While a recent Second Circuit case received lots of headlines regarding its discussion of individual liability under FMLA, the case has some other nuggets for employers to understand, as my colleague Gary Starr explains in today’s post. Buried in Graziadio v. Culinary Institute of America case is a reference to the fact that the federal
That’s a question I talk about a bunch with clients. The employee may request one thing but the employer may think that another accommodation can accomplish close to the same thing, perhaps at a lower cost. Who wins?…
Back in September 2013, I reported on a seemingly never-ending case of Tomick v. UPS and mentioned that it was headed to its second appeal at the Connecticut Appellate Court. (I talked about the history of the case and the first appeal back in 2012 too. Amazingly, it dates to a termination decision way…
My colleague, Jarad Lucan, returns today with a post discussing a new Connecticut Supreme Court case that has expanded the state’s anti-discrimination laws when it comes to disability claims.
When Congress enacted the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), it recognized that fears, misperceptions, and stereotypes about disabled individuals are so pervasive that employment discrimination reaches…
Last week, we talked about an employer’s obligations when it comes to an employee who has cancer. But what about an employee’s spouse? Does the employer have any legal obligations there?
Let’s start first with a story:
Jake and his supervisor, Alex, have had a great working relationship but lately, things seems to have changed. At least that’s how Jake sees is after he told Alex that his wife is suffering from a long-term disability — cancer.
Although Jake has been a good performer for years, Alex has recently expressed his concern that Jake will not be able to satisfy the demands of the job due to the need to care for his wife. Alex begins to set unrealistic deadlines for projects for Jake and even yells at Jake in front of co-workers about the need to meet the deadlines.
Alex also began requiring Jake to meet company policies that have never been strictly followed, such as giving 2 weeks advance notice of leave. Now, Alex has removed Jake from team projects because Jake’s co-workers don’t think Jake can be counted on to complete his share of work “considering all of his wife’s medical problems.
Jake is frustrated. He’s complained to management but to no avail. Now what?
At first glance, you might think this is a FMLA issue; taking time off for a family member’s serious health condition is one of the key points of the FMLA. But a deeper look shows that’s not really what’s going on. This doesn’t have to do with leave.
Instead, it seems that the supervisor is treating an employee differently because of his relationship with someone who has a disability. The question is — is there a legal claim?
According the EEOC, there is.
Indeed, given this above scenario, the EEOC concluded in Q&A release that “the employer is liable for harassment on the basis of [Jake’s] association with an individual with a disability.” In other words, the employee may have a claim under the ADA.
Here’s a hypothetical: A observant Jewish worker who is a recent leg amputee comes to you seeking an “accommodation”. She works on the candy wrapping line that requires constant supervision and is staffed by only one or two people typically. She seeks to leave her shift 4 hours early on Fridays to observe the Jewish…
Earlier this week, ABC News reported on the story of a woman who had severe peanut allergies who alleged that she was denied a job at a hospital because of those allergies. I appreciated ABC News reaching out to me for comment.
The facts of the story are frankly a bit unclear, so as I…
As everyone knows by now, comedian and actor Robin Williams passed away on Monday after a long struggle with …
Last week, my colleagues Peter Murphy and Harrison Smith, offered to write about the latest developments in the law regarding pregnancy. The post was scheduled to come out today, when, much to our surprise, the EEOC yesterday afternoon released long-awaited guidance on the subject.
So much for that post!
After a quick rewrite last night, here’s the very latest that includes both my comments and additional sourcing from Peter & Harrison….
Just a few short weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that next term it will once again tackle an issue that raises strong feelings in many women (and men)–how pregnant women are treated in the workplace in comparison to non-pregnant employees.
As anyone interested in employment law knows, both Congress and the EEOC have focused extensively in recent years on getting employers to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled employees. Although what constitutes a reasonable accommodation remains a difficult determination in certain circumstances, the need to engage in an interactive dialogue with disabled employees over accommodations now is well established.
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. First, the background.
The Federal Courts of Appeals are split on whether, and in what situations, an employer that provides work accommodations to non-pregnant, disabled employees with work limitations must also provide work accommodations to pregnant employees who are “similar in their ability or inability to work” as the non-pregnant employees.
In the case coming to the Supreme Court, Young v. United Parcel Service, the trial court and the Fourth Circuit held that the PDA does not require employers to provide accommodations to pregnant employees.
The Fifth, Seventh and Eighth Circuits agree with the Fourth Circuit, while other courts, such as the Tenth Circuit and the Sixth Circuit, hold otherwise.
Since 2012, the EEOC has been kicking around the subject of revising its guidelines on the subject. By a 3-2 vote, the EEOC decided that it could not wait until the Supreme Court gave birth to a clarifying decision, and so yesterday the EEOC issued its final pregnancy discrimination guidelines. …