Articles Posted in

| by

Magnifying_Glass.gif

Well, if it means that the employee diagnosed with anxiety and depression — the one who requested a reasonable accommodation to perform her job — gets fired. Well, then, a lot.

That’s basically what happened in this recent federal court case out of Kentucky.

You see, normally, a court won’t second guess an employer’s decision to terminate an alleged sexual harasser, following a complaint and investigation. And when the alleged sexual harasser later sues the employer for retaliation, well, I don’t care if she belongs to every protected class on the EEOC’s checklist, court’s tend not to sympathize with sexual harassers.

Continue reading

| by

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, an employer must make reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of an individual unless the employer can show that doing so how cause it undue hardship.

Generally, an employee will initiate the process by advising her employer that she is disabled and needs an accommodation to perform the essential functions of her job. What then ensues is an interactive dialogue in which both sides work together in good faith to decide on what that accommodation may be.

But here’s the rub:

Continue reading

| by

[Click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click]

* * *

Dear Google User Who Got Five Words Into The Lede And Clicked:

Continue reading

| by

Paula Deen with my dishtowelsSomewhere, I picture the folks at Merriam Webster franticly revising the definition of “Pyrrhic” to cross-reference a stick of butter Paula Deen.

Yesterday at The Employer Handbook, I discussed the EEOC losing a major battle in its war against background checks. 

Today, it’s all about winning the battle, but losing the war. 

Continue reading

| by

Late last year, in this post, I highlighted the six issues that the United States Equal Employment Commission prioritized in its Strategic Enforcement Plan.  Numero uno is eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring.

Even before it released its Strategic Enforcement Plan, earlier in 2012, the EEOC telegraphed that it would closely scrutinize criminal background checks employers run on job applicants to determine whether they may disparately impact minorities.

But even before that, in 2009, the EEOC came out guns blazing, when it announced a lawsuit against Freeman (also known as the Freeman Companies), a nationwide convention, exhibition and corporate events marketing company. In it’s lawsuit, the EEOC alleged that Freeman unlawfully “rejected job applicants based on their credit history and if they have had one or more of various types of criminal charges or convictions.”

Continue reading

| by

This is the story of a longshoreman who, on January 8, 2006, drank two beers before going to work at 8:00 a.m. Between 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., he knocked back another three cold ones. At lunch, he washed down his liquid breakfast and snack with another four to five more beers. Between the end of lunch and the end of the day (approximately 4:00 p.m.), the longshoreman ignored the old “beer then liquor, never sicker” refrain and downed a pint of whiskey.

Now, if you’re keeping score at home, his blood alcohol level right about 4:30 was .25. For those of you teetotalers who may be wondering, how bad is .25? Three sheets to the wind, at a minimum; possibly more drunk than John Daly was that time at Hooters.

But I digress, all that booze from dawn to dusk warrants a bathroom break and the longshoreman decided to relieve himself at quittin’ time near the bull rail of the dock. Unfortunately, while urinating, the longshoreman fell over the bull rail onto a concrete and steel ledge (approximately six feet below the rail). At the hospital, the docs diagnosed the longshoreman with acute alcohol intoxication — ya think? –, cannabis ingestion, and a severe scalp laceration to his right temple.

Continue reading

| by

Bucharest_ghetto.jpgThen I suggest “ghetto.”

Consider this your performance review ProTip for Tuesday, courtesy of this recent decision from a Texas federal court, in which an employer’s summary judgment motion was denied, and a Mexican-American plaintiff’s race and national origin discrimination claims will proceed to trial.

The smoking gun, it seems, was an affidavit from one of the plaintiff’s supervisors filed in support of the employer’s motion for summary judgment, in which the supervisor stated, “I advised Ms. Garza that this ‘ghetto-ness’ would no longer be tolerated, and that she would be terminated if it continued.” The plaintiff argued that this statement was direct evidence of discrimination against her. The defendant countered with the argument that “cases in which comments containing the word ‘ghetto’ have been viewed as facially discriminatory generally involve African American employees, while Garza is Hispanic.”

Continue reading

| by

borgata!

Sex sells. So, when 22 female cocktail servers at an Atlantic City casino pursued claims of discrimination based on their appearance, it came as little shock to me that the judge wasn’t buying.

Last month, a New Jersey state court dismissed a lawsuit against the Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa, brought by cocktail waitresses known as the “Borgata Babes,” who claimed that they were victims of gender and weight discrimination.

Jennifer Bogdan, writing here for the Press of Atlantic City, notes that, upon hire, Borgata told its servers that they must appear “physically fit” with their weight proportionate to their height and, ultimately, banned the servers from gaining more than 7 percent of their body weight. Supposedly, the women were subject to periodic weight checks and suspension for failing to meet the weight requirements, with exceptions made for medical conditions and pregnancy.

Continue reading
“Doing What’s Right – Not Just What’s Legal”
Contact Information

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Eric B. Meyer
| All Rights Reserved Worldwide.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design