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.”
Back in 2010, Douglas Clayton had a rough Summer.
In August, Mr. Clayton was employed as a deckhand on a boat in Louisiana — that is, until one of his white co-workers allegedly raised a wrench to Clayton and told him to get his “stupid mother f**king n**ger ass” off the boat. Mr. Clayton promptly complained to Human Resources and was transferred to another of the defendant’s boats.
In September, Mr. Clayton again reported to Human Resources that his new co-workers continued to say “n**ger,” among other comments, around him. Allegedly, HR responded by telling Mr. Clayton to “lighten up.” Allegedly, later that day, after telling one of his co-workers to stop using the word “n**ger” on the boat, that co-worker attacked Mr. Clayton from behind.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court reconvened for its 2012-2013 term.
Although not chock full of pending employment-law cases, this term will see several important issues decided which could affect your workplace. Below, I have a collected a series of links to stories on these cases:
- “New Supreme Court Term Promises a Range of Labor and Employment Cases” by Lindsey Marcus and Jeff Nowak at Franczek Radelet P.C.
When an employer is faced with a sexual-harassment lawsuit, one of its best defenses is that the company took reasonable care (e.g., policy, training) to prevent sexual harassment (and then addressed complaints in a manner that is reasonably designed to end the sexual harassment)
In EEOC v. Spud Seller (opinion here), the employer had an anti-harassment policy that detailed what constitutes sexual harassment and how to report it. Further, it specifically advised employees that, “You can feel state that your complaint will receive immediate attention and if the facts support your complaint, the offender will be disciplined.”
Sounds good to me.
Does an employer have to provide a reasonable accommodation to a pregnant employee to allow her to perform the essential functions her job?
Let’s see.
Americans with Disabilities Act? No. Pregnancy is not a disability. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act? Well that depends. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act is part of Title VII. But the current state of law is such that employers need only treat pregnant employees as they would other employees with temporary disabilities. However, most employers do afford accommodations (e.g., light duty) to employees with temporary disabilities. So, they would have to do the same for pregnant employees too.
But do I smell some duplicative federal legislation after the jump? I sure do. Click through for details…
* * *
Much has been written lately in the blawgosphere about telecommuting as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act for qualifying disabled employees.
Last month, Jon Hyman posted (here) about this case, in which a federal court in Ohio held that telecommuting may be a reasonable accommodation based on the unique facts concerning the employee and the workplace — and that issue was up to a jury to determine.
Earlier this month, I came across another case (EEOC v. Ford Motor Co.), in which a Michigan federal court also recognized that telecommuting may be a reasonable accommodation. However, unlike the prior Ohio decision, the Michigan court recognized that there are some telecommuting arrangements that are just so impractical that no jury would conclude that telecommuting is a reasonable accommodation.
Back in July, I blogged here about a federal appellate court recently emphasizing just how broad the subpoena power of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission really is. [Editor’s Note: the technical legal term is “crazazy broad”]
Last Friday, as I was hosting the weekly dip-spit distance shot organizing my office, I saw this opinion from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals which further underscored just how far and deep the EEOC’s outstretched hand can go into your business.
Yeah, you, dude! The one who is not accused of discriminating against anyone, but who may have information relating to a pending EEOC investigation.
What’s in store if you are on the receiving end of that subpoena? Find out after the jump…
The Employer Handbook Blog
1. Yoga