MicroZesTo, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons
If you’re asking that question to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the answer is no. Continue reading
You develop policies and train everyone — especially your managers — on how to handle situations like the example I have for you today.
Yesterday, on the same day that some of the Supreme Court noted that Congress hadn’t changed Title VII’s undue hardship standard for religious accommodations, the House and Senate reintroduced the Do No Harm Act, which the bill sponsors claim will “address the increasing use of religious freedom as a justification to undermine civil rights protections.” Continue reading
Employment lawyers and HR professionals generally preach that employees view “it’s not a good fit” to explain their termination of employment as code for discrimination or retaliation.
It’s HR101.
But yesterday, a federal court of appeals explained that this well-intentioned but often misconstrued rationale isn’t always a thinly-veiled, pretextual excuse to fire someone. Sometimes, people aren’t “good fits.” Continue reading
So when the plaintiff in this federal court decision I read last night cited as evidence of her employer’s heterosexual animus that her gay coworker received a cake and party by gay supervisors on his 30th work anniversary, whereas she did not receive cake or party for the same occasion, my Spidey senses were really tingling. Continue reading
Last night, I read a federal appellate court decision in which an employee with back spasms, sciatica, fibromyalgia, and pinched nerves claimed that her employer didn’t give her the help she needed to do her job.
The plaintiff requested a “standing footrest” and “ergonomic chair” as reasonable accommodations. But she claimed she received a “rocking footrest” and a “dilapidated ergonomic chair.” Continue reading
Yesterday, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced (here) that an employer will fork over $400,000, split among 11 women, stemming from a written policy that violates both the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Continue reading
On April 10, 2023, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amul R. Thapar offered his two cents on the role the federal courts should have in second-guessing the business judgment of companies making hiring decisions: Continue reading
The EEOC has guided employers to accommodate employee use of certain prescribed medications, and excuse failed drug tests that reflect the presence of those drugs — if it is done safely — because those individuals who test positive likely have an underlying disability.
But, when employee self-medicate — like with CBDs for stress and anxiety — not only is there no duty to accommodate, the employee may not be able to establish an underlying disability. Continue reading
They were so bad that a federal judge applied a rarely-used rule of civil procedure to consider summary judgment on its own after identifying for the parties material facts that may not be genuinely in dispute.
Boy, that was about as witty as Groundskeeper Willie’s standup routine at Springfield Elementary.
(Note to self: take after the Clown.) Continue reading
The Employer Handbook Blog