Employment Discrimination

Subscribe to Employment Discrimination via RSS

Many employers have drug-free workplace policies that require employees to disclose if they are taking prescription (and perhaps over-the-counter drugs) that could affect their ability to perform the essential functions of their job safely and/or effectively. This requirement seems pretty sensible, right? But according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it violates the Americans with Disabilities Act!
Continue Reading Be Careful Asking About Employees’ (Non)Prescription Drug Use

I was recently perusing the latest edition of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s federal sector Digest of Equal Employment Opportunity Law (because, yes, I am that much of an employment law nerd) and came across an interesting article, “Race Discrimination in the 21st Century Workplace,” by EEOC attorney Paula Rene Bruner. The article specifically “attempt[s] to highlight newer types of race discrimination that have emerged in the 21st century federal, public, and private employment sectors.”
Continue Reading EEOC Highlights New Types of Race Discrimination

Many savvy employers know that a neutral reference policy – in which you confirm a former employee’s position, dates of employment and (maybe) salary – is typically the safest choice for avoiding a defamation claim. After all, if you don’t say much (and what you say is not negative), you can’t be sued. Of course, if you choose to say more and what you say (even if unflattering) is true, then you can also avoid liability because truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. But what one employer learned, to its dismay, is that you can still be sued, even if what you say is truthful.
Continue Reading Be Careful of What You Say About Your Former Employee…

Last week, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced it was offering a training program on respectful workplaces as an alternative to traditional harassment prevention training. This training was developed following the issuance of the Report of the Co-Chairs of the EEOC’s Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace, The press release included a quote from EEOC Acting Chair and Co-Chair of the Select Task Force Victoria Lipnic that stated, “These trainings incorporate the report’s recommendations on compliance, workplace civility, and bystander intervention training. I believe the trainings can have a real impact on workplace culture, and I hope employers make use of them.”
Continue Reading The EEOC’s Civility Training Program – Watch Out For That NLRB Charge!

The consensus amongst employers in the recent past has been that, because federal law categorizes marijuana as an illegal substance, employers could take adverse action against individuals who tested positive for marijuana (refusing to hire, disciplining or terminating). In that same vein, because marijuana was illegal under federal law, the thought was that an employer had no obligation to provide accommodations to workplace policies, such as drug testing policies, to individuals who tested positive because of medical marijuana use.  (Except in Nevada, because it is the only U.S. jurisdiction whose statute requires accommodations for medical marijuana users).  However, a recent case, Barbuto v. Advantage Sales & Mktg., LLC, has seemingly caused the traditional line of thinking to go up in smoke.
Continue Reading Do Employers Have to Provide Accommodations for Medical Marijuana Use?

I am often surprised (and highly amused) by the excuses offered by employees to justify their misconduct. And by the fact that they’re often willing to litigate over them! A recent example of this can be found in the case of Alamillo v. BNSF Railway Co.

The employee worked an “extra board” schedule, meaning that he would report to work when called, rather than the usual 5-day a week regular schedule. An extra board employee who fails to answer three phone calls within a 15-minute period is marked as having “missed a call.” Under the company’s policy, five missed calls within a 12-month period may result in termination.
Continue Reading Extraordinary Employee Excuses

Instead of covering the top sports headlines of the day, ESPN has once again made the headlines and found itself embroiled in controversy. This time, the network removed a broadcaster from the September 2 football game between the Virginia Cavaliers and William & Mary set to play in Charlottesville, Virginia. It did so because his name is Robert Lee. He is Asian American.
Continue Reading What’s in a Name? Ask Robert Lee

So, following the violent events and controversy surrounding the white nationalist/supremacist rally in Charlottesville, it was reported by Berkeleyside that an employee was fired from his job because of his participation in the rally. (The story was subsequently updated to state that the employee voluntarily resigned during a conversation with his employer about his involvement at the rally). But the initial story raised questions about whether an employer can take action against an employee for engaging in off-duty activities that an employer may find repugnant – such as participating in a white supremacist rally.
Continue Reading Workplace Lessons From Charlottesville

Green-baby-boy-rattle-baby-rattle-clipart-cool-LSoFao-clipartThis past week, the American Civil Liberties Union announced that it was filing a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of a male J. P. Morgan employee because the company denies fathers paid parental leave on the same terms as mothers. Now this is an issue that has been percolating for awhile – and one that is not necessarily on the radar screens of smaller employers, many of whom may offer maternity – but not paternity – leave benefits to their employees.
Continue Reading Maternity/Parental Leave Policies – A Trap for the Unwary

question-mark-xxlAs you may know, I am a die-hard management-side attorney. Typically, I cheer on federal courts that rule in favor of employers – but there are the rare occasions where I think the court gets it unquestionably, unutterably wrong. And the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit’s decision in Abdel-Ghani v. Target Corp. is one of these.

In this case, the plaintiff, a Palestinian immigrant, was employed by a third party, MarketSource, to work at a mobile phone sales kiosk at a Target store. He only worked there for about two months before he was terminated. During his employment, he did not get along with the MarketSource sales manager at that store, and at one point she supposedly told him, “Go back home, go to your country.” In addition, the plaintiff alleged that Target employees (from behind shelves) called him names such as camel jockey, Muslim, Arab, terrorist, and sand nigger, and that this occurred at least ten times during the two months of his employment. Also, he overheard another employee say, “[y]ou should be rounded up in one place and nuke[d].” He was terminated, ostensibly for issues with the sales manager, Target employees and guests. He then sued MarketSource and Target under Title VII for subjecting him to a hostile work environment and national origin discrimination, among other things.
Continue Reading “Go Back to Your Country” Is Not Evidence of National Origin Discrimination?