Employers are often surprised to learn that federal labor law grants employees significant protection to make profane or offensive statements, or engage in other offensive conduct, when they are engaging in “protected concerted activities.” Continue Reading
In January 2018 we wrote about Ribalda –v- Spain, a European Court of Human Rights case in which a number of supermarket employees were awarded compensation for breach of their privacy rights. They had been stealing quite handsomely from their employer over some months, as they freely admitted, but nonetheless thought it entirely improper that the supermarket should be allowed to use covert video footage of them to prove it [here].
On October 29, 2019, railway operator Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (“BNSF”) prevailed before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit – which covers Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin – in a case in which the company argued that its refusal to hire an obese candidate due to an unacceptably high risk that the applicant would develop certain obesity-related medical conditions incompatible with the position sought did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Continue Reading
Don’t you just love a good understatement? How about this little beauty on the merits of a rejected flexible working complaint: “The difficulty for the claimant is that she never proved that this arrangement could work by producing the required amount of work in the required time. This was both in terms of quality and output. The claimant did not comply with the agreed start and finish times. She did not comply with her output targets” and then, with admirable restraint “This did not help her position“.
Employers already are (or should be) familiar with their obligations not to discriminate against and to reasonably accommodate employees and applicants with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), which requirements are addressed in Title I of the ADA. But the ADA also imposes additional non-employment obligations on governments and municipalities (Title II) and on private places of public accommodation (Title III). Nearly all private employers are also “private places of public accommodation,” as that term includes a wide range of entities such as restaurants, bars, hotels, theaters, stadiums, grocery stores, hospitals, doctors’ offices and pharmacies, banks, accountants’ and lawyers’ offices, retail stores, museums, libraries, zoos, amusement parks, private schools, and day care centers. Not only must those facilities be physically accessible to patrons with disabilities, but for years, courts have debated whether such entities also must make their websites accessible to internet users with various disabilities, such as visual and hearing impairments. Although the attached article, reprinted from Wolters Kluwer’s Employment Law Daily, authored by Squire Patton Boggs partners Laura Lawless and Rafael Langer-Osuna, primarily addresses retailers’ obligations regarding accessible website design, we recognize that many of our employment clients offer public accommodations and host websites, and thus is a timely reminder of the broad responsibility of businesses to accommodate the disability community. Continue Reading
On October 22, 2019, a Tennessee federal district court dismissed a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) against West Meade Place LLP (“WMP”), a skilled nursing facility, after finding on summary judgment that the EEOC failed to establish that former WMP employee Carma Kean was disabled, as that term is defined under the ADA.
In EEOC v. West Meade Place LLP, the EEOC, acting on behalf of Ms. Kean, alleged that she had anxiety and that during “flare-ups” of this condition, she was unable to work. The EEOC alleged that WMP violated the ADA because it failed to accommodate Ms. Kean’s condition by providing her with requested time off work, and also engaged in disability discrimination when it terminated Ms. Kean’s employment. Continue Reading
On October 29, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered that the EEOC must continue to take all steps necessary to complete EEO-1 Component 2 data collection for calendar years 2017 and 2018. As we recently discussed here, the EEOC filed a motion on October 8, 2019 asking the court to issue an order deeming the Component 2 data collection “complete.” The court denied the EEOC’s request and ordered the agency to keep collecting pay data until January 31, 2020. Continue Reading
It’s all about the numbers in Brooks -v- Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, a new case on when an Employment Tribunal can order costs against an unsuccessful participant – 18 alleged protected disclosures, 40 detriments, a 27-day hearing, a witness statement of 214 pages and over a thousand paragraphs and a hearing bundle of well over the same number of pages. Most particularly also, as none of that proved to be of any assistance at all to the claimant, a costs award against him of £170,000. Ouch.
As we most recently reported here and here, as of September 30, 2019, employers with 100 or more employees (and federal contractors with 50 or more employees) were required to report to the federal government pay data for 2017 and 2018 for their workforce (known as “Component 2” data), broken down by race/ethnicity, sex, and job category. However, consistent with its current practice regarding submission of Component 1 data – which consists of a listing of employees’ job category, sex, race, and ethnicity – the EEOC has agreed to continue collecting Component 2 data for a six-week period after the September 30, 2019 deadline, ending on November 11, 2019. Continue Reading
Back in 2017 we posted a piece about the difference between disability and unhappiness at work. In that case, Mr Herry had been off work for over a year but still failed to establish that he was disabled. In large part this was because his absence was felt not to be the result of an actual impairment, but instead of a particularly vigorous emotional reaction to something at work which would clear up as soon as he left.