprimand to an employee for his “awful and unpleasant” flatulence.
{As opposed to my ambrosial flatulence. So lovely.}
Thus far, you’ve managed to keep your equal-employment-opportunity nose clean. Good for you. In fact, with the economy the way it is, combined with the dwindling resources available to our federal agencies — including the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — your odds of facing a federal investigation based on a complaint of discrimination or harassment are fairly slim.
But…
On Tuesday, the EEOC announced its Strategic Enforcement Plan. And within that plan, you’ll find six areas of EEOC focus over the next four years:
“Oy, Sharon! Will you help me out here?”
“Come on, Ozzy! Yellow in the front, brown in —.”
“Bloody hell, Sharon! I’m trying to comprehend this federal court decision from the District of Minnesota.”
You have an employee who hurts herself on the job and becomes disabled. Although she recovers to the point where she can perform the essential functions of her position without the need for accommodation, she requests a transfer to another one of your facilities so that she has better access to ongoing medical treatment.
Does the law require you to grant that transfer?
In this recent case (Sanchez v. Vilsack), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination in federal employment, and courts interpret like the Americans with Disabilities Act, may require this.
Translation: Recent HR / employment law developments that Meyer missed a/k/a Meyer needs to clear out his folder of bookmarked employment-law items to make room for his dork dorkier Fantasy Baseball bookmarks. Pitchers and catchers report in just over two months.
- More courts weigh in on social-media discovery issues. “Good news. My doctor says that the itching and redness should subside in a few days.” Recent court decisions (here and here) roadmap how you can access this and other Facebook status updates from your former employee who is now suing you. Have fun with that.
- Other social-media-related litigation. A firefighter, allegedly terminated for critical Facebook comments, has settled his wrongful discharge claim (here). Facebook posts doom another employee’s FMLA claims (here). The National Labor Relations Board crapped all over another employer’s social-media policy (here). Choking back laughter (at least that’s how I envision it), a Massachusetts Court denied
another(the first ever?) hair salon’s claim that a former stylist’s job posting on Facebook violated a non-solicitation agreement agreement (here).
*** Googles “sans,” wipes brow while sighing in relief ***
I’m not aware of any studies or surveys that the Sandbar Mexican Grill conducted on this subject. Instead, I imagine something like this:
Sandbar Customer: “Two please.”
Sandbar Manager: “Sure. But before I seat you, do you see that bartender over there? She’s *gasp* pregnant. That’s why we have her behind the bar, instead of in your face distracting you from watching the Arizona Cardinals, losers of eight in a row. Given that it’s Football Sunday, we even raised the bar an extra foot just in case her fetus is sitting high. And, as an extra precaution, we have a curtain between the bar and the employee bathroom so that you won’t have to avert your eyes should nature call. We used to have a bucket behind the bar for her, but our lawyers frowned on that. Really, what am I saying is, should we just fire her? Uh, fellas?!? Come back! I’ll make the other servers pee on sticks. Don’t run away! I assure you, it’s EPT; not that ClearBlue crap! Come one guys! Half-price Vodka/Rock Stars! Fellas!
Hey Employers!
Want to guarantee yourself a jury trial in an age-discrimination case? Just mention the word “younger” to any employee age forty or above right around the time you fire him.
[Editor’s Note: Calling that employee an “old man,” “old fart,” “pops,” and “grandpa” will also do the trick — except, of course, in Texas]
Image credit: atom.smasher.org, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
When a male employee texted his female co-worker and former girlfriend that she was a “whore” and later ignored two protective orders that the female co-worker had taken out against him, I wonder if he was thinking, “Maybe, I’ll get fired and parlay that into a winning reverse-gender-discrimination claim.”
Indeed, the guy’s actions violated a number of work rules and, ultimately, resulted in his termination. But a winning reverse-gender-discrimination claim? Not so much according to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (opinion here):
Yep, someone — represented by a licensed, practicing attorney — brought this lawsuit.
***Shakes head // Smiles // Kisses statuette of Blogga-Blogga, the goddess of HR blogging fodder. Love you, boo.***
Bagel party — whoop! whoop! — after the jump…
* * *
Maetta Vance, the only African-American working in her department at Ball State University, claimed that she was subjected to both race discrimination and retaliation. Vance later sued and lost because she could not establish employer liability, which, in turn, depended on whether the alleged harassment was perpetrated by supervisors or coworkers.
Employers have an affirmative defense when the supervisor harassment does not result in a tangible employment action. If, however, the harassing supervisor fires, suspends, or takes some other similar action against the victim, it’s check mate.
In instances of co-worker harassment, where tangible employment actions wouldn’t be at issue (because the harassing co-worker wouldn’t have that power), to prevail on a discrimination claim, the plaintiff must show, among other things, that the employer has “been negligent either in discovering or remedying the harassment.”
The Employer Handbook Blog