My readers are the best!
On Friday, I received two emails within 15 minutes of one another, encouraging me to blog about this story. Kenneth Hilario at the Philadelphia Business Journal writes about an employee of an NJ company who is suing her employer. What makes this story special? The company allegedly fired the spouse’s husband, the company’s controller, because of his “extreme gas and uncontrollable diarrhea.”
Butt slaps are rarely appropriate. Not in the courtroom. Not in the workplace. Even Buttslaps, LLC in Butte, Montana frowns on butt slaps at work.
(I totally made that last part up. Don’t Google it).
Where am I going with this? Hell When an employee sues for sexual harassment, he or she must prove several elements. One of those elements is that the employee was offended by sexual conduct directed at them.
Yesterday, I had the privilege of presenting a webinar for LexisNexis with my colleague, Larry Holmes, and Sterling Miller. Larry and I have served in the restrictive-covenant trenches together many times. Sterling serves as Senior Counsel at Gober Hilgers. He’s also the former General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer to Sabre Corporation and former General Counsel to Travelocity.com. And without any prodding from me, Sterling admitted to reading this blog. Clearly, he’s good people.
Anyway, about that webinar. The three of us riffed for an hour and twenty on the ins and outs of non-competition and non-solicitation agreements. Plus, we offered some drafting tips and discussed ways to protect confidential information. And, of course, I couldn’t resist intersecting those topics with social media. Secret sauce, anyone? At the end, we took 15 minutes of questions from folks like you.
If you’d like to get a copy of the webinar, I’m pretty sure that I can hook you up. (Don’t let me down, Lexis!) Drop me a line and I’ll do my best to take care of you.
An employee who was allegedly fired for violating a company’s social media policy is going to have his day in court. And on this blog.
You’re right, Commissioner Feldblum. Social media is awesome!
Last Friday, I posted here about a recent federal-court decision addressing the sex discrimination claims of a transgender employee. What drew my attention to the case was this Facebook status update from EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum, in which she touted the court’s decision as further support for the EEOC’s position that transgender discrimination is sex discrimination under Title VII. In my Friday post, I concluded that, while the court did allow the plaintiff’s sex discrimination claims to proceed to trial, it wasn’t because of her transgender status. Rather, the court reasoned that the employer may have engaged in unlawful sex stereotyping. Sex stereotyping definitely violates Title VII.
No, the secret sauce isn’t ketchup. Or is it?
Literally. Continue reading
Back in April, the EEOC concluded that transgender discrimination is discrimination based on sex and, therefore, violates Title VII. That same month, a federal court denied another employer’s motion to dismiss the sex discrimination claims of a transgender employee. However, in denying the motion to dismiss, the court did not conclude that transgender discrimination is sex discrimination. Rather, it reaffirmed that Title VII prohibits sex stereotyping; i.e., when an employer takes action because an employee does not conform to the employer’s sex- or gender-based preferences, expectations, or stereotypes.
One word: Outsource.
See you tomorrow.
Oh, you mean some of you actually do this yourselves?!? Ok. As you should know, in certain circumstances eligible employees may take leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act intermittently or on a reduced leave schedule. Intermittent leave is FMLA leave taken in separate blocks of time due to a single qualifying reason.
Here’s how to account for intermittent FMLA leave. Continue reading
The Americans with Disabilities Act requires an employer to accommodate an employee with a disability, if doing so will enable that individual to perform the essential functions of the job. The exception is if the accommodation would create undue hardship for the employer.
But when is that duty to accommodate triggered?
The Employer Handbook Blog