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 . . .
Yesterday, the EEOC held a meeting to discuss what it deems a “major national problem”; namely, deliberate discrimination against job seekers based on their race, sex, age, national origin or other prohibited basis.
After the jump, I’ll summarize the meeting and offer some tips for employers to help them stay off of the EEOC’s radar.
As reported on this blog yesterday, as well as in a gazillion other news outlets — but probably here first firstish — the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned certification of a potential class of 1.5 million current and former female employees seeking relief against Wal-Mart for alleged gender discrimination.
After the jump, a break down of the Opinion and what it means for employers, big and small.
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…
The Employer Handbook Blog