An eligible employee may take up to 12 workweeks of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act in a 12-month period. If an employee exhausts all of her FMLA leave and fails to return to work after the 12 weeks are up, can’t the company simply fire the employee? Well, it may not be that easy, as you’ll find out 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”.
The answer to today’s question is fact.
You know what’s not a good business practice for a car dealership? Referring to an older male employee as “old man,” “pops,” and “old mother******” and then steering car sales away from him to younger employees. Age discrimination is serious business, yo.
Details on this gem after the jump…
With so many employment laws out there, it’s not easy to keep track of what those laws say — let alone under which of them your business may be covered.
Well, who loves ya! After the jump, it’s employment laws by the numbers — number of employees that is — that your business must employ to be covered under certain specific federal employment laws. (I’ll even throw in a few extra state statutes for my PA/NJ/DE readers).
GREAT BIG DISCLAIMER: What you’ll find after the jump are the numerosity requirements for various federal laws. There are a slew of other legal hoops through which your business may need to jump. Be smart. Discuss them with an attorney.
* * *
A longtime employee of the Secretary of State’s office in Illinois claimed that two white managers targeted him for termination because he is black, and two white employees, one of whom was his supervisor, received lesser discipline even though they had engaged in the same alleged misconduct.
Is that right? Can a black employee claiming that he was treated differently because of his race compare himself to a white supervisor for purposes of proving his discrimination claim? Find out, after the jump.
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…
The Employer Handbook Blog