Over the weekend, I caught up on a few older cases I had intended to blog about earlier. The one today on which I’ll focus has some “disturbing facts.”
At least that’s how one of the Fifth Circuit judges deciding the case viewed them: Continue reading
That’s effectively the argument the plaintiff, an openly gay man, made in this case.
What I’ve got for you today is another hostile work environment decision. But, unlike yesterday’s general civility code violation, well short of the pervasive or severe behavior that could interfere with an employee’s working conditions, today’s is a doozy. We’re talking about four instances of racial harassment: an offensive note, a noose, a written threat in the plaintiff’s locker, and then another noose.
And, yet, the plaintiff lost this case too. Continue reading
This case involves a plaintiff who worked as a part-time bartender who worked for a bar in New Jersey. She claimed that her supervisor created a hostile work environment by calling the plaintiff names “used to describe a person with an oversized posterior.” (The court deemed it unnecessary to identify the supervisor’s “alternate names” for the plaintiff.) Continue reading
A few weeks ago, I blogged about a situation involving an employee who used CBD products and tested positive for marijuana at work. She claimed that the employer took into account her underlying disability when it terminated her employment and violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The employer countered that it did know she was disabled. So, the employer won.
But, now, let’s change the facts. Continue reading
As an employment law mediator, my resume includes many years of private practice and service to some federal courts. But I cut my chops at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and have remained a volunteer mediator with the EEOC for over a decade.
If anyone asked me what I thought of the EEOC’s Mediation Program, I would’ve told employers and employees alike to embrace it as an effective way to resolve employment disputes without the time, cost, and risk associated with litigation.
But no one asked me.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on religion. This includes refusing to accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship.
An “undue hardship” results in more than a de minimis cost to the employer. Objectively, paying more overtime is one example.
But what about when accommodating one employee lowers morale for others? Does that create undue hardship? Continue reading
On Monday, I blogged about a weekend incident in which New York Yankees third baseman Josh Donaldson and White Sox shortstop Tim Anderson in which Mr. Anderson claimed that Mr. Donaldson referred to him as “Jackie,” a reference to Hall of Famer Jackie Robinson. Continue reading
During the third inning of Saturday’s game between the Chicago White Sox and the New York Yankees, Yankees’ third baseman Josh Donaldson and White Sox shortstop Tim Anderson had to be separated after an exchange of words (and some earlier in the game) in which Mr. Anderson claimed that Mr. Donaldson referred to him as “Jackie,” a reference to Hall of Famer Jackie Robinson.
Yesterday, I read many headlines, like this one in The Guardian: “Calling a man ‘bald’ is sex-related harassment, employment tribunal rules.”
Is it, though? Let’s take a closer look. Continue reading
The Employer Handbook Blog