When Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendment Act, which went into effect on January 1, 2009, it indicated that one of its purposes was to “convey that the question of whether an individual’s impairment is a disability under the ADA should not demand extensive analysis.”
I vaguely recall some of the floor discussion in anticipation of the passage of the ADAAA:
“I yield to the Senator.”
My Dilworth Paxson colleagues, Matthew Whitehorn and Richard Smolen, recently published an important alert about how keeping good employee records now can help protect your business from future “play or pay” penalties under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).
You can view a copy of it here.
Tomorrow, I plan to be less lazy and actually have a post of my own.
I was on such a roll this week.
You guys were digging the heck out of my peeing in the breakroom post, David Crosby the alcoholic, and the one about a supervisor offering cash to sleep with an employee’s wife.
You know who even read that last one? Scan down to the blog comments. Yep, that’s a comment from the plaintiff himself. OMG!!!
Last night, I read this press release from the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, announcing a $2 million recovery for 50 male employees of a New Mexico automobile dealership.
What happened, you say? From the press release:
“In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged a former lot manager, James Gallegos, under the direction of Charles Ratliff, Jr., then general manager, with subjecting a class of men to egregious forms of sexual harassment, including shocking sexual comments, frequent solicitations for oral sex, and regular touching, grabbing, and biting of male workers on their buttocks and genitals. The EEOC also alleged that Pitre retaliated against male employees who objected to the sexually hostile work environment. During the pendency of the lawsuit, the retaliatory actions of Pitre raised such concern that a U.S. District Court judge granted a preliminary injunction against Pitre, prohibiting the dealership and all of its agents from threatening or engaging in retaliatory actions against case participants.”
On Monday, it was public urination.
Yesterday, we had indecent proposals.
And today, the blogging gods, in which I hold a sincerely-held belief, serve me up this federal court opinion about an alcoholic named David Crosby — not that David Crosby, but still — who sued his former employer for supposedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, as a result of his termination of employment after a 30-day stint in rehab.
Oh, sweet child! Someone catch me; I do believe I have the vapors.
Let us rejoice in the bounty together, after the jump…
Terribly sorry about the confusion created by my sloppy use of possessive pronouns in today’s lede. The “his” wife refers to the employee’s wife. Otherwise, this post doesn’t make any sense, does it? (Don’t spend too much time contemplating the question, ok).
Yep, just another Tuesday at The Employer Handbook.
Click through for what should prove to be a cluster of a gender discrimination claim contain many valuable takeaways for proactive employers.
I’m pretty sure Larry David had this written into the Seinfeld Parking Garage episode before making a last-minute script change to uromysitis.
I would have stuck with the former. But, Mr. David is a comedic genius and I just write this crappy blog.
How bad is this blog, you ask? I was contemplating using the words “wicked pissah” in the lede, only to realize that I’d already used them.
Then again, you’re the ones reading this. Go ahead. Click through to read more after the jump…
* * *
Sorry, gang. Last night was my fantasy baseball auction. And I got home hella-late. So, no post today.
Ahhhhhh, I can’t totally leave you hangin’. So, you can read about how the University of Northwestern football team can now organize and form a union (here), or you can grade my fantasy baseball team (right) in the comments below.
Oh, no. Meyer’s slacking. Let the unsubscribes begin!
Over the past several years, seemingly, we’re seen the NLRB take a more active interest in employee handbooks.
We’ve certainly seen it with respect to social media policies; especially, where these policies purport to limit the rights of employees to discuss their employment with one another. This is because Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act allows employees to discuss their terms and conditions of employment together.
And you don’t need to have a union either. The act applies in most every private-sector workplace.
The Employer Handbook Blog