Over the weekend, I heard PSY’s catchy song Gangnam Style for the first time. Coincidentally, I then read this story from Kathleen Miles on the Huffington Post about 14 Gen-Y lifeguards at a city pool in El Monte, CA, who posted this video (below, left) on YouTube spoofing the original “Gangnam Style” music video (below, right).

In response, the City fired the 14 lifeguards for using City property, including the pool and their uniforms, for private use. Sure, the City was within its rights to fire these employees. But, was that the ideal response?

Ace-jack.jpg

[Editor’s Note: Because “Playing the Race Card” was already taken]

The title of this post is comprised of the seven poorly-chosen words from a Vice President of Operations at a Detroit casino right before the casino terminated a white employee for allegedly botching supervision of a dealer card shuffle.

What do you think? Do we have a live race-discrimination claim? Oh yeah, we do! Details after the jump, as well as thoughts on employers who strive to maintain racial balance in the workplace…

* * *

Continue reading

True story: In the wake of last year’s stupid turtle ploy to elicit votes for The Employer Handbook in the ABA Blawg 100 Amici, I spent over an hour in a Harrisburg hotel room on Tuesday night trying to one-up (one-down?) myself by programming a talking computer avatar with an Irish brogue to encourage you to vote for The Employer Handbook in this year’s ABA Blawg 100 Amici.

Now, I have done some stupid stuff in my life (see; e.g., the turtle; rubbing poison ivy on my face in the fourth grade because I didn’t believe that the shiny green leaves of three that the kid with the baggie on his hand was holding was actually poison ivy) . Heck, while my wife was laboring in the delivery room last month, I was on the couch Googling for turkey crockpot recipes. (Perhaps, I should have kept that one to myself). But the talking avatar thing tops this week’s list — so far (I still have a few more days to go).

But seriously, here is the link, take a few seconds, vote Handbook. Tomorrow is the voting deadline. So, cast your vote today and then cackle with me as I mercilessly crush the competition. WHAT!

It was bound to happen sooner or later…

Mary Pat Gallagher of the the NJ Law Journal reports here (subscription required) that two NJ defense lawyers face ethics charges after their paralegal allegedly friended an attorney-represented plaintiff in a personal injury case.

Details on the allegations and some takeaways for both lawyers and HR professionals after the jump…

* * *

 

Continue reading

Chilaquiles.jpeg

Readers of this blog know (here, here, and here) that if a disabled employee requests an indefinite leave of absence from work, the Americans with Disabilities Act does not require you to provide it. Why? Because that accommodation is not reasonable.

[Editor’s note: Obsessed much, Eric? Three posts about the same topic?!? Why don’t you just share with your readers about how you refused to drink anything other than water for hours after yesterday’s Labor Day lunch of chilaquiles, just so you could continue to savor the satisfying burp-flavor of red sauce and refried beans. TMI, Eric. TMI….]

To the two remaining readers who made it this far, I’ll school you on requests for an indefinite reprieve from essential job functions after the jump…

*** belches, draws dirty look from wife, smiles ***

* * *

Continue reading

Today we have a guest blogger at The Employer Handbook. It’s Samantha Gray. Samantha is a freelance writer/researcher for www.BachelorsDegreeOnline.com. Her articles cover issues related both to online and traditional education, as well as student lifestyle, careers and business. Please send any questions or comments her way at SamanthaGray024@gmail.com.

(Want to guest blog at The Employer Handbook? Email me.)

Continue reading

Last week, we had a two-part series on the interplay between the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The former clearly obligates employers to afford leave to an eligible employee to care for a sick child. But, what about the latter? That is, must an employer provide leave from work as a reasonable accommodation to an employee to permit her to care for a disabled child?

In a case decided earlier this month (Magnus v. St. Mark United Methodist Church), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ADA does not require employers to provide reasonable accommodations to non-disabled workers.

However, that does not mean that employers have carte blanche to discriminate against employees who must care for disabled loved ones. Here are a couple of other lessons from the Seventh Circuit:

Courts analyzing anti-discrimination statutes such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act mandate that employers educate employees about discrimination in the workplace and provide a way for them to complain. Then, once made aware of discrimination in the workplace, the employer must take steps that are reasonably designed to end the discrimination. That could mean anything from a verbal warning up to termination of employment. That decision is up to the employer.

In Phila. Housing Authority v. AFSCME, after investigating a complaint of sexual harassment, a unionized employer with a zero-tolerance policy for sexual harassment fired the alleged harasser. The union subsequently filed a grievance that eventually led to arbitration, at which time the arbitrator deemed the alleged harasser’s behavior to be “lewd, lascivious and extraordinarily perverse.” Notwithstanding, the arbitrator concluded that a verbal warning would have sufficed, rather than termination, and ordered the alleged harasser reinstated and made whole.

On appeal, the PA Supreme Court blasted the arbitrator’s decision, while emphasizing the public policy against unlawful harassment in the workplace.

Social media dataflowsGot a jury trial coming up? Concerned about jurors using social media to discuss the case or conduct independent research during trial? As you may recall from this blog post, if you are counting on the court to independently instruct jurors not to get their Twitter on, well, don’t hold your breath.

Instead, consider including this new two-page model jury instruction addressing juror use of social media during trial. You’ll note that jurors are instructed twice about social-media use. According to this official press release, the new rules emphasize that a single instruction to refrain from using social media to discuss/research the trial is not enough:

The judges recommended that jurors frequently be reminded about the prohibition on social media before the trial, at the close of a case, at the end of each day before jurors return home, and other times, as appropriate. Jurors should be told why refraining from use of social media promotes a fair trial. Finally, jurors should know the consequences of violations during trial, such as mistrial and wasted time. Those recommendations are now part of the guidelines.

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