Yesterday, we talked about how workplace accommodations that enable an employee to remain at work (and get paid) are generally better than ones that require time off, like an unpaid leave of absence.
But sometimes, there’s only one option. Continue reading
I’ve practiced law for over twenty years, mainly as an employment lawyer. In that time, I’ve lost track of the number of times that I’ve counseled employers on their obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Some of those have involved accommodating employees with end-stage renal disease and adjusting work schedules to allow for dialysis appointments.
But, an accommodation request to perform dialysis at work? That’s a new one.
Yesterday, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released a new technical assistance document called “Visual Disabilities in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act.”
Sure, you could read all 59 pages of it. Or I can digest it here for you in a few hundred words—your choice. Continue reading
Last night, I read a New Jersey federal court opinion involving a woman who lived and worked remotely in New Hampshire for a company in New Jersey. She sued under New Jersey law, alleging she received less pay than certain male co-workers. The defendants moved to dismiss the action because the remote worker did not live or work in New Jersey. But the court denied the motion.
Here’s why. Continue reading
We began July with New York City starting to enforce its law that requires companies hiring with artificial intelligence to notify candidates, provide candidates with particular information about data collected and analyzed, and independently audit the technology. It’s all in the name of removing bias from the hiring process, which the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has warned employers about, too.
Now, two Senators are co-sponsoring legislation they claim will “protect and empower workers by preventing employers from relying exclusively on artificial intelligence or bots to make employment decisions.” Continue reading
When most people think of federal anti-discrimination laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they associate them with employees suing employers for things like discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environments.
But Title VII covers more than just employers.
I was going to title this one: “Sorry, I’m pretty sure that’s not how diversity, equity, and inclusion works.”
It’ll make sense in a second.
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.
The Employer Handbook Blog