In early 2020, an employee at a global food supplier left work early with flu-like symptoms. That day she obtained a doctor’s note recommending that she “stay out of work for three days, from February 19-21, 2020.” The employee requested to have five days off to recuperate. However, the note said nothing about her inability to work beyond those three days. Her employer terminated her on February 21.
For every unicorn $25.6 million jury verdict you may read about online, thousands of discrimination cases fall well short of that mark. Way more never have a shot at making it to trial. And some don’t even have sufficient facts on the face of the complaint, which, if true, would establish a cause of action. They get dismissed right away.
Just like the case I have for you today.
The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination based on a disability concerning employment. That includes refusing to hire someone based on an actual disability, a perceived disability, or a record of disability.
Whether an employer regards a job applicant as having a disability or learns about a record of a disability, an employer cannot lawfully refuse to hire them because they are receiving addiction treatment — even if that means the individual is currently in a methadone maintenance program.
Yesterday, we discussed how an employee asserting a failure-to-accommodate claim under Title VII must establish that their request for a religious accommodation resulted in an adverse employment action. The same appellate court deciding that case also recently confirmed that the same maxim applies to failure-to-accommodate claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
But, there’s a rub. Continue reading
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 creates a statutory obligation for covered employers to make reasonable accommodations for workers’ religious observances, short of incurring an undue hardship. At a minimum, aggrieved employees generally must establish three elements in a failure-to-accommodate lawsuit:
I’m neither a doctor nor a meteorologist but an employment lawyer. And, like the First Circuit Court of Appeals in this recent decision, I struggle with what the employer in Puerto Rico could have done differently to accommodate one of its workers. Continue reading
Last week, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business. The next day, the Supreme Court concluded in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis that the First Amendment superseded a state’s anti-discrimination law which would have forced a website designer who does not believe in same-sex marriage to create wedding websites for gay couples.
Since then, I’ve seen folks asking whether employees with sincerely-held religious beliefs about same-sex marriage can get a religious accommodation from their employer to refuse to work with a gay coworker? Continue reading
Last week, the Supreme Court made it more difficult for employers to establish that an employee’s request for a religious accommodation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 creates an undue hardship.
But there’s much more to Title VII than just religious accommodations. And the Supreme Court isn’t done with the statute yet. Last week, it agreed to determine whether Title VII prohibits discrimination in transfer decisions absent a separate court determination that the transfer decision caused a significant disadvantage. Continue reading
The Employer Handbook Blog