When you’re part of the bloggerati, just one half-step below the illuminati, well, let’s just say membership has its privileges. AMEX taupe card, rinkside seats to the local roller derby, earlybird specials, the world is your oyster.

And, at work, the staff sees me coming and runs the other way throngs to my office. Indeed, it’s gotten so bad, that we had to install security machines to control ingress and egress. While my firm can’t wait for me to jump ship loves the attention that my blog brings — remember you can vote for my blog in the ABA Blawg 100 — the folks who sign my mega-paycheck expressed concern that it would also have to compensate our non-exempt employees for the spent clearing security.

Thankfully, yesterday, the Supreme Court, in this opinion, unanimously ruled that the time these folks spend clearing security is not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act. That’s because the time our staff spends waiting in line to clear security is neither indispensable nor integral to their principal activities in the office. They get paid to do legal work; not wait in line. And, absent the security, these folks could still do their jobs. And, even though my firm requires our awesome staff to clear security because of my blogging greatness and related fame and notoriety, the Portal-to-Portal Act exempts employers from FLSA liability for this this preliminary and postliminary time.

Just seems like common sense to me, especially where the employee seeking the accommodation would have to operate a motor vehicle.

Wait a minute!

Did an employee with a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act really think it would be reasonable for his employer to allow him to take narcotic pain medication so that he could operate a company vehicle pain free?

More after the jump…

* * *

Continue reading

Little known fact: Pythagoras invented the Pythagorean theorem around 500 BC, which he nearly dubbed the  Chicken Pot Pie theorem, because he loved CPPs so much. That same year, Pythagoras’s brother, Sarogahtyp, discovered that, when one man tweaks another man’s nipple, it’s not sex discrimination. But, it will get you a black eye — especially when the recipient is your brother and he’s finalizing his legendary theorem when finishing off a flaky CPP.

Thousands of years later, it still holds true that when a man delivers a purple nurple — some of you know it by a more boorish synonym — to a male subordinate, it may be “manifestly inappropriate and obnoxious,” as one federal appellate court ruled last week, but it’s probably not sex discrimination.

More after the jump…

* * *

Continue reading

Posted in:
Updated:

I had planned to blog today about yesterday’s oral argument before the Supreme Court in Young v. UPS, the case about when an employer must accommodate a pregnant employee.

But…

The Philadelphia 76ers stole the spotlight — and my evening — with their first win of the season, an 85-77 victory over the Minneapolis Timberwolves, whose team colors of white, blue, and black have officially been replaced with shame, ignominy, and more shame.

Under federal law (Title VII), employers cannot discriminate because of one’s sex. While Title VII does not explicitly coverage transgender employees (i.e., someone born female who presents male, and vice-versa; also known as gender identity), the EEOC’s position is that transgender employees are protected too. Indeed, they’ve begun filing federal lawsuits on behalf of transgender employees who claim to have been discriminated against.

But, Courts have not uniformly accepted the EEOC’s position. Indeed, the state of the law here is very much unsettled.

Just before Thanksgiving, a Texas federal court considered whether an employer can discriminate under Title VII based purely on gender identity…and get away with it.

More after the jump…

* * *

Continue reading

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is obsessed with wellness programs.

Or, as the EEOC likes to describe them “‘so-called’ wellness programs.” And not in a “yay, so-called wellness programs are super” kinda way.

No, in recent months, the EEOC has initiated litigation against companies (example, example, example) claiming that they violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information Non-Disclosure Act by both requiring medical examination and penalizing employees who decline to participate.

“Doing What’s Right – Not Just What’s Legal”
Contact Information