Do you know what to do if an employee comes into your office asking for a shift change or some other workplace accommodation because of a sincerely-held religious belief?
A short lesson from a recent federal-court decision and a few tips after the jump…
The Americans with Disabilities Act explicitly forbids discrimination against those who are actually disabled or “regarded as” disabled. As a NJ court once recognized, “Distinguishing between actual handicaps and perceived handicaps makes no sense.” Indeed, “prejudice in the sense of a judgment or opinion formed before the facts are known is the fountainhead of discrimination engulfing medical disabilities which prove on examination to be . . . non-existent.”
Does the same maxim apply to workplace discrimination — a barrage of anti-semitic comments — directed at employee whom the harassers believe is Jewish, but really isn’t?
Is that unlawful?
The answer from a NJ court after the jump…
A maintenance mechanic in Illinois received 28 disciplinary-action forms from his supervisor. Ultimately, he was offered two choices: (1) accept a demotion to a non-mechanic position and take a significant pay cut; or (2) keep the position, fight the discipline, but face potential termination.
On the advice of his union representative, the mechanic took the demotion. He later sued for retaliation, claiming that the demotion, which he voluntarily accepted, was a direct response to a charge of discrimination he previously filed with the EEOC.
Is this retaliation? A federal circuit court gave us the answer yesterday. And I have it for you after the jump…
Smells like patchouli. Or is that teen spirit?
Hey, it’s been a long day.
Can an employer insist on regular attendance without violating the ADA? Maybe. says Robin Shea at the Employment and Labor Insider. And forget about indefinite leave as a reasonable accommodation under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination says the NJ Superior Court Appellate Division. That won’t fly under the Americans with Disabilities Act either says the United States District Court of the Western District of Virginia, Danville Division. But, you knew that already. Still, if you need information on Practices and Policies Related to Recruiting and Hiring Employees With Disabilities, SHRM has a new survey. Check it out.
Remember back in July 2011 when I told you that a miniature horse might be reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act?
Giddy-up! I whinny!
Ok, I’ll quit horsing around.
(I mare or may not be referring to a printed-out list of horse puns as I type this…)
More on this hare-raising story — rabbit puns too? Really, Eric? — after the jump…
A severance agreement helps to allow businesses to ensure that former employees don’t sue. The concept is fairly simple: in exchange for $X, the former employee agrees to release the company from every claim under the sun from the beginning of time through the date the former employee signs the agreement (or seven days after the agreement is signed in cases where the employee releases claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act).
Where am I going with this? Let’s take a hypothetical. Assume that ABC Company decides to lay off two employees: Bob and Mary. Both worked the same position, have the same seniority, and reported to the same supervisor. However, ABC offers Bob six weeks of severance and Mary only three weeks of severance. Does Mary have a potential gender discrimination claim against ABC?
The answer follows after the jump…
* * *
On Employment Legislation:
Just when you thought you had the employment law landscape figured out, along comes pending legislation that could change everything. From age discrimination claims to workplace flexibility to unionization and labor organizing, new bills in the House and Senate may change the way you run your business. Here I am discussing all that jazz with Stephanie Thomas at the Proactive Employer.
On Social Media:
Unfair treatment because of one’s language may be related to race or national origin discrimination. Indeed, language may be used as a covert basis for discrimination.
But that’s not always so. A recent case and some helpful nuggets on English-only rules after the jump…
Now in autotune.
(Betcha didn’t expect that).
Yesterday, we were rapping (without the benefit of autotune) about immigration status and unlawful discrimination and concluded that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not prohibit workplace discrimination on the basis of immigration status (although national-original discrimination is unlawful). And we know from a super-hot “Fact or Fiction” post last year that Title VII covers Americans who are employed abroad. It was so hot.
I had this song in my head for about two hours on Sunday.
Then I listened to the Trent Reznor version, ick….
The Employer Handbook Blog