Pennsylvania

Who are YOU to tell ME that I’m not offended by sexual harassment?!?

January 16, 2013 | by Eric B. Meyer

The original working title for the post was “The Third Circuit takes a deuce on my ‘Pottymouths’ post.” I meant it in the figurative sense. Otherwise, I would be at a loss for words with IT.

More so than usual…

{Napalms browser history}

But, fortunately, good taste and high morals — we’re all about that here at the Handbook {cough} {fart} — prevailed.

Click through to see what a federal appellate court had to say about whether a female plaintiff with an apparent propensity for the cursey-cursey may successfully pursue her sexual-harassment claims.

* * *

Boy meets girl, dates girl, breaks up, calls girl “whore,” gets fired, sues for discrimination

November 30, 2012 | by Eric B. Meyer

Image credit: atom.smasher.org, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

When a male employee texted his female co-worker and former girlfriend that she was a “whore” and later ignored two protective orders that the female co-worker had taken out against him, I wonder if he was thinking, “Maybe, I’ll get fired and parlay that into a winning reverse-gender-discrimination claim.”

Indeed, the guy’s actions violated a number of work rules and, ultimately, resulted in his termination. But a winning reverse-gender-discrimination claim? Not so much according to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (opinion here):

It’s not disability discrimination when you don’t know about the disability.

November 2, 2012 | by Eric B. Meyer

William Wengert is HIV-positive. He worked as a certified nursing assistant for Phoebe Ministries, until he was terminated last year following an incident in which a resident suffered a broken leg. The company claimed that the incident with the resident precipitated the firing. Conversely, Wengert alleged that the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by terminating him because of his HIV-positive status.

Now, let’s pause there for a second. I think we can all agree that just because a disabled employee — unquestionably, being HIV-positive is an ADA-disability — is fired, does not mean that the employer has violated the ADA. There could be many legitimate business reasons that could trigger an adverse employment actions (e.g., $$$, performance, discipline, etc.).

Legitimate business reasons aside, the Wengert Court (opinion here) highlighted that “disabilities are often unknown to the employer.” Therefore, “the requirement that plaintiff show he is disabled implies a requirement that the plaintiff show employer knew of employee’s disability.” In Wengert, the plaintiff could not demonstrate that anyone involved in his firing knew that he was HIV-positive. Therefore, Wengert’s disability could not have motivated his termination. Thus, no disability discrimination.

Salty about Sandy: 20 Hurricane tweets from your employees

October 30, 2012 | by Eric B. Meyer

Hurricane Sandy: Day 2

To my east-coasters, I hope this post finds you safe and dry.

Me? Hey, thanks for asking. Our Philly home kept power throughout and we otherwise made it through unscathed. Still, Philadelphia remains in a state of emergency. The City is essentially shut down. Most of the major surrounding highways have been off-limits. And, for a second day in a row, for the safety of the drivers and the riders, there is no public transportation in the City.

That means that local businesses too opted to close on Monday, and remain closed on Tuesday. Well, most of them.

To the chagrin of some employees affected by the Hurricane, they had to work. And they have vented on Twitter.

(Insert obligatory Hurricane #Sandy and/or “do I have to go to school or work today” status here).

— Chris Schurz (@ChrisSchurz) October 29, 2012

After the jump, what your employees tweeted about working (or, maybe, not so much) during Hurricane Sandy…

[Don’t shoot the messenger]

* * *

Employee’s Twitter hatin’ costs him unemployment benefits

October 22, 2012 | by Eric B. Meyer

An employee getting fired for caustic social-media posts is so 2011. Having an application for unemployment-compensation benefits denied because of Twitter stupidity — that’s the new black.

Details of a recent Commonwealth of Pennsylvania decision — don’t tread on me, Idaho — after the jump…

* * *

Fact or Fiction: Opposing an employee’s u/c request may be Title VII retaliation

October 17, 2012 | by Eric B. Meyer

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.”

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, an employer engages in unlawful retaliation when, in response to an employee complaint of discrimination, it acts in a way that may dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.

So, let’s assume that an individual files a charge of discrimination with the EEOC against her former employer. Thereafter, the employee files for unemployment compensation benefits, and the employer fights the claim for unemployment compensation, claiming that the employee was terminated for gross negligence. Could that be viewed as Title VII retaliation?

Does the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act cover lost LinkedIn business opportunities?

October 10, 2012 | by Eric B. Meyer

powered by Fotopedia

In the beginning of the year, I wrote here about a federal-court decision, which recognized that LinkedIn connections are not company trade secrets. Earlier this month, that same court, in the same case, was asked to decide whether hijacking an employee’s LinkedIn account may violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

In Eagle v. Morgan, the plaintiff, Dr. Eagle, claimed that her former employer had locked her out of her LinkedIn account for 22 weeks. Thus she was “unable to receive ‘invitations to connect, business opportunities and ongoing communications with clients, potential clients and other business and personal contacts.'”

That moment right before the pain begins: an EEOC subpoena

September 19, 2012 | by Eric B. Meyer

Back in July, I blogged here about a federal appellate court recently emphasizing just how broad the subpoena power of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission really is. [Editor’s Note: the technical legal term is “crazazy broad”]

Last Friday, as I was ~~hosting the weekly dip-spit distance shot~~ organizing my office, I saw this opinion from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals which further underscored just how far and deep the EEOC’s outstretched hand can go into your business.

Yeah, you, dude! The one who is not accused of discriminating against anyone, but who may have information relating to a pending EEOC investigation.

What’s in store if you are on the receiving end of that subpoena? Find out after the jump…

* * *

Is an employee with managerial duties “similarly situated” to a manager?

September 13, 2012 | by Eric B. Meyer

Maybe it’s the luck of the draw, but most of the discrimination cases I defend are hostile work environment cases, where an alleged harasser supposedly has made an employee-victim’s life miserable with certain comments, jokes, gestures, touchings, you name it.

Far less often do I encounter disparate-treatment claims. A disparate-treatment claim is one where an employee claims that another similarly-situated employee in another class was treated more favorably because of his/her protected class. For example, a female employee claims that similarly-situated male employees are paid more because they are men.

Sounds like the facts of a recent case decided right in my backyard in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This case provides a great opportunity to go back to school on what it means to be similarly-situated…after the jump…

* * *

Kiss the “fluctuating workweek” OT method goodbye in PA

August 30, 2012 | by Eric B. Meyer

mmmmmmmmmmmmwah!

What is the fluctuating workweek method of overtime compensation? Why is it no longer good in PA? And why should you care?

I answer all of these hard-hitting questions — like a BOSS — after the jump…