It’s that time of year again. Open enrollment, flu shots, and CareerBuilder.com’s list of the most creative excuses for missing work.
But before I get to that, how about some missed-work statistics based on responses from 2,203 hiring managers and human resource professionals, and 3,103 U.S. workers (employed full-time, not self-employed, non-government).
- 28% of employees have called in to work sick when they were feeling well
See that lede right there! That’s journalism, baby!
After the jump, let’s talk about what it means to have a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendment Act.
I’m talking about a $620,000 jury verdict and nearly $165,000 in attorney’s fees.
Let’s discuss reverse-race discrimination after the jump…
Back in 2013, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission began investigating Case New Holland, Inc. for age discrimination, or so a complaint that Case New Holland recently filed in federal court alleges.
So, how is this news? Let alone blog news, which is hardly news at all. I should know. I publish this drivel. And I don’t get paid for it. Which makes this the worst kind of drivel.
Anyway, apparently, the EEOC sent 1,330 emails to Case New Holland email addresses trolling for potential class-action plaintiffs — or so the Case New Holland complaint alleges. And by sending those emails, the EEOC violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution — or so Case New Holland alleges.
Remember, over the Summer, when I blogged about how sending FMLA paperwork to an employee via first class mail is a big mistake.
Why? Because if the employee claims not to have received the paperwork, then you have no proof of delivery, and possible FMLA interference issues if the employee is somehow precluded from taking FMLA leave.
So, I offered three alternatives:
One employer appears to have screwed up royally. Click through to find out how.
Three nights ago…
Eric: How many bags of Halloween candy do you think we need this year?
Wife: Our neighbors said last year they had ten.
My Facebook and Twitter feeds were blowing up yesterday with links to articles at NYTimes.com, Huffington Post, and Jezebel about how the sandwich chain, Jimmy John’s, supposedly makes its sandwich makers and delivery drivers sign these non-competition agreements. These agreements purport to preclude employees from working for certain nearby competitors for two years after their employment with Jimmy John’s ends.
Now, I know what you’re thinking…
That Meyer has the coolest Facebook and Twitter feeds evah! How can I get with him? (Well, here’s how you can get with me next month, but I digress).
I’m not going to comment specifically on Jimmy John’s and its purported practice other than to say that I work in Philadelphia and it would be sacrilege to let a “sub sandwich” pass between these lips. But, after the jump, I do have a few general pointers from employers about restrictive covenants…
* * *
Coming up during this term, the Supreme Court will decide seven cases relating to HR compliance. To put this into proper perspective, if you were to award a point for every forthcoming Supreme Court decision, that would be seven more points than the entire New York Giants team scored against the Philadelphia Eagles on Sunday night.
[Yep, still basking in the glow].
Anyway, for more on these important cases affecting your workplace, Philip Miles has you covered here at Lawffice Space.
But, hey, what do you have to lose by filing the lawsuit anyway, right? I mean, it can’t end up worse than the New York Giants on Sunday Night Football.
(Oh yeah, I went there).
More after the jump…
The Employer Handbook Blog