And if anyone wants to get me this iPad case for Christmas…
Wait, what was I supposed to be writing about? Oh yeah, national-origin discrimination. I’ll get it together for you after the jump…
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.”
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, an employer is required to provide a reasonable accommodation, if doing so will allow a disabled employee to perform the essential functions of his job. Could this mean having to create a brand new position for a disabled employee?
Nope. A federal appellate court underscored this last week (opinion here) when if affirmed a lower-court decision to dismiss a plaintiff’s claims under the ADA that his former employer had failed to accommodate his disability:
What if I told you that a female black employee was called “monkey” and “nappy head Raggedy Ann” at work?
What if I then told you that the employee subsequently sued in New Jersey state court; quite possibly the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction in the U.S. — next to California?
And guess what? She lost. Oh my!
What the heck happened and what can employers learn from this recent decision? Find out after the jump…
* * *
On behalf of an illiterate man, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigated a Charge of Discrimination against a MD employer, which allegedly had a literacy policy that violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (by discriminating against qualified individuals with learning disabilities). As part of its investigation, the EEOC served an extremely broad subpoena on the employer. The employer fought the subpoena hard. Ultimately; however, it learned that the EEOC has the power.
You’ll learn too (and figure out why this post has a picture of Ric Flair)…after the jump…
HEY! Which one of you just threw that breast pump at my head?
[annnnnnnd cue music]
** Dons sensitivity invisibility cloak **
The July edition of the Employment Law Blog Carnival is now up and running. You can view it here. Thank you to all who contributed. And a special thank you to Heather Bussing and HRExaminer.com for hosting.
If you would like to participate in future carnivals, email me and I will add you to the distribution list. Participants must be bloggers (so we can link to your blog) and Carnival posts must be HR/employment-law-related. And you must like dill pickles.
Dill, damnit!
In the world of Human Resources, “hire slow, fire fast” generally holds true to avoid just about any lawsuit.
Unfortunately, for one NJ employer, it didn’t get the memo. And now it finds itself having to defend against FMLA interference and retaliation claims at trial.
What did this employer do wrong and how can you avoid making the same mistake? Find out after the jump…
Sounds like a bad batch of Pennyroyal Tea. Just another Tuesday here at the ole Handbook.
<div style=”text-align: right;”>The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting here that Courtney Love, Kurt Cobain’s widow, is reuniting the band ** thank you for sparing our ear holes ** being sued by a former assistant seeking, among other things, unpaid overtime. The plaintiff also claims that Love asked her to perform voodoo rituals ** not yet, next paragraph ** unethical duties such as hiring a hacker and forging legal correspondence. The San Francisco Employment Lawyer Blog has more on this case here.
From Hole to holes in a doll pin-cushion, with a hat-tip to @ChaimBook, the Madison St. Clair Record reports here that a Wisconsin woman is suing her former employer for sexual harassment and retaliation. The plaintiff claims that she was forced to look at nude female magazines, calendars and sexually explicit language used by her co-workers and direct supervisor. Fairly standard sexual-harassment fare. What makes this case blogworthy is that, after she complained, the plaintiff allegedly suffered retaliation in the form of two voodoo dolls in her desk, one of which had a black pin stuck into her chest.
From the state that just loves our sloppy seconds — out-of-work wide receiver who cries about a fumbling quarterback say, “What. It’s unfair. That’s my quarterback.” — comes this case about a Facebooking emergency medical technician from Texas.
To protect the innocent — in the event that you’ve yet to click on the case link — we’ll call the employee-plaintiff “Misguided.” Misguided the EMT was fired after posting on his co-worker’s Facebook wall about how he wanted to boot a ultimate fighter patient in the head.
Instead of just swallowing the bitter pill, Misguided sued his former employer for — get this — intrusion upon seclusion. (basically, an invasion of privacy).
Invasion of privacy on a co-worker’s Facebook page. And people wonder how I get material for this blog.
Feel me flow on this steaming pile after the jump…
A website called WeKnowWhatYoureDoing.com, which describes itself as a “social networking privacy experiment,” has begun compiling publicly available Facebook status updates from your employees, which fall into one of four categories:
Although the content may be crude, the site’s mission is noble — to educate social networkers about Facebook privacy controls:
The Employer Handbook Blog