There’s not a whole lot that we have in common. I’m more erudite (you know, the blog thing), better looking, and more arrogant confident.
Given our differences, what I’m about to say may come as a surprise: when I was a associate attorney, I discussed salaries with other associates.
(I’ll pause as the shock dissipates).
Savvy lawyers today use social media to mine and collect important data about litigants. But cross that line from savvy to shady, and you may find yourself in deep do-do.
(Kinda like the blow-out I encountered when I reached inside the back of my youngest’s wetsuit at the pool this weekend to check his diaper. But different. And TMI. Anyway…)
James McCarty of the The Plain Dealer reported here last week that an Ohio prosecutor was fired for pretending to be a woman in a Facebook chat with an accused killer’s alibi witnesses in an attempt to persuade them to change their testimony.
Bad Van Halen pun aside, let’s play some Skynyrd. Even Waldo agrees.
So, there was this woman in Louisiana who took a teaching position at an elementary school. You know the kind; one that operates on weekdays. And, around her start date, she asked the administration for Tuesdays off to pray and observe her Sabbath. And the administration was all like, no.
So, a month later, the teacher filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, claiming religious discrimination for failure to accommodate.
Alright smarties. One of ABC Company’s employees suffers from post-partum depression. She’s been out of work for over a month, and the company wants to replace her. But, first, it wants your advice.
Read all the facts below:
Emily Employee is an HR Coordinator at ABC Company. ABC provides short-term disability benefits for regular full-time employee like Emily. Last year, Emily began a 12-week maternity leave under the FMLA, during which time she received STD benefits. She returned to work with no restrictions.
Allow me to be serious for a moment…
Moment’s passed, eh? Ok. Let me bring it back…
Last week, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled (here) that discharging a female employee because she is lactating or expressing breast milk is sex discrimination and, therefore, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).
Here’s the scenario: You have a disabled employee who seeks an accommodation. Mindful of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and being the compliant company that you are, you engage that employee in an interactive dialogue to discuss reasonable accommodations — options to allow the employee to perform the essential functions of the position.
Ah yes! You recall that there is another vacant position for which the employee is qualified — albeit barely. That’s a reasonable accommodation. But, oh no! You remember seeing the resume of the perfect candidate for that position.
Question: If there is no other reasonable accommodation available, do you have to offer that open position to the barely-qualified disabled employee? Or can you fill the position with the more qualified candidate?
I’ll discuss after the jump…
* * *
If the movie “Office Space” has taught me anything, it’s to wear 37 pieces of flair to work — do more than the bare minimum — and to use a cover sheet with my TPS reports.
And never mess with a man’s stapler. That too. Especially when you’re also moving the man’s desk four times and sending him to the basement. Because that could be age discrimination.
No, seriously. I was reading this decision from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. It involves claim of age discrimination where, the over-40 plaintiff claimed that he was “functionally replaced” by an employee who was substantially younger than him.
Back in 2010, when the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act went into effect, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was amended to require a “reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk for her nursing child for 1 year after the child’s birth each time such employee has need to express the milk.”
Generally, employers are not required to compensate an employee for the break time to express milk, and an employer with fewer than 50 employees does not have to comply with the rule if it would pose an undue hardship.
One more minor caveat — of which I must admit, I was not aware — the law only covers non-exempt employees. (Although, I imagine that most businesses afford the same dignity to exempt employees too).
Last week, before the Memorial Day weekend, Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber signed into law this bill, which prohibits employers from requiring or requesting that employees or applicants for employment:
- Provide access to personal social media accounts,
- Add employers to social media contact lists, or
The Employer Handbook Blog