This week, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission trumpeted a $4.4 million settlement in a lawsuit in which the EEOC claimed that Amsted Rail had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by disqualifying applicants based on the results of a test for carpal tunnel syndrome. In the EEOC’s press release, Andrea G. Baran, regional attorney for the EEOC’s St Louis District Office, was quoted as follows: “While it is lawful under some circumstances for employers to conduct limited medical exams after making conditional offers to job applicants, it is not ‘anything goes’.” Wait, what? Actually, I thought it was “anything goes” at that point! Continue Reading What Is the EEOC’s Position on Post-offer/Pre-employment Medical Exams?
In the era of the #MeToo movement, it may be easy to overlook that equal pay is also having a moment. A huge moment. The federal Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) of 1963 requires “equal pay” for “equal work.” If the plaintiff shows a difference in pay for such work, the employer must prove the wage difference is due to a legitimate reason, which includes: Continue Reading Is Equal Pay becoming the new #MeToo?
On Monday, June 4, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated a baker’s constitutional right to the free exercise of his religion, by exhibiting hostility towards the baker’s religious views as expressed in his refusal to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. In so holding, the Supreme Court dodged broader questions about the interaction of the baker’s Constitutional rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion with customers’ rights to be free from discrimination. Continue Reading Supreme Court Rules for Baker in Same-Sex Wedding Cake Case
I have a friend who is a high school biology teacher. A few years ago, her class dissected a sheep’s brain. After class, one of her students confessed to her that he had licked the brain!!! (I’ll pause here for a moment so you can wrap your own brain around that….) Unsurprisingly, this caused an immediate uproar. The school nurse was appropriately concerned about possible health issues (prions that can cause horrific diseases, poisonous chemicals, etc.). On the other hand, an administrator questioned whether my friend had failed to preemptively instruct her students NOT TO LICK THE BRAIN. Um, what? I think we can agree that is one of those things that is so glaringly obvious you should not have to spell it out as a general matter. Continue Reading Starbucks – Training Employees on the Obvious?
As a minority female, I have had my share of being harassed, and I have felt rage at the unfairness. I completely understand the desire to lash out at the harasser. But actually burning them with a cigarette? Well, that crosses the line (unless, of course, the harasser is threatening physical harm. Then, all bets – and gloves – are off!) But that’s what one employee did, and yet she was surprised when the employer fired her for it. Continue Reading Burning a Customer Is Not the Appropriate Response to Harassment
When you are an employment lawyer, you tend to view events through a particular lens. Recently, I had my “ADA specs” on when I read an article about a Duke University professor who, in discussing her book, “Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America,” made a remark about Libertarians during a book tour. She opined how she found it “striking … how many of the architects of this cause seem to be on the autism spectrum,” The professor, Nancy MacLean, continued, “You know, people who don’t feel solidarity or empathy with others and who have difficult human relationships sometimes.” (You can read the story here.) Continue Reading Along the Spectrum
Emojis and emoticons, which we all use to add flavor and emotion to dry, text based communication on our phones, emails, or Facebook messages, have become points of contention in a variety of legal disputes. (For those of us not in the know, emoticons are created from a standard computer keyboard while emojis are more commonly used when texting or using social media.) This phenomenon should not be too surprising, as there are now an estimated 2,600 emojis (and counting) and they are so commonly used that emojis even had their own feature film this summer, The Emoji Movie (albeit to questionable reviews). Continue Reading Employers – Don’t Let Your Emojis Get the Best of You
Here we are again on the brink of another possible federal government shutdown, and employers may be wondering how it may impact them. The last time, during the 2013 federal government shutdown, we provided a summary of the shutdown contingency plans for the major employment-related agencies – the Department of Labor (DOL) (which includes the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Wage-Hour Division (WHD)), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). So we thought we’d provide you with an updated summary of these plans, which set forth what the agencies will and will not do if there is an actual shutdown. Continue Reading EEOC, NLRB and DOL Shutdown Contingency Plans – The 2018 Edition
I am a luddite (meaning that I fear technological change) and am wholly inept when it comes to my smartphone. I know it can do many marvelous things of which I am unaware – but apparently it has a darker side as well, as illustrated by a recent case, Lee v. Trees, Inc. In that case, the court threw out an employee’s Title VII lawsuit because she had submitted fabricated texts, supposedly from her supervisor, to support her claims of sexual harassment and retaliation. Continue Reading Fabricated Texts? Something Else for Employers to Be Aware Of…
Just before the holidays, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Department of Justice was rescinding 25 documents that the agency considered to be unnecessary, inconsistent with existing law, or otherwise improper. The DOJ’s press release, which includes quotes from Sessions regarding his decision to withdraw the guidance can be accessed here. Of note, he categorized the process agencies have been adopting in the digital age (especially under the Obama Administration) of publishing a letter or posting a webpage to signify a change in agency guidance to be an “abuse” of the regulatory process, as prescribed by Congress. Continue Reading The ADA Under Attorney General Sessions