Last week, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) reintroduced the Domestic Violence Leave Act, which expands paid leave options for victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking. Details on the pending legislation and what it would mean for employers if it passes after the jump…
Earlier this week, one of my readers forwarded an email to me reminding me about the young woman above who, last year, in a series of 34 pictures, told her employer to take her job and shove it.
Nice! Although I’m not sure that it is better than this absolutely epic letter from the Cleveland Browns to one of their disgruntled fans.
Worst. Pun. Ever.
In some states, employees who become victims of domestic violence, or whose family members are victims of domestic violence, are entitled to take a short unpaid leave from work. In one state, companies need to be aware of possible legislation that would require them to afford time off to employees whose pets are victims of violence or threats of violence.
Find out which state — you have a 1 in 50 chance — after the jump…
I hope you enjoyed yesterday’s Simpsons post. I had a blast writing it but, damn, it sapped the life out of me. So, after the jump, I’m sending you out into the blogosphere for your daily dose of employment law and HR news…
* * *
In yesterday’s post, we looked at whether a morbidly-obese employee is protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Today, let’s apply yesterday’s discussion to a “real-world” example. Is Homer Simpson disabled? And is the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant legally obligated to offer him a reasonable accommodation? The answers after the jump…
* * *
Recently, the EEOC sued a Texas company, alleging that the company engaged in disability discrimination, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, when it fired a 680-pound worker because he was morbidly obese.
Is that right? Can being overweight be considered a “disability” under federal law? And, if so, what can companies do to find themselves staring down the barrel of loaded ADA lawsuit? I’ll answer these questions after the jump.
* * *
Retaliation claims have become the leading cause of action for employees. In fiscal year 2010, retaliation charges filed with the EEOC nationwide accounted for 36.3% of all filings, at 36,258. There are three essential elements of a retaliation claim:
- Employee Protected Activity – opposition to discrimination or participation in the statutory complaint process;
- Employer Adverse Action – any adverse treatment (beyond a petty slight or a trivial annoyance) that is based on a retaliatory motive and is reasonably likely to deter protected activity; and
- Causal Connection – between the protected activity and the adverse action.
What makes retaliation claims so common? Well, it’s not so much because they are are easy for employees to prove. In my opinion, it’s because retaliation claims are tough for employers to disprove prior to trial.
Case in point after the jump…
* * *
Maybe it’s that good feeling I still have after eating some hella-good spicy fried chicken at Bolton’s Spicy Chicken & Fish in Nashville, TN last night.
Oh no, wait, that’s heartburn.
In any event, I’m feeling generous. I feel like giving back some of the love. Later today, I will be speaking at the Advanced Employment Issues Symposium in Nashville, TN, where I will be presenting Using Social Media To Make Hiring and Firing Decisions: What’s Legal? What’s Not?. If you have social-media hiring-related questions that you would for like for me to answer, fire away! You just need to do two things for me.
The National Labor Relations Board announced yesterday afternoon that it has pushed back its deadline for covered employers to post this notice, advising employees how to form a union, among other things.
More details, including the new deadline, after the jump…
* * *
Your business drug tests job applicants as a condition of employment. What would happen if a male applicant refused to take a urine test because he claimed that he had paruresis, otherwise known as “shy bladder syndrome” or “bashful bladder syndrome”? Would you have to accommodate the applicant with a different type of drug test? Or could you just refuse to hire the applicant?
The EEOC recently addressed this topic and I have the answer — along with some self-deprecation — after the jump…
* * *
The Employer Handbook Blog