• The HR Specialist - Print Newsletter
  • HR Specialist: Employment Law
  • The HR Weekly

Employment Law

Court rejects bid for personal liability under ADA

06/02/2010
Good news for those worried about being on the hook personally for ADA violations: A federal court considering a New York case has rejected an employee’s bid to hold supervisors personally liable for alleged disability discrimination.

Tread lightly when contemplating firing employee who’s been convicted of a crime

06/02/2010
Can you fire a current employee who, during employment, is convicted of a crime? It’s still not clear that you can fire him because of that conviction. Until the law is clarified, consult your attorney before firing someone based on criminal records.

Court calls it ‘nonsensical’: Prejudice against the prejudiced isn’t covered discrimination

06/02/2010
Sometimes, it seems as if employees just make up reasons to sue their employers. Fortunately for employers, when employees’ claims turn out to be ludicrous, courts quickly dismiss the lawsuits.

Failing to investigate nebulous charges isn’t a federal case–and it’s not retaliation

06/02/2010

Employees who complain about alleged discrimination are protected from retaliation for doing so. In order for the employee to win a lawsuit, the retaliatory act must be adverse—that is, it must be an act that affects the employee in more than an inconsequential way. In a recent case, an employee claimed that by merely ignoring her complaint, her employer was retaliating. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals nixed that idea.

Court: You must act to prevent harassment

06/02/2010

If you thought having a sexual harassment policy and a clear process for complaining was enough in New York, think again. The Court of Appeals of New York has ruled employers have to prevent supervisor harassment or face strict liability. The court rejected the so-called Faragher-Ellerth defense and said employers are strictly liable for supervisor harassment even if that harassment doesn’t result in direct employment-related harm.

In NYC, get ready for 3rd disability standard

06/02/2010
New York City employers may soon find out whether merely being obese is a disability under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). That’s because the federal 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has sent a case back to the trial court for just that determination. If the lower court concludes the NYCHRL does cover obesity, New York City employers will face three standards for disability—the ADA, New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the NYCHRL.

How should we handle tip calculations that factor out credit card fees?

06/02/2010
Q. Our employees receive tips, and we take advantage of the tip credit toward the minimum wage. In the past, we have paid employees the full tip amount on credit card charges, even though we have to pay a percentage fee to the credit card company. It doesn’t seem fair that we should have to pay money that we don’t really receive. How may we resolve this fairly and legally?

When commuting time varies, do we have to pay for trips in excess of ‘normal’?

06/02/2010
Q. Our maintenance employees drive company vehicles and keep them overnight. The employees are responsible for servicing a number of stores. Some days, they report to our warehouse to pick up parts before going to their first location. On other days, they report directly to a work site … Do we have to pay them for any time in excess of their normal commuting time to the warehouse?

Consider shift change as reasonable disability accommodation

06/02/2010

A federal court has held that, under certain circumstances, the ADA may obligate an employer to accommodate an employee’s disability-related difficulties in getting to work. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that changing a part-time employee’s schedule to day shift—because her poor vision made it dangerous for her to drive at night—could be a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

Houston company settles EEOC religious bias case

06/02/2010

A Houston-area construction company will pay $122,500 to settle a lawsuit that alleged a Muslim employee had to endure religious and national-origin discrimination. The EEOC backed the lawsuit against Pace Services, filed by Mohammad Kaleemuddin.