Search
What’s cookin’ in celeb chef Paula Deen’s kitchen? Discrimination?
Allegedly, of course.
Allegedly, of course.
When an employee sues his former employer alleging a religiously hostile work environment, he must prove, among other things, that he was subjected to harassment based on his religion and that the harassment was either severe or pervasive.
What do you think? Is the email below from a company General Manager severe enough for ya?
Can I just say something I shouldn’t to you here — he is SUCH A JEW! In a BAD way. He’s what gives Jews a bad name. He’s smarter. He’s better. He’s owed. He will do anything to keep from opening his wallet — right down to not eating!!!! And I am DEAD serious here!!! That’s why he expenses every single thing he can because he won’t pay anything! I have not seen him bring one single thing into this office in all the time he’s been here — period. (that he paid for) IF he does bring something in he expenses it. . .I COULDN’T say to him what I just did to you — that HE is what gives Jews a bad name!!!
Let’s see what a NJ court said, after the jump…
* * *
Quick quiz:
- What protections does the ADA provide to veterans with disabilities?
- When is a veteran with a service-connected disability protected by the ADA?
I’ve come up with some pretty creative defenses to unlawful harassment. Usually, however, before I file a pleading, I take out my trusty red pen iPad and delete those arguments that are just so outrageous that I feel my client will lose credibility with the court.
But that’s just me.
After the jump, I have a recent federal-court decision in which a Maryland grocery claimed that the [alleged] relentless sexual harassment of a female employee by the store’s male manager wasn’t “sexual harassment” — that would be illegal. Rather, it was “exotic dancer” harassment.
That’s pretty creative, alright.
Oh boy…
Hey, that blog title looks familiar. Oh yeah! I wrote about it here back in October.
This time around, another federal court, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, has reaffirmed that while a “leave of absence may be a reasonable accommodation [under the Americans with Disabilities Act]”, the employee must provide a reasonable estimate of the amount work that will be missed. “Conversely, when the employee seeks leave, but it is uncertain if or when he will be able to return to work, a leave of absence is not a reasonable accommodation.”
More on this doozy involving two Denny’s waitresses after the jump…
* * *
My loyal readers know that yesterday the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission held a public meeting to discuss pregnancy discrimination and caregiver issues.
Conversely, my disloyal readers can go to hell. No, no, I forgive you. Just send me a check and we’ll call it even.
*** Takes meds ***
*** Flashes Men In Black red light ***
Ah, yes, pregnancy discrimination. Click through for a summary of what happened at yesterday’s EEOC meeting…

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will hold a public meeting on the subject of pregnancy discrimination and caregiver issues at 9:30 a.m. today in Washington, DC. If you are in the area, feel free to stop by. The meeting is open to the public.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99j0zLuNhi8
According to this press release, the Commission will examine “recent trends in discrimination against pregnant workers and workers with caregiving responsibilities, examining these two forms of discrimination as a continuum.”
Yesterday, Greece came through with a long-awaited economic reform deal. Congratulations to them.
What I want to know, however, is what the heck the Greek government was thinking when it recently expanded a list of state-recognized disability categories to include pedophiles, exhibitionists and kleptomaniacs. Bailout money back, please.
At Res Ipsa Loquitor, Jonathan Turley notes that the Greek government already recognizes pyromaniacs, compulsive gamblers, fetishists and sadomasochists as persons entitled to ask for government assistance.
Hey there, Casanova. Dontchaknow that the victim always keeps the text messages? Always! But does the victim win the sexual-harassment case about which I am blogging after the jump? Hint: no.
Oh, come on! Don’t let that deter you! Click through anyway to pad my hit count and because you know I have the rest of the text messages and all of the dirty deets from a recent Bible Belt federal-court decision.
See you on the other side…