An Ohio federal court decision, in the case of a woman complaining of sensitivity to the perfumes worn by co-workers, may herald a new dawn of ADA telecommuting rights. I explain at Cato at Liberty.
{ 5 comments }
Posts tagged as:
workplace
- $250,000+ payout for cardiac arrest at age 92? Stupendous giveaway for uniformed public employees is sailing through California legislature [Sacramento Bee via Hillel Aron]
- Those confidential workplace investigations won’t be so confidential any more if NLRB gets its way [Jon Hyman, Daniel Schwartz] And the EEOC too? [Hyman, Shannon Green/Corporate Counsel]
- Myths of the “pay gap” [Ramesh Ponnuru, Bloomberg]
- Federal bailout of state pension funds? Don’t let it happen [Fergus Hodgson, John Locke]
- Former Indianapolis Colts cheerleader loses suit over nude body-paint photos [Staci Zaretsky, Above the Law, earlier]
- Some small businesses hope to dodge the employer mandate by getting below 50 employees [CNN]
- Obama names partner at class action powerhouse Cohen Milstein to EEOC vacancy [White House]
As a strong defender of the Second Amendment, my views more often than not align with those of the National Rifle Association, so I’m especially disappointed to see the NRA stepping up its campaign against other important elements of liberty, specifically the property- and contract-based liberty of employers to insist (if they so wish) that employees not bring guns to company premises, including parking lots. My Cato colleague Roger Pilon lays out the issue and rightly upbraids chief NRA lobbyist Chris W. Cox (not the former California Congressman) for misunderstanding the constitutional issues. Earlier on the NRA’s blind spot here, here, and here (with reader disagreement). [Corrected to fix misidentification of Cox]
{ 26 comments }
- Why is the U.S. Department of Labor funding Restaurant Opportunities Center United (ROC), a group that stages protests in front of restaurants and has “harassed” patrons? Rep. Darrell Issa wants to know [Chamber-backed Legal NewsLine, Daily Caller]
- Connecticut public workers who wrongly took food stamps get their jobs back, and no, you can’t read the arbitration decisions [Raising Hale]
- Michael Fox’s pioneering employment law blog turns 10;
- “Why Defending Employment Lawsuits Can Be So Expensive” [Daniel Schwartz]
- What lawprofs are up to: proposal to gut the employee-misconduct defense [Pandya, Workplace Prof]
- Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute explains why he sees no contradiction in opposing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act [ENDA] while supporting gay marriage. Related: Jacob Sullum;
- Hyper-regulation of employment in Italy cries out for reform [John Cochrane, Tom Smith, one deterrent]
“If an employer fails to take employee temperature complaints seriously, that employer may be opening the company up to a discrimination claim,” premised on lack of disability accommodation. “It is also important that employers are clear about regulation of workplace temperature because employees may have a tendency to adjust the temperature to their own personal preference, disregarding the comfort of others if thermostats are openly accessible. To remedy this employers should prevent open access to thermostats and have designated individuals who are allowed to adjust the temperature.” [Bacon Wilson law firm]
P.S. James Fulford: “Thermostat conflict between secretarial staff in summer dresses and lawyers in three-piece suits is common in law firms.”
{ 6 comments }
Way to make the country less free, guys [Missouri Freedom Watch] More: Stephen Bainbridge, Charles Sullivan on Mitchell v. University of Kentucky.
{ 5 comments }
Jon Hyman finds the National Labor Relations Board’s policy on social media in the workplace a “bungled mess.” More: Reed Smith.
Trying to let the mentally disabled employee go from its store in Woodland, Calif., though, proved costly to retailer Target Corp., which has agreed to pay $275,000 to extricate itself from her wrongful termination claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act. [Sacramento Bee] The worker had found employment at Target with the assistance of a nonprofit organization that works with mentally disabled workers, and which had supplied her with a “job coach.” It remains to be seen whether employers like Target will continue to accept such placements with enthusiasm as the perceived legal risks of doing so keep rising.
P.S. Thanks to commenters for drawing out this point: yes, Target’s ultra-stringent employee discipline policy for failure to take timely lunch breaks does look like a lawyer-driven adaptation to its high legal exposure (especially in California) to class action suits claiming that employers permitted work during designated breaks. See, for example, this post and this one. Note that in each case the company feels constrained to fire the workers because they are putting in too much work, not too little.
{ 7 comments }
Travails of French employers under the Code du Travail — though it’s not as if America doesn’t have plenty of firms that follow the same strategy of keeping head counts below a certain regulatory-trigger threshold. [Business Week]
{ 1 comment }
It’s the old story: many smaller truckers have been trying to resist the mandate, which costs an estimated $1,500 per truck, but some larger truckers that already use the devices have encouraged its passage. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) estimates that the mandate will cost $2 billion; it’s meant to make it easier to monitor compliance with limits on how many hours truckers can be on the road. [James Gattuso, Heritage]
{ 3 comments }
The intersection of the Americans with Disabilities Act’s “reasonable accommodation” mandate with the Family and Medical Leave Act’s mandate of unpaid time off for illness has long posed a head-scratcher for employers. The EEOC is planning to issue clarifying guidelines on leave-as-accommodation, but organized employers fear the commission’s very liberal leadership may be working up new and extra-onerous legal interpretations. [Bloomberg Business Week; EEOC; Susan Lessack, Pepper Hamilton; Marie Larsen, Recruiter.com]
The popular management technique, adopted in countless workplaces in response to legal and regulatory pressure, may inadvertently intensify rather than extinguish prejudice, argues Peter Bregman in Psychology Today. Earlier here, here, and, on sexual harassment prevention/sensitivity training, here, here, here, etc.
More: From Hans Bader, why it persists despite failure — in education, accreditation rules are one important driver — and why trainers have been known to encourage employers in mistaken beliefs (such as that public employees can and should be disciplined for criticizing affirmative action policies) that are at variance with court holdings.
{ 26 comments }
Mitt Romney, following a long tradition of GOP candidates unable or unwilling to resist the continued expansion of employment discrimination law, has pre-emptively blessed Congress’s 2009 enactment of the ill-advised Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act gutting statutes of limitation. Hans Bader offers reasons why he should consider drawing the line. [Examiner] More: Ted Frank.
Related: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signs bill repealing duplicative damages law passed by his Democratic predecessors, thus contradicting the accepted narrative in which the scope of available damages in job-bias suits is supposed to be revisable only in an upward direction.
{ 2 comments }
“A 7 percent hiring quota for government contractors is unfair and unwise.” [WSJ] My contribution on the subject is here (more).
More: David Harsanyi at Human Events (quoting my February piece).
{ 6 comments }
- “Increasing Employment Discrimination Awards to Take Account of Adverse Tax Consequences” [TaxProf]
- NRA’s wrong on this: “Bill to bar employer bias against gun owners gets OK from Missouri House” [St. Louis Post-Dispatch]
- ALJ: “we are an at-will employer” handbook statement violates NLRA [Duane Morris Institute]
- “What the EEOC’s Strategic Plan Means for Employers” [Laura Harshbarger, NYLELR]
- Connecticut bill would require public schools to teach organized labor history [Raised S.B. No. 304; background from a supporter, PDF; h/t Fountain]
- SEIU hand seen in “Occupy”-allied sit-ins targeting GOP politicians [Richard Pollack, Daily Caller]
- Wage and Hour Litigation is Big—and Getting Bigger” [Shannon Green, Corporate Counsel]
When employees request reassignment to other jobs within an organization as an accommodation to their disability, is the employer obliged to do so even though other more qualified employees are in contention those same jobs? Or is it enough to assure the disabled employee fair consideration in a competitive process? The federal circuit courts are split on the issue, which could tee things up for Supreme Court consideration at some point. [Jon Hyman]
{ 3 comments }
