Courts have blessed written agreements between employer and employee to submit federal discrimination claims to arbitration. Here is an example.
But, there’s legal and then there’s doing right. After the jump, how one employer got it wrong. Very wrong. Plus, what you can do to make sure that your business does not make the same mistake…
* * *
From the sublime to the ridiculous, the NY Daily News reports here that a 60-year-old musician suing for age discrimination claims that the presiding 88-year-old Manhattan judge is too old to hear the case.
According to the NY Daily News story, the plaintiff, who was representing himself before his case was dismissed in October, slammed the judge, calling him “slow-witted and unable to function.”
In a pleading filed with the court, the plaintiff also wrote that the judge, who has degrees from Harvard and Columbia Law School, “may have been a very learned jurist in his day, [but] should be removed from the bench, both because of his mental and physical limitations [and because he] could barely see unless he put his face almost on top of a document.”
To prove sexual harassment, a plaintiff must have been subjected to pervasive or severe behavior that would make the plaintiff (and a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s shoes) believe that the working environment are hostile or abusive.
Wait, I’m forgetting something. Oh yeah, the complained-of conduct must only be on account of the plaintiff’s gender. Seems simple enough, right? No sex-based conduct. No sexual harassment. After the break, a recent example that highlights this important element.
Back in June, I discussed here how the EEOC was discussing the use of leave from work as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. The question I asked back then was how much leave is reasonable? When is enough, enough?
Well, I can tell you now — and I suppose I could have told you then — that indefinite leave is generally not an option for employees (unless the employer acquiesces). At least that’s what one federal court ruled last week. Details after the jump…
In yesterday’s post, we looked at whether a morbidly-obese employee is protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Today, let’s apply yesterday’s discussion to a “real-world” example. Is Homer Simpson disabled? And is the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant legally obligated to offer him a reasonable accommodation? The answers after the jump…
* * *
Recently, the EEOC sued a Texas company, alleging that the company engaged in disability discrimination, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, when it fired a 680-pound worker because he was morbidly obese.
Is that right? Can being overweight be considered a “disability” under federal law? And, if so, what can companies do to find themselves staring down the barrel of loaded ADA lawsuit? I’ll answer these questions after the jump.
* * *
Retaliation claims have become the leading cause of action for employees. In fiscal year 2010, retaliation charges filed with the EEOC nationwide accounted for 36.3% of all filings, at 36,258. There are three essential elements of a retaliation claim:
- Employee Protected Activity – opposition to discrimination or participation in the statutory complaint process;
- Employer Adverse Action – any adverse treatment (beyond a petty slight or a trivial annoyance) that is based on a retaliatory motive and is reasonably likely to deter protected activity; and
- Causal Connection – between the protected activity and the adverse action.
What makes retaliation claims so common? Well, it’s not so much because they are are easy for employees to prove. In my opinion, it’s because retaliation claims are tough for employers to disprove prior to trial.
Case in point after the jump…
* * *
Your business drug tests job applicants as a condition of employment. What would happen if a male applicant refused to take a urine test because he claimed that he had paruresis, otherwise known as “shy bladder syndrome” or “bashful bladder syndrome”? Would you have to accommodate the applicant with a different type of drug test? Or could you just refuse to hire the applicant?
The EEOC recently addressed this topic and I have the answer — along with some self-deprecation — after the jump…
* * *
Mach·i·a·vel·li·an [mak-ee-uh–vel-ee-uhn] adjective
- of, like, or befitting Machiavelli.
- characterized by subtle or unscrupulous cunning. He resorted to Machiavellian tactics in order to get ahead.
Frankly, Anthony Weiner ain’t got nothin’ on this Weiner.
The EEOC announced on Monday that it had sued Nu-Way Weiners, one of the oldest hot dog restaurants in the country, on behalf of two female employees. More after the jump…
* * *
The Employer Handbook Blog