i·ro·ny (noun) [ahy-ruh-nee]: an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has sued The Scooter Store, a purveyor of power chairs for the disabled, for disability discrimination.
That’s right folks. It’s time for another 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”.
The answer to today’s question is fiction. Pregnancy is not a “disability” for purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act. To be considered a disability under the ADA, covered persons must actually have physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities. Pregnancy is not considered an impairment under the law.
I can pinpoint the exact moment that this blog transcended to the next level of internet excellence.
It was back in late March, when I blogged here about a female bartender/server who had sued her employer, the Wild Beaver Saloon, for pregnancy discrimination. The retweets that day were off the heezy fo sheezy, yo. (The hyperlink is a courtesy to my NPR listeners).
***Wait. Hold on one sec. I have to take this call from “1993”. They say they want their dated hip-hop lingo back. OK, I’m back.***
When I first wrote about the Wild Beaver Saloon, the question was whether a business could make an employment decision based on the preferences of co-workers, the employer, clients or customers. I concluded, in this instance, that the Beave could not get away with it.
Well, the case ended last week. So was I right? Click past the jump to find out if I know my stuff…
Note: The original working title for this post was “Yo! A-Yo! Federal courts in Philly and NYC get all catty and stuff”. I mention this not because it’s a recycled New Yorker headline, but because it puts into context the gratuitous shots I take at NY sports teams sprinkled into this post.
Back in March of this year, the United States Supreme Court in Staub v. Proctor Hospital recognized that an employee may have a tenable claim for discrimination under USERRA even if the person who fired him did not discriminate. That is, if a supervisor’s bias motivates a firing — even if the firing is carried out by someone else who is both squeaky-clean and higher up in the food chain — then the firing is discriminatory. This is known as the “cat’s paw” theory.
Same goes for the MetsSince March, other courts have weighed in. As you know from reading this blog, on June, the Tenth Circuit held that the Staub decision applies to claims of age bias.
And, this month, we get cat’s paw decisions from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. One of ’em is good for employers. The other, not so much. More on these decisions and what they will mean for local businesses after the jump…
* * *
Management-side employment lawyers preach it until they are blue in the face: companies should always document employee performance and disciplinary issues.
Why is this so important? A real-world example follows after the jump…
Sex sells.
My most popular posts at The Employer Handbook — that’s based on you reading them (you’re all sick I tells ya, sick!!! And remember, I’m logging IP addresses) — generally involve some element of sexual behavior. You have the Brazilian self-stimulator. Actually, make that sexual behaviour — there’s the Australian hotel sex romp.
One of my readers asked if I’d heard about the recent sexual harassment lawsuit in Utah (the home of sex in a supply closet), in which a woman alleged, among other things, that her supervisor distributed a work schedule that included included “Mini-skirt Monday,” “Tube-top Tuesday,” “Wet T-shirt Wednesday,” “No bra Thursday,” and “Bikini top Friday.” Come on, now. You know me! Just this week, I read five articles (here, here, here, here, here) about it. You can find 23 more articles about “No bra Thursday” here.
“Guess my high score in Leisure Suit Larry.”
Then there’s the NY Post story (naturally) about a 23-year-old lesbian who claims that seven staff members in her real estate office groped, slapped, flashed, fondled and subjected her to racial abuse and death threats. One of the staffers allegedly offered her $60 for oral sex and told her all Puerto Rican girls are good at it.
Me? I like writing about these cases because it’s a good excuse to use stock sexual harassment photos from Google Images — like the one on the right, which, given the size of the shoulder pads in the lady’s jacket and the dimensions of that desktop computer — no doubt housing a 5.25 inch floppy disk drive — is a screencap from L.A. Law.
How about one more sexual harassment case for ya? This time, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals gets in on the act and reverses summary judgment in favor of an employer where the plaintiff alleged sexual harassment and retaliation when her boss forcibly kissed her, fondled her leg, propositioned her, asked her sexually explicit questions, described sexual activities he wished to perform, and then, after she spurned the advances and filed a harassment complaint, fired her (on the day she complained).
More on this and, of course, lessons for employers, after the jump…
* * *
That’s right folks. It’s time for another 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”.
Until about five years ago, a plaintiff had to prove a materially adverse employment action in order to recover for retaliation. (I addressed the complete three-part test for retaliation in yesterday’s post).
Not so anymore. As explained briefly after the jump, the rules for retaliation have changed.
At least that’s what a federal court in Utah opined.
I promise that this is not a prurient post gratuitously conceived to drive internet traffic to The Employer Handbook.
And this case has nothing directly to do with Pennsylvania, New Jersey or Delaware employers
(Ok, that last line was shameless. Google, please do not index this post).
Oh, what the heck, index away. After the jump, I’ll even throw in some good employer takeaways for all employers, including those in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware.
Darn it. I did it again…
Rep. Carolyn Maloney [D-NY14] is at it again.
A sponsor of a bill that would greatly expand the scope and reach of the FMLA, Rep. Maloney has co-sponsored another bill, the Breastfeeding Promotion Act of 2011, which would amend both the Fair Labor Standards Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect breastfeeding by nursing new mothers.
Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which is part of Title VII, it is already illegal to discriminate in the workplace “because of sex” or “on the basis of sex,” which includes, but is not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The Breastfeeding Promotion Act of 2011 would amend Title VII to explicitly include “lactation.”
Let’s say that a company holds a meeting for older employees (all are over 49 years old). And the purpose of the meeting is to discuss the future expectations of the employees in attendance, including retirement options at the company. Then throw in a stray remark from the company, something like, “When people get older, they tend to slow down.”
What if one of the meeting attendees is later laid off? Is that age discrimination?
If the employer has any non-age-related reason for the layoff, then the answer is no, according to
The Employer Handbook Blog