A federal court has bounced a woman’s sexual harassment claims against her former employer because the court believed that the woman was not offended by the conduct about which she complained.
Some analysis and employer lessons after the jump…
I received a comment to yesterday’s post about 29 questions you should never ask a candidate in a job interview.
Laurie Ruettimann, who blogs at The Cynical Girl, questioned the real-world ramifications of making one of my 29 no-no’s:
“Hey, Eric. Great list. I once had an employment lawyer tell me that you can ask any question — you just can’t make an employment decision based on the answers. Can you blog about that distinction? Asking versus action? I would love to get your thoughts on that!”
Ask and ye shall receive. Or is it, ye shall receive, yo? (If you don’t read Laurie’s blog, that last sentence flew right over your head).
Either way, I’ll share my thoughts after the jump…
* * *
HBO Go may just be the best app ever.
Over the past two weeks, I’ve gotten current on Entourage and Game of Thrones, and begun watching Eastbound and Down. Watching characters like Ari Gold, Kenny Powers and Tyrion Lannister got me thinking. If these guys were in HR, what kind of questions would they ask potential hires in a job interview?
***You know, this all sounded so much better in my head.***
Whatevs.
After the jump, I have 29 questions you should never ask a candidate in a job interview.
Welcome back to “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, is a miniature horse a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act? Maybe.
The Employment Law Blog Carnival has finally rolled into town.
What is a blog carnival? It is a collection of links on a particular topic — here, employment law — that bloggers have submitted to me, which I then arrange around a particular theme.
For this edition of the Carnival, it’s DJ-ESkeelz on the one and two, with a music-themed employment-law blog carnival. I’ve got 13 hot joints (read: 13 links to employment-law articles from some of the blogosphere’s best…)
Welcome everyone to the first last edition of T&A Thursday, where I update you on all that’s going on in the world of porn and employment law.
After the jump, it’s all the news that’s barely fit to print. (At least it’s safe for work)…
Welcome back to “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”. But before I dispense with the brevity, allow me to pat myself on the back as, yesterday, both the ABA Law Journal and the Wall Street Journal recognized one of my recent blog posts.
***A-thank you. Thank you very much. You’re all too kind.***
On the heels of this case from the Second Circuit that I read about yesterday, I figured that today we should discuss releases. Cue the music…
Stop me if you’ve heard this one before:
- Job candidate is told that any job offer is contingent upon passing a drug test.
- On d-day, job candidate bolts from the drug-testing facility, claiming that he has trouble in confined spaces.
- No drug test means that job candidate is disqualified from the position.
- Job candidate sues claiming a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act for failure to accommodate.
Folks, I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried. Just another day in the life of an employment lawyer.
After you hit the jump, you’ll find out whether the job candidate prevailed…
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 . . .
The Employer Handbook Blog