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.
A 51-year-old auto-parts specialist with lupus, fibromyalgia, diabetes and arthritis, claimed that his 29-year-old co-worker called him an “old cripple” and an “old man,” labeled him “too old to be trained,” and threatened to beat him with a baseball bat.
The 51-year-old responded by telling his manager that he would kick the 29-year-old’s ass and then came to work with a handgun in his car.
Wha Wha Whaaaaaat?!?!
Did the older employee overreact? Maybe. But was he the victim of a hostile work environment?
Find out after the jump.
Although the Americans with Disabilities Act does not protect employees or applicants who use illegal drugs, it does protect those who are “participating in a supervised rehabilitation program, have successfully such a program, or who have otherwise been rehabilitated successfully.”
Does that mean that an employer cannot refuse to hire someone who, on the day after he completes a drug rehab program, applies for work?
Find out, after the jump.
I had trouble sleeping last night.
If you read yesterday’s post, you know that when deciding between a post about an NFL cheerleader who was fired for risque pictures mailed to the Indianapolis Colts versus labor law and Twitter, I chose labor law and Twitter.
***stupid Twitter!***
I won’t make the same mistake twice. So, without further ado, I have the pictures federal-court complaint of the fired cheerleader and a brief rundown of her chances of success.
***Oh, Twitter. I can’t stay mad at you. I’ll give you a foot rub — right after I finish this can of Four Loko.***
Don’t judge me. Just skip past the jump. TGIF, yo.
The Employer Handbook Blog