Last month, the Supreme Court handed down – if not the most important – certainly, the highest-profile decision of this term with Wal-Mart v. Dukes. However, in addition to this headline-grabber, this term saw four other significant employment-law decisions from the High Court about which employers must take note.
After the jump, I revisit each case…in haiku.
* * *
Today, I get to sleep in because The Employer Handbook has a guest blogger. It’s Andrew Kim, a summer associate at Dilworth Paxson LLP:
* * *
Some people have no problem with heights (as seen above). But Darrell Miller, a bridge worker, had acrophobia (a.k.a. the fear of heights). In fact, Mr. Miller had suffered a panic attack due to that very fear while working on the bridge crew for the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). He then sought a reasonable accommodation so that he wouldn’t have to work on big bridges. IDOT refused. Did it violate the Americans with Disabilities Act?
Find out after the jump . . .
Yesterday, the EEOC held a meeting to discuss what it deems a “major national problem”; namely, deliberate discrimination against job seekers based on their race, sex, age, national origin or other prohibited basis.
After the jump, I’ll summarize the meeting and offer some tips for employers to help them stay off of the EEOC’s radar.
As reported on this blog yesterday, as well as in a gazillion other news outlets — but probably here first firstish — the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned certification of a potential class of 1.5 million current and former female employees seeking relief against Wal-Mart for alleged gender discrimination.
After the jump, a break down of the Opinion and what it means for employers, big and small.
The United States Supreme Court has just overturned a Ninth Circuit decision that would have allowed 1.5 million female employees to pursue a class-action gender discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. You can read a copy of the Supreme Court’s opinion here.
I’ll have more on this decision tomorrow at The Employer Handbook.
There once was an employer in Racine.
With a manager whose antics were racy.
The court said, “You lose!”
Now, tell everyone the news.
And if you disobey, it’ll cost you big money.
*** Although I feel rhyming “Racine” with “racy” was pure Shakespeare, I’m fairly certain that Edward Lear’s corpse just pissed itself ***
After the jump, it’s the employer, found liable for sexual harassment, that refused to abide by a court-ordered notice requiring it to inform its employees about the verdict…
* * *
Continue reading
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination in the workplace against disabled individuals. By law, if an employer knows that an employee or applicant is disabled, it must reasonably accommodate the known disability, if doing so would not impose an “undue hardship” on the operation of the employer’s business. There are many types of reasonable accommodations, from modifying facilities to reassignment to a vacant position.
Leave from work may also be a reasonable accommodation. But how much? And how much is too much?
Find out, after the jump…
Welcome to the inaugural 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“.
So, I was recently asked whether a younger employee may have a federal age-discrimination claim against his employer if the company treats a similarly-situated older employee better.
The answer is no. In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court in General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. v. Cline held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) does not forbid discriminatory preference for the old over the young.
In an employment discrimination action asserted under federal law, an employee-plaintiff may recover a reasonable attorney’s fee if the plaintiff prevails. So too may an employer-defendant recover fees if it prevails and the court determines that the plaintiff’s suit is frivolous.
But what happens if an employee-plaintiff asserts multiple claims against an employer-defendant and only some of them are deemed frivolous? What, if anything, may the defendant recover in attorney’s fees?
The answer after the jump…
Wednesday night was crazazy, yo!
I had this dream that was I slaloming down a snowy mountain towards a giant fortress under a hail of gunfire. But the next thing I know, I wake up and I’m falling down this elevator shaft. And, just as I’m about to bite it, I find myself in a car submerged underwater, having just taken a 100-foot fall from the bridge above.
And then I’m in my bed.
It’s 3 am and I am dripping sweat. I tap the Joe Beimel bobblehead on my nightstand — I know I shouldn’t have told you about my totem but, damnit, I love my readers.
Just as I’m starting to get my bearings, what hit me next was ten times as powerful as any three-tiered Inception dream and it kept me up for the rest of the night:
But, oh hells-to-the-yeah, the Tenth Circuit, sensing my angst, issued an opinion on Thursday answering all of my questions. So, while I grab my meds, you hit the jump and find out if the cat’s paw doctrine applies to ADEA claims.
The Employer Handbook Blog