Yep, in this precedential opinion, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals created a Family and Medical Leave Act loophole that could protect “the most frivolous leave requests.”
Folks, if your business is covered under the FMLA, and you’ve ever had to deal with a questionable medical certification for an employee’s serious health condition, read on…
Happy Monday, everyone.
Glad to see I didn’t break some of your content filters on Friday with my filthy NLRB post. But, hey, just another day in the interesting life of an employment lawyer / HR professional, amirite?
Today, I bring you a very simple lesson, courtesy of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, from right here in my backyard. That lesson is this:
When you terminate an employee, do not write “Health Reasons” on the employee’s termination form. Continue reading
What the hell are you talking about, Eric? Why would we make an independent contractor sign a release of employment claims before starting work for our company?
So glad you asked. Although, I’m not sure I like your tone.
*** takes pills ***
Many years ago, Allstate Insurance restructured its business, where it decided to longer have employees; only independent contractors. So, it offered its employees a bunch of options. One option was a severance; another was the ability to convert to independent contractor status. Either way, the individual had to release all past and presented employment-related claims agains the company.
When the EEOC got wind of the conversion option, they cried retaliation.
Trial is over!
I’m coming atcha live and direct from the bloggerdome with a sweet defense verdict in my pocket. Yup, yup!
And what do I come back to? A precedential Third Circuit opinion discussing an employee’s right to return to work from FMLA.
I’ll cover that for you after the jump…
One of the questions I hear a lot from employers is: Can we communicate with employees on Family and Medical Leave Act leave and, if so, how much?
I’ll get to that in a second.
#HelpShaneFightCancer
I was on such a roll this week.
You guys were digging the heck out of my peeing in the breakroom post, David Crosby the alcoholic, and the one about a supervisor offering cash to sleep with an employee’s wife.
You know who even read that last one? Scan down to the blog comments. Yep, that’s a comment from the plaintiff himself. OMG!!!
That’s right folks. It’s time for another edition of “Fact or Fiction” a/k/a “Quick Answers to Quick Questions” a/k/a QATQQ f/k/a “I don’t feel like writing a long blog post.”
If you operate a business in PA, NJ, DE or the USVI, then the answer is yes. This is true — even if the ban extends to alcohol consumption off the job.
So says the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in this opinion from earlier this week, where an alcoholic employee, who had previously checked himself in to rehab, had violated the terms of a subsequent return-to-work agreement with his employer never to consume alcohol again.
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:
In a 2-1 decision issued today (copy here), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the National Labor Relations Board lacked the authority to act as early as March 2010, when President Obama appointed Craig Becker to the Board. The Third Circuit held that Member Becker’s appointment to the Board while the Senate was on an intrasession recess (a break within a session of the Senate) was unconstitutional. Implicit in the court’s decision is that the appointments of Members Block, Griffin, Flynn in 2013, while the Senate held pro-forma sessions, were also invalid.
The Third Circuit ruled that recess appointments are only valid if made during intersession breaks (i.e., between sessions of the Senate).
This decision is crazy-long (102 pages plus a 55 page dissent). Thankfully, my Dilworth Paxson colleagues, Erin Galbally and Marjorie Obod prepared an e-alert summarizing the decision.
Robert Mariotti was the vice-president and secretary of the company his father founded. Not only was he a corporate officer, but Mariotti also served as a member of the board of directors, and was a shareholder who could only be fired for cause.
In 1995, Mariotti had a spiritual awakening, which he claims resulted in a resulted in “a systematic pattern of antagonism” toward him in the form of “negative, hostile and/or humiliating statements” about him and his religious affiliation. Mariotti claimed that this behavior ramped up for over a decade and, ultimately, resulted in his termination. Thereafter, he sued his former employer for religious discrimination. The company moved to dismiss the claim on the basis that a shareholder-director-officer is not an “employee” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, thus, has no standing to assert a claim for religious discrimination.
What happened you say? Well, even if you read the lede, click through for full analysis…
The Employer Handbook Blog