- The self-congratulatory comments I left below the picture of my awesome seven-story beeramid.
- My candid review of Cinemax’s After Dark lineup from Arbor Day 2011.
- My plea to George Carlin to go beyond the self-imposed boundaries of seven dirty words.
That’s right folks. It’s time for another edition of “Fact or Fiction” a/k/a “Quick Answers to Quick Questions” a/k/a QATQQ f/k/a “I don’t feel like writing a long blog post.”
Your new employee at local pizzeria has what we’ll call a “facial deformity.” So, rather than having him work the cash register, or otherwise emerge from the kitchen, you mandate that he work in the back so that no customers will ever see him.
Have you violated the Americans with Disabilities Act?
What makes retaliation the most common discrimination claim in America?
I suspect it’s because other forms of discrimination (e.g., race, gender, disability) are more difficult to prove and don’t always result in an adverse employment action, such as termination of employment. And since most people like to keep their jobs, they’re more reluctant to rock the boat.
Conversely, retaliation always includes adverse action — quite often a firing — and follows what the law terms a “protected activity” (opposition to discrimination or participation in the statutory complaint process). So, you have a situation where an employee suspects discrimination is afoot, complains about it, and then gets fired.
I know. I know. Seems more like a “Tuesday” post.
Earlier in the week, I read this article on The Smoking Gun about a man who got busted giving wedgies to movie patrons outside of a Florida theater.
So, it got me thinking.
Jennifer O’Brien has a master’s degree in education and certifications as an elementary school teacher and supervisor.
All that education and no common sense.
You’ll see what I mean after the jump. It’s what we wordsmiths call a s&!*storm of a clusterf#%k.
* * *
The original working title for the post was “The Third Circuit takes a deuce on my ‘Pottymouths’ post.” I meant it in the figurative sense. Otherwise, I would be at a loss for words with IT.
More so than usual…
{Napalms browser history}
But, fortunately, good taste and high morals — we’re all about that here at the Handbook {cough} {fart} — prevailed.
Click through to see what a federal appellate court had to say about whether a female plaintiff with an apparent propensity for the cursey-cursey may successfully pursue her sexual-harassment claims.
* * *
I was reading this federal court opinion over the weekend. It involves a disability-discrimination claim brought by a deaf man who applied to become a lifeguard at a county pool, but didn’t get the job because the county thought his disability would compromise swimmer safety. Plus, the town was not convinced that it could accommodate the deaf applicant because it couldn’t be 100% certain that he could safely be on the lifeguard stand alone, without someone constantly by his side.
Folks, I’m guilty.
I’ll admit, that when I started reading this opinion, I immediately jumped to the same conclusion as the county-defendant. How could it possibly be safe to employ a deaf lifeguard?
Of course she does.
What does the Complaint say? And what can employers take away from it? Find out after the jump…
Where did you think I was going with this post?
(And you call yourselves Human Resource professionals).
Just kidding. You know I love you.
In Centucky Kentucky, it’s not retaliation to fire employees who complain about sexual favoritism.
Then again making apple-pie moonshine and using a butcher cleaver to slice off the arm of a Detroit gangster isn’t frowned upon either. At least, that’s what watching Justified teaches me.
But even in Kentucky, they have laws. No, it’s true.
After the jump, you’ll see a KY federal court’s rationale for the latest sexual-favoritism ruling. And I’ll provide some tips for dealing with employees who complain about cushy assignments given to employees who get freaky with management.
The Employer Handbook Blog