I received a lot of feedback on last week’s post. That was the one about an EEOC lawsuit alleging that a company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it allegedly failed to accommodate a disabled employee’s request to use a service dog.
Among the reader feedback was a question about what happens when permitting an employee to use a service dog would cause another employee’s pet allergies to flare up.
So, I’m diligently preparing and honing my delivery ***fart*** for my FMLA/ADA presentation this Tuesday at SHRM’s 2017 Employment Law and Legislative Conference in Washington, DC, when, what do I see? It’s a new SHRM study on “employer practices, policies, programs and benefits that address personal and family needs of employees.”
Seems topical with all these rumblings of paid leave coming from the White House.
Serendipity may be one of the worst movies of all time. Of this, I am sure.
Then again, I can’t stand John Cusack movies, especially that pretentious piece of one-know-what, High Fidelity. But, I’m not writing today to bash John Cusack. And, I’m not made of stone. Hot Tub Time Machine was pretty freaking good.
Rather, I found it serendipitous that I never really talk about Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination based on sex in any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Then, you get Tuesday’s post about the similarities between Title IX and Title VII.
And, I’m gonna give you another Title VII / Title IX post today.
I received a bunch of reader emails yesterday with requests for future blog posts.
One reader requested a follow-up to yesterday’s post about service animals and the ADA, asking that I address what happens when a service animal causes allergy issues for co-workers. Another reader sought input on heated political discussions at work as a gateway to a real hostile work environment. Both good ideas; I’ll get to them.
Today, however, I want to talk about Gavin Grimm and yesterday’s announcement from the U.S. Supreme Court to send his transgender rights case back to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of the guidance document issued by the Department of Education and Department of Justice on February 22, 2017.