Unless you run a dental practice, I can’t imagine why a fetching, toothy smile would be a job qualification. But, apparently, a large chain of gas/convenience stores has that policy. Continue reading
Yesterday, I told you about the EEOC’s new resource document for assisting individuals with hearing disabilities. Today, I’ll tell you how the Second Circuit Court of Appeals breathed new life into the failure-to-accommodate claims of a deaf individual who worked as a case manager for a city’s Human Resources Administration (HRA).
So, thank you, blogging gods, for the impeccable timing.
If you’re an employment law nerd like me, in addition to being the envy of your neighborhood, you also know that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission does not shy away from bringing failure-to-accommodate claims on behalf of deaf individuals. Look at all of them! Continue reading
A couple of years ago, I blogged (here) about a company that installed spyware to monitor an employee’s Facebook Messenger activity, discovered a nefarious plot to secure client information and intellectual property, and obtained an injunction to stop the employee from starting a competing business.
But there are legal limits to employer sh*tbaggery surreptitiously monitoring employee communications. Continue reading
When a longtime government agency employee sued her employer for violating the Equal Pay Act, she argued that the defendant paid her male coworker more for “essentially the same job.” In her mind, their roles “were complementary and [their] duties equal.”
But that’s not enough to show prevail under the Equal Pay Act. Continue reading
Over the past few years, employers encountered a spate of religious accommodations requests from employees seeking religious exemptions from getting the COVID-19 vaccine. Last week, plaintiffs filed a series of new lawsuits against a national drugstore chain, accusing it of failing to accommodate the religious beliefs of employees who objected to prescribing contraceptives and abortifacient drugs. This week, the Supreme Court has agreed to reexamine Title VII’s undue hardship standard, which may soon require more than a de minimis cost to the employer.
With so much going on with religious discrimination, the timing is perfect for welcoming EEOC Commissioner Andrea Lucas as today’s guest on The Employer Handbook Zoom Office Happy Hour at Noon ET. Continue reading
On Wednesday, I blogged about a woman who worked as a “helper” for a construction company. She alleged that she had to endure misogynist comments from her general manager, who told her in front of others that, since she had “t*** and an a**,” she could not perform certain functions of her job that would otherwise position her for advancement within the company.
But that isn’t the half of it. Continue reading
A woman received a promotion at a construction company from laborer to helper. Helpers either work on the ground or “at elevation.” The woman had experience working at elevation at another company. She wanted to work at elevation again in her new job to improve her skills because advancements would bring pay raises and advance her craft.
But there was a problem. Continue reading
Last May, I wrote about this religious discrimination case involving an employer’s duty to accommodate a plaintiff who needed Sundays off to observe his religion. The court decided the case in favor of the employer, which led to this appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in August, asking that it revisit its 1977 decision in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison. In Hardison, the Court concluded that Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964 does not require a religious accommodation if it results in more than a de minimis cost to the employer, i.e., an undue hardship.
Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Continue reading
I told you that the first Zoom Office Happy Hour of 2023 at The Employer Handbook would be a big one! Continue reading
The Employer Handbook Blog