Search
The Employer Handbook BlogFacebooking about “naked Twister” may doom one’s sexual harassment claims
And some of you wonder why I enjoy blogging about HR and employment law.
More after the jump…
(What I won’t do for my loyal readers….)
Can the words “Emergency Room” trigger an FMLA request?
As you know from this post, an employee who wants leave from work under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), does not need to use the word, “FMLA.” Instead, the employee need only provide enough information for the employer to understand that the employee needs FMLA leave.
So what about the words, “Emergency Room”? That is, if an employee calls her supervisor and says:
“I am currently in the emergency room. My mother has been brought into the hospital via ambulance, and I am unable to work today.”
Can that trigger an FMLA request? Find out after the jump…
413,000 reasons for HR to avoid inconsistent employee discipline
Inconsistent discipline is bad. But, when an employee’s request for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act precedes the inconsistent discipline by only 48 hours, damn, that’s not just a lawsuit, that’s jury-verdict material.
The details on this bloodbath and a few lessons for my employer-readers after the jump…
Snoop Dog becomes Snoop Lion! And news of a new employee Facebook law
Calvin Broadus a/k/a Snoop Dogg is now the artist formerly known as Snoop Dogg. During a recent trip to Jamaica, Snoop was apparently *** afraid to add snarky strikethrough for fear of losing job *** “born again” and is now Snoop Lion.
But in even BIGGER news —
Drop it like it’s hot!
A scary NLRB decision threatening the integrity of workplace investigations
HR heads are still spinning as they try to digest what the National Labor Relations Board has tried to accomplish this year.
The Acting General Counsel has issued confusing reports on social media. The Board has also attempted to create quickie union elections, and require companies to abide by a union-poster rule. Why, just a few weeks ago, the Board ruled that an “at will” provision in an employee handbook may violate the National Labor Relations Act. That one is still a head-scratcher for me.
But the National Labor Relations Board has really stepped in it again, dealing another crushing blow to HR. I think you’ll agree with me when you read on after the jump…
* * *
“An employee walks into a hospital wearing a Jesus lanyard…”
They can’t all begin with a priest, minister and a rabbi walking into a bar. Then again, it’s “Religious Accommodation Tuesday” here at The Employer Handbook. So, after the jump, we’ll discuss the test to determine whether an employee may lawfully don religious items at work and find out whether the hospital worker in this case has a potential religious discrimination claim (Hint: he does).
* * *
HR Manager emails bolster employee’s ADEA and FMLA claims
Documentation is good; smoking-gun emails from the HR Manager not so much.
After the jump, I’ve got a few doozies which now have a financial institution going to trial on a former employee’s age-discrimination and Family and Medical Leave Act claims.
* * *
Big changes coming to the Mine Safety and Health Act?
Yesterday, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) reintroduced, for a third time, the “Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety and Health Act,” which would amend the Mine Safety and Health Act.
What does this bill say (CliffsNotes version)? And what are the chances of passage? Find out after the jump…
* * *
Egyptian-born FBI agent + post-9/11 transfer = discrimination claim
And if anyone wants to get me this iPad case for Christmas…
Wait, what was I supposed to be writing about? Oh yeah, national-origin discrimination. I’ll get it together for you after the jump…
* * *
Fact or Fiction: The ADA requires creating a new job for a disabled employee
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.”
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, an employer is required to provide a reasonable accommodation, if doing so will allow a disabled employee to perform the essential functions of his job. Could this mean having to create a brand new position for a disabled employee?
Nope. A federal appellate court underscored this last week (opinion here) when if affirmed a lower-court decision to dismiss a plaintiff’s claims under the ADA that his former employer had failed to accommodate his disability: