This was originally posted on November 7 and has been updated to include the more recent article.
I recently discussed the potential for age discrimination in the workplace when companies focus too much on recruitment of young employees. The article argues that by focusing solely on young talent, organizations miss out on the “perspective” and
In light of U-Haul’s recent announcement it will no longer hire nicotine users in many states, I recently discussed the laws governing this company policy. Many states, such as Tennessee, implemented laws decades ago that protect smokers.
However, as I stated in the article linked below, Tennessee’s “statute is silent as to whether this protects someone from not being hired.” My take is that “employers will likely be watching closely how refusing to hire smokers pans out since there are many other lifestyle choices that affect health.”Continue Reading No-Nicotine Hiring Policies
I’m excited to be speaking next week at the 2019 MidSouth Employment Law Conference. My session entitled, “Anatomy of an Employment Lawsuit,” will provide attendees with an informative, step-by-step breakdown of the employment lawsuit process, practical guidance for managing litigation, and best practices to foster a company culture which limits the occurrence of such suits
Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of a disability and requires employers engage in an interactive process and provide reasonable accommodations. A failure to do so may result in liability.
The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified applicants or employees. A “reasonable accommodation” is defined as assistance or a change to a position or workplace that accommodates employees with disabilities so they can do the job without causing the employer undue hardship, such as too much difficulty or expense.
In order to determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation, employers and employees must engage in the interactive process, which requires communication and good-faith exploration of possible accommodations. An employer that acts in bad faith in the interactive process may be liable if it can be reasonably concluded that the employee would have been able to perform the job with a reasonable accommodation.
It’s a two-way street: an employee must also make a good faith effort to comply with any of the employer’s reasonable requests.Continue Reading What Are the Employer’s Obligations When Engaging in the ADA Interactive Process?
I recently discussed the disadvantage of having a partial panel of commissioners at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Historically, the EEOC is comprised of five commissioners; however, the current panel only has three. Some argue this has hindered the EEOC’s ability to adequately investigate and file lawsuits to combat discrimination among the nation’s
Can language in the workplace, even if uttered during otherwise protected conduct, lose its “protected” status under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because the language is too offensive? The answer is, generally, yes.
However, in several rulings, the Obama-era National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that certain speech, which was patently offensive, nonetheless retained its protected status. On September 5, 2019, the current NLRB invited briefs on the proper legal standard for when extremely profane or offensive language loses its protection.Continue Reading NLRB Seeks Public Comment on Offensive Language in the Workplace
I recently provided insight for an article in HR Dive on ageism in the workplace and how employers can address these stereotypes.
Ageism can come in many forms in the workplace. For example, a typical stereotype can include expecting an older employee to have a problem adjusting to the new computer system, believing they will be resistant to change or wondering how an older employee is going to “keep up” with the job’s demands.Continue Reading Ageism in the Workplace
I recently discussed a case currently under review by the Eleventh Circuit Court that should provide clarity on whether, and under what circumstances, a licensed professional counselor or therapist can be a “healthcare provider” – and therefore qualified to verify a need for leave – under the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
The case centers around an employee who was fired from her job the same day she met with a licensed counselor who recommended leave after determining the employee had depression and anxiety. While the timing and specific circumstances of the case are unusual, the case does call into question the larger issue of who can be considered a healthcare provider under the FMLA.Continue Reading Can a Therapist Visit Trigger FMLA Leave?
More and more companies are implementing socially conscious policies on topics ranging from banning the use of plastic-ware to refusing to reimburse employees for meals that include meat or are otherwise non-vegan. Companies are generally free to implement these types of policies, as long as employees are not unlawfully discriminated against as part of the policy. I recently examined the legality of company implementation of socially conscious policies in the workplace in an article published Workplace Magazine.
“Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin, and the American with Disabilities Act protects employees with disabilities; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits age discrimination. But there is no employment law protecting an employee’s right to use plastic,” I explained.Continue Reading The Legality of Socially Conscious Workplace Policies
I was quoted in a piece published in Business Insurance discussing the Supreme Court’s review of three cases related to sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Two of the cases, Melissa Zarda et al. v. Altitude Express and Gerald Lynn Bostock V. Clayton County, will be heard together. Both cases include employees contending they were fired from their jobs due to their sexual orientation.
The third case, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, will be heard separately. In that case, the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati ruled in favor of a transgender worker who was fired when she told her funeral home employer she was undergoing a gender transition from male to female.Continue Reading Three Supreme Court Cases Seeking Protection for LGBT Employees