Yesterday, I read a post over at Business Management Daily about an employee who sued for involuntary servitude.
Yes, folks. The plaintiff claimed that her former employer had treated her like a slave.
Specifically, the plaintiff, a trainee of some sort, alleged that she was never provided with a job description or adequately trained.
Late last month, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter signed this bill, which requires reasonable workplace accommodations for employees who have needs related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.
As noted in this prior post about Philadelphia’s new law, reasonable accommodations would include, but are not limited to, restroom breaks, periodic rest for those who stand for long periods of time, assistance with manual labor, leave for a period of disability arising from childbirth, reassignment to a vacant position, and job restructuring.
An employer can avoid having to provide a workplace accommodation, but will have the burden of proving “undue hardship.” The “undue hardship” factors generally mirror those found in the Americans with Disabilities Act and revolve around the cost of the accommodation and the employer’s overall financial resources.
How about cutting the 50-employee requirement for covered employers in half?
So, if you have 25 or more employees working within 75 miles of one another, they would be eligible to take leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
And that’s just part of the Family and Medical Leave Enhancement Act of 2014, which Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this week.
Back in 2011, the National Labor Relations Board tried to pass certain rules that would have changed the union-election process in eight ways:
- Allow for electronic filing of election petitions and other documents.
- Ensure that employees, employers and unions receive and exchange timely information they need to understand and participate in the representation case process.
Back in January 2011, when I had only one child and an Aston Martin savings fund, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP. In that case, the Court held that an employer violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act if it takes action against an employee who is in the same “zone of interest” as another employee who files a Charge of Discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
In Thompson, a company received an EEOC Charge of Discrimination and allegedly fired the employee’s fiancé in response. The Supreme Court held that, if true, this set of fact would amount to retaliation.
Now, fast forward to 2014. I have four children, I’m two Happy Meals away from declaring bankruptcy, and, last night, I dined on the leftover ketchup packets.
Take it from your ol’ buddy Eric.
Let’s say that your employee is on FMLA…
And let’s say that, while your employee is on FMLA, you learn that her husband is involved in a motorcycle gang…
Notwithstanding the lopsided outcome in last night’s game — I’m not saying that the game was over early, but, at halftime, the NFL began preparing their shipments of “Denver Broncos: Super Bowl 48 Champs” apparel to third-world countries — I’m bailing on writing a post. So, today we have a guest blog post at The Employer Handbook. It’s from the folks at Intervisa.
(Want to guest blog on an employment-law topic at The Employer Handbook? Email me).
* * *
I heard this story once about a law-school graduate who was looking for his first job out of school. He applied to several local Philadelphia-area law firms, and ultimately received an interview from one of them.
The job interview was with two seasoned partners.
According to this recent Career Builder press release, when it comes to a job interview, the first few minutes may be the most crucial. Nearly half (49 percent) of employers know within the first five minutes of an interview whether a candidate is a good or bad fit for the position, and 87 percent know within the first 15 minutes.
Recently, I’ve focused blog posts on some quirky cases that make you think a bit. Yesterday, was the FMLA in Vegas case. Last week, was the EMT who argued that getting fired for groping a co-worker was discriminatory in light of his employer’s decision not fire an employee who hit a patient.
Today is not one of those cases.
Back in 2012, I blogged here about an employee who took her mother to Las Vegas on a vacation. The two ladies spent time playing slots, shopping on the Strip, people-watching, and dining at restaurants. The mother had terminal cancer, but had no specific plans to seek medical treatment in Las Vegas and was never hospitalized or treated by a physician.
When the employee returned to work, she soon became a former employee, immediately terminated for what her employer determined to be unauthorized absences.
The employee then sued for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act.
The Employer Handbook Blog