Jennifer O’Brien has a master’s degree in education and certifications as an elementary school teacher and supervisor.
All that education and no common sense.
You’ll see what I mean after the jump. It’s what we wordsmiths call a s&!*storm of a clusterf#%k.
* * *
The original working title for the post was “The Third Circuit takes a deuce on my ‘Pottymouths’ post.” I meant it in the figurative sense. Otherwise, I would be at a loss for words with IT.
More so than usual…
{Napalms browser history}
But, fortunately, good taste and high morals — we’re all about that here at the Handbook {cough} {fart} — prevailed.
Click through to see what a federal appellate court had to say about whether a female plaintiff with an apparent propensity for the cursey-cursey may successfully pursue her sexual-harassment claims.
* * *
I was reading this federal court opinion over the weekend. It involves a disability-discrimination claim brought by a deaf man who applied to become a lifeguard at a county pool, but didn’t get the job because the county thought his disability would compromise swimmer safety. Plus, the town was not convinced that it could accommodate the deaf applicant because it couldn’t be 100% certain that he could safely be on the lifeguard stand alone, without someone constantly by his side.
Folks, I’m guilty.
I’ll admit, that when I started reading this opinion, I immediately jumped to the same conclusion as the county-defendant. How could it possibly be safe to employ a deaf lifeguard?
Of course she does.
What does the Complaint say? And what can employers take away from it? Find out after the jump…
Where did you think I was going with this post?
(And you call yourselves Human Resource professionals).
Just kidding. You know I love you.
In Centucky Kentucky, it’s not retaliation to fire employees who complain about sexual favoritism.
Then again making apple-pie moonshine and using a butcher cleaver to slice off the arm of a Detroit gangster isn’t frowned upon either. At least, that’s what watching Justified teaches me.
But even in Kentucky, they have laws. No, it’s true.
After the jump, you’ll see a KY federal court’s rationale for the latest sexual-favoritism ruling. And I’ll provide some tips for dealing with employees who complain about cushy assignments given to employees who get freaky with management.
Three easy ways to tackle FMLA issues, without having to call someone like me. I’ll explain after the jump…
I assure you that what inspired this post had nothing to do with the facts of the case; namely:
- the female plaintiff claiming that her female-lawyer boss groped her; or
- the plantiff’s Facebook posts about pole-dancing and calling her breasts “milk factories”.
That’s all purely coincidental. Indeed, it sounds like something out of Costanza’s desk drawer.
Actually, I’m posting this to share a very well-reasoned social-media-discovery judicial opinion that is a big win for employers. You’ll see what I mean after the jump…
No doubt, an early contender for 2013.
Kind’ve like The Lincoln Lawyer — except way less glamorous and with far more bounced paychecks and ejaculate. Yes, definitely more of those. Allegedly.
Read all about it here.
In anticipation of the current flu season, you decided to mandate that all employees get immunized. The problem is that one of your employees, a vegan, who won’t ingest any animal or animal by-products — especially not the microwaveable scrapple-wrapped tripe pops I keep in the lunchroom freezer — refuses to get a flu shot because it’s against her religious and philosophical beliefs.
What’s her religion, you ask? Why veganism, of course.
The Employer Handbook Blog