If Cochese and Bobby, “The Rookie” were working mall security in Pennsylvania, would their employer have to pay them for the time they spend keeping those uniforms looking 80s-spiffy? If it were up to one Pennsylvania federal court, they would be SOL.
You’ll see what I mean once you hit the jump…
Wouldn’t it be nice if you could find a single online resource with links to a slew of topical blog posts about a particular topic or area — say, employment law? Well, I have a solution. But I need your help…to create a blog carnival.
What is a blog carnival, you ask? It is all explained here. In a nutshell, here’s how it will work:
- To get things started, bloggers submit employment-law-related blog posts to me.
Today, I get to sleep in because The Employer Handbook has a guest blogger. It’s Andrew Kim, a summer associate at Dilworth Paxson LLP:
* * *
Some people have no problem with heights (as seen above). But Darrell Miller, a bridge worker, had acrophobia (a.k.a. the fear of heights). In fact, Mr. Miller had suffered a panic attack due to that very fear while working on the bridge crew for the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). He then sought a reasonable accommodation so that he wouldn’t have to work on big bridges. IDOT refused. Did it violate the Americans with Disabilities Act?
Find out after the jump . . .
Yesterday, the EEOC held a meeting to discuss what it deems a “major national problem”; namely, deliberate discrimination against job seekers based on their race, sex, age, national origin or other prohibited basis.
After the jump, I’ll summarize the meeting and offer some tips for employers to help them stay off of the EEOC’s radar.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has proposed amendments to its existing rules and regulations that will vastly change the way union-elections are conducted. The NLRB spin on these amendments is that they will “reduce unnecessary litigation, streamline pre- and post-election procedures, and facilitate the use of electronic communications and document filing.”
Is this a good thing or a bad thing for employers? I’ll detail the proposed changes, after the jump.
As reported on this blog yesterday, as well as in a gazillion other news outlets — but probably here first firstish — the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned certification of a potential class of 1.5 million current and former female employees seeking relief against Wal-Mart for alleged gender discrimination.
After the jump, a break down of the Opinion and what it means for employers, big and small.
The United States Supreme Court has just overturned a Ninth Circuit decision that would have allowed 1.5 million female employees to pursue a class-action gender discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. You can read a copy of the Supreme Court’s opinion here.
I’ll have more on this decision tomorrow at The Employer Handbook.
There once was an employer in Racine.
With a manager whose antics were racy.
The court said, “You lose!”
Now, tell everyone the news.
And if you disobey, it’ll cost you big money.
*** Although I feel rhyming “Racine” with “racy” was pure Shakespeare, I’m fairly certain that Edward Lear’s corpse just pissed itself ***
After the jump, it’s the employer, found liable for sexual harassment, that refused to abide by a court-ordered notice requiring it to inform its employees about the verdict…
* * *
Continue reading
In the workplace, messing around on Facebook may earn an employee a pink slip. In the political arena, Facebook faux pas can cost a Congressman his seat in Congress — although it could result in a job with Hustler. [SFW].
But, in the courtroom, Facebook shenanigans may lead to hard time in the clink. This is especially true in the UK, where the BBC reports that a juror who contacted a defendant via Facebook, causing a £6m drug mistrial, has been jailed for eight months for contempt of court.
DAAAAAAAAAYUM!
Come on, folks. What else did you expect?
Photo Credit: Elsa/Getty Images
The Employer Handbook Blog