Posts tagged as:

EEOC

Free speech roundup

by Walter Olson on May 25, 2012

  • Boilermaker union president resorts to litigation against satirical site [Levy; another case on demands for disclosure of anonymous commenters] More on ghastly NY bill to strip protection from anonymous online speech [David Kravets/Wired, Daily Caller, my take]
  • Defending people like Aaron Worthing and Patterico shouldn’t be a left-right matter [Popehat, Tapscott/Examiner, earlier] Maryland and indeed all states need stronger statutory protection against vexatious litigants [Ace of Spades] And as a longtime Charles Schwab customer I was at first distressed to find the Schwab Charitable Fund on this list, but since the fund is billed as “donor-advised” I take it some Schwab customer rather than the company itself got to choose the beneficiary;
  • “Indonesia Prosecution for Posting ‘God Doesn’t Exist’ on Facebook” [Volokh] Curious to see an argument for Euro-style hate speech laws appearing on the Liberty and Law site [David Conway]
  • “Cyberbullying and Bullying Used As Pretexts for Censorship” [Bader]
  • “EEOC: Wearing Confederate Flag T-Shirts May Be ‘Hostile Work Environment Harassment’” [Volokh, more, Bader]
  • Video on new freedom of assembly book [FedSoc]
  • Maybe Citizens United turned out so badly for the speech-suppressive side because a government lawyer was imprudently candid before the Court [Jacob Sullum, earlier on Toobin New Yorker piece]

{ 2 comments }

  • Arbitrator: felonious Montgomery County, Maryland cops should keep disability pay [Examiner] “Cop who took naked photos of rape victim can keep pension” [NY Post] Cop who pepper-sprayed UC Davis protesters is still on job, and maybe that’s how they’d have it [Radley Balko]
  • “Billions in retroactive liability” in pharma detailer wage/hour action before SCOTUS [Marcia Coyle, NLJ] And USA Today chose a faulty “worker discontent” theme on wage/hour case, since as class actions these suits are lawyer-driven;
  • Australia: “Worker injured during sex gets compensation payout” [News.com.au]
  • “Courts are finally starting to apply ADAAA—and it ain’t pretty” [Jon Hyman] ADA: “Judge Rules In Favor of Fired Employee With Bipolar Disorder” [ABC]
  • NLRB goes after Hyatt on employee handbook language [Gary Shapiro, Examiner] Union claims Indiana right-to-work law violates Thirteenth Amendment ban on slavery [James Sherk, NRO]
  • EEOC: sex discrimination law bars bias against transgender employees [AP, Hyman] “EEOC Obtains Substantial Settlement in Obesity Discrimination Suit” [Disabilities Law]
  • Law journal prediction: adherents of racism will claim Title VII protection [Lawrence D. Rosenthal, Temple L. Rev. via Workplace Prof]

{ 1 comment }

Even if they’re operating heavy machinery, and even if the drugs are of the type that make users drowsy, twitchy or agitated. It’s all part of the ban on employee medical inquiries under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Eighth Circuit has backed up the agency’s position that questions do not become permissible until the employer has in hand objective evidence of impairment, the sort you can take to a judge. Evidence like, you know, there having been a serious accident. I explain at Cato at Liberty.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is said to be readying policy guidance aimed at curbing employers’ consideration of criminal and credit records in hiring. [WSJ editorial]

{ 1 comment }

Disabled rights roundup

by Walter Olson on February 21, 2012

  • ADA mills continue to extract money from California small businesses with no legislative relief in sight [Auburn Journal, Andrew Ross/S.F. Chronicle, KABC (James Farkus Cohan), WTSP (Squeeze Inn owner speaks out), CJAC (Lungren proposal) and more, Chamber (San Francisco coffee shop's woes, auto-plays video)] Profile of attorney Thomas Frankovich [California Lawyer];
  • EEOC sues employer for turning away job applicant on methadone program [Jon Hyman]
  • “Maryland high court: allergy is disability requiring accommodation” [PoL]
  • “Suits could force L.A. to spend huge sums on sidewalk repair” [Los Angeles Times]
  • Under gun from Department of Justice and SCOTUS Olmstead ruling, Virginia and other states agree to massive overhaul of services for developmentally disabled; not all families, though, are happy with the insistence on relocating residents of large facilities to smaller “community” settings [Richmond Times-Dispatch, McDonnell press release, Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, Staunton News-Leader]
  • “New Case from W.D. Tex. Shows Effect of ADAAA on Back Injury Claims” [Disability Law]
  • Lawyer leads effort to give disabled passengers wider rights to sue airlines [Toledo Free Press]

{ 2 comments }

Requiring a high school diploma of applicants for a given job may improperly screen out those with learning disability, according to the federal agency. I’ve got more at Cato at Liberty. Update: more from EEOC.

{ 16 comments }

Employment law roundup

by Walter Olson on December 15, 2011

  • Age discrimination law (including my views) discussed [Reihan Salam, NRO] “3d Cir.: Employees Fired for Pornographic Emails Lose Age-Discrimination Case” [Molly DiBianca]
  • Will Obama administration lawsuit derail employer use of career-readiness certificates? [Charlotte Allen, Minding the Campus]
  • A warning for Gov. Cuomo: “The case against pension-financed infrastructure” [Edward Zelinsky, OUP]
  • EEOC is on the warpath and employers had better hope they escape unscathed [Hans Bader, CEI]
  • Since we know unemployment extensions have no incentive effects, this story from the Midwest is purely imaginary [Marietta, Ohio Times, related]
  • Court rejects “announcement of same sex marriage harassed me” hostile environment claim [Volokh] “Jobs with a higher risk of sexual harassment pay workers more” [WaPo] Half of all students harassed? Surprising it’s only half [Katie Roiphe, NYT]
  • Funny-sad “666″ workplace suit: “The safety sticker of the beast” [Volokh]
  • “Do you know what an employment lawsuit costs?” [Jon Hyman]

{ 2 comments }

The EEOC’s press release is not entirely clear about the events giving rise to the dispute, but it appears that Georgia Power through its subcontractor requires that heavy equipment operators on a certain project be qualified to pass the federal Department of Transportation’s physical exam for truckers; that applicant Bryan Mimmovich cannot pass that exam because of his controlled epilepsy; and that the EEOC is now arguing that it is discriminatory for the employer to adopt the DOT physical requirements for the equipment operation job.

{ 14 comments }

The EEOC says Comfort Suites dismissed the clerk when it should instead have accepted the services of a state-paid “job coach” who might have “helped the clerk learn to master his job by using autism-specific training techniques.” [EEOC press release, Fox San Diego]

{ 12 comments }

Argued yesterday before the Supreme Court, the case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC pits the quasi-religion of employment discrimination law against organized religion of every other sort. Guess which side the Obama administration comes down on? I explain in a new op-ed at The Daily Caller. More background: Christopher Lund (Wayne State), “In Defense of the Ministerial Exception”, North Carolina Law Review/SSRN. And per Rick Garnett at NRO “Bench Memos,” the Court’s justices in their questioning yesterday did not appear friendly toward the idea of overthrowing the exception (& followup). According to the L.A. Times and other reporting, Justice Kagan described the Justice Department’s position as “amazing.” More: Marcia McCormick, Workplace Prof (linking to transcript of oral argument, PDF)(& welcome Damon Root/Reason “Hit and Run” readers).

{ 2 comments }

My new Cato post points out that while this may be craziness, it’s craziness with a long pedigree:

It was way back in the first Bush administration that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) began filing lawsuits against employers for “discriminating” against employees with difficult-to-understand or heavily accented speech, the theory being that this served as an improper proxy for discrimination based on national origin. The scope for allowable exceptions was exceedingly narrow, too narrow to cover most teaching positions, as I wrote quite a while back when the issue had just come over the horizon in a Massachusetts case. Indeed, the National Education Association (I pointed out) had been prevailed on to pass a resolution “decrying disparate treatment on the basis of ‘pronunciation’ — quite a switch from the old days when teachers used to be demons for correctness on that topic.”

Read the whole thing here (& Alkon, Peter Pappas/Tax Lawyer’s Blog, Bader). Another view: Josh Hanson.

{ 10 comments }

One of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s current big projects — making it legally hazardous for employers to check job applicants’ criminal records — could actually backfire, according to research cited by some members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights [Caroline May, Daily Caller]:

Civil Rights Commissioners Peter Kirsanow, Gail Heriot and Todd Gaziano pointed to research from economists Harry Holzer and Stephen Rafael and public policy professor Michael Stoll, published in the Journal of Law and Economics, which showed that employers with access to background checks are actually more likely to hire African Americans, especially African American men, than those without access to that informaion.

“Their results suggest that, in the absence of criminal background checks, some employers discriminate statistically against black men and/or those with weak employment records,” the commissioners pointed out in their letter to the EEOC.

August 30 roundup

by Walter Olson on August 30, 2011

  • “He coulda been a credenza”: actor’s estate sues over unauthorized “Brando” furniture line [The Daily via Balko] “Motorcycle Gang Sues Over ‘My Boyfriend’s A Hell’s Angel’ T-Shirt” [CBS-LA]
  • EEOC decries employer discrimination on the basis of applicants’ criminal records, recommends curbing background checks [WSJ Law Blog, FastCasual, Hyman, Greenfield] Bill in San Francisco would make felons a protected class in jobs, housing [Fox]
  • Why are Obama officials intent on reducing due process protections for those accused of campus sexual misconduct? [Silverglate, WSJ; Philadelphia Magazine, Samantha Harris/NY Post, Ciamarella, Daily Caller (AAUP objects to plan); links at SAVE] A contrasting view [Roderick Hills, Prawfsblawg]
  • 9th Circuit rejects Bluetooth class action settlement to which Ted Frank’s CCAF objected [Fisher, NLJ, Frank]
  • Lawyer who represents jogger in product liability suit expects to file more actions claiming Skechers sneakers responsible for falls [BLT]
  • Part of a balanced breakfast: “Why the lawsuit against Nutella is bunk” [Nadia Arumugam, Slate] Update: Judge denies motion to dismiss [Russell Jackson]
  • Experts agree it’s OK to nominate Overlawyered for an ABA “100 Best Legal Blogs” slot here.

{ 4 comments }

Taco Bell finds itself at odds with the EEOC. [Jon Hyman]

{ 14 comments }

Under the banner of combating discrimination against the disabled, Congress and the EEOC may together have quietly instituted a fairly momentous extension of the regime of federally mandated workplace benefits — in particular, imposing on even very small employers a new obligation to hold the jobs of employees taking some kinds of leave. [Hyman]

{ 2 comments }

March 28 roundup

by Walter Olson on March 28, 2011

  • Maricopa-cabana: Sheriff Arpaio uses tank (with Steven Seagal along) to raid cockfight suspect [KPHO, Coyote, Greenfield, Balko]
  • Malpractice reform in New York is about more than money (though it’s about that too) [Paul Rubin, TotM; NYDN]
  • EEOC initiative combats alleged employer bias against unemployed job applicants [Bales/Workplace Prof, Hyman]
  • After court rejection of Google Books settlement, where next? [Timothy Lee/ArsTechnica, David Post]
  • When your lawyerly conduct has been eviscerated by Judge Easterbrook, you know it [Above the Law]
  • Ninth Circuit rules on legality of keyword advertising using other firms’ trademarks [Coleman]
  • Election showdown over future of Wisconsin Supreme Court [PoL, more, Esenberg, Althouse]
  • Legal battle follows NYC’s attempted application of sidewalk bicycle ban to unicyclist [AP]

{ 3 comments }