Australian employers, too, are rethinking them given the possible liability exposures (Nick O’Malley, “Bosses pull the plug on parties”, Sydney Morning Herald, Nov. 1). More: Sarah Pierce, “Avoiding Holiday Lawsuits”, Entrepreneur.com, Dec. 3, 2003; “Mistletoe or Legal Woes”, Lawyers.com, Dec. 3, 2004.
Posts Tagged ‘workplace’
Tripped up by 10,000 rules
Our discussion of overcriminalization (Nov. 20) has got Coyote to thinking (Nov. 21) about some of the headaches involved in complying with labor and employment law:
Now, I’m not talking about chaining employees to the assembly line or even paying below the minimum wage. I am talking about $45,000 fines for not splitting the two portions of a Davis-Bacon wage out correctly on a pay stub or getting sued for not properly posting one of your required labor department posters or having a counter 1/2″ too high for ADA regulations.
Follow his links to learn about an instance in which labor regulators refused to concede that a camping business in a national forest qualified as recreational.
Employer responsible for hypoglycemic driver
Diabetic William Ulmer didn’t take his insulin as prescribed when he got behind the wheel of his employer’s truck, and the resulting hypoglycemic attack caused him to collide with six other vehicles in an eight-mile drive before he hit Corrie Johnson head on. Attorney Tom Edwards argued to the jury that “Rent-Way knew of Ulmer’s medical history” and the jury thus found them liable to the tune of $4 million. (Press accounts are not clear why the doctrine of respondeat superior did not apply, but perhaps Ulmer was held not to be negligent for his medical condition.) Edwards’s comment is intriguing: “They knew that this man had problems, but yet they did nothing about it.” What was Rent-Way supposed to do that didn’t violate the ADA and leave themselves liable to Ulmer? (“$4 Million Awarded To Victim In Diabetic Driver Accident”, News4Jax, Nov. 18).
Tom Edwards was recently in the news with the fascinating suggestion that attorneys could get around the recently passed Amendment 3 limiting attorneys’ fees in medical malpractice cases by asking clients to “waive their rights.” Hey, I’m all for that—if only attorneys would let clients waive their rights in other contractual arrangements, such as with doctors, we’d need a lot less tort reform. (Stewart Verney, “Lawyers may ask clients to waive new amendment rights”, Jacksonville Business Journal, Nov. 26, 2004).
UK roundup
Sainsbury’s, the British grocery chain, says it will have to go back on a plan to sell Christmas puddings with “lucky sixpences” inside because of health and safety regs under which they are regarded as a choking hazard; instead it will attach the coins to “collectors’ cards” and suggest that customers place them under the plate or placemat of a lucky family member. “[G]ood luck charms have been added to Christmas puddings for more than 500 years.” (David Derbyshire, “Unlucky sixpences miss out on Christmas”, Daily Telegraph, Oct. 18). For an analogous U.S. story involving the New Orleans specialty, “king cake”, see Feb. 1-3, 2002. The police force in Derbyshire, England, has tested its dogs to see whether their barking is in compliance with the Control of Noise at Work Regulations being introduced next April; the canines’ level of noisiness barely passed muster under the new standard, and modifications such as earplugs for police may needed when use of the dogs in anti-crime work combines with another source of noise such as that of a crowd. (Nick Britten, “Police take the lead on barking regulations”, Daily Telegraph, Oct. 27). For more on British and EU noise regulations, see Nov. 10, 2005 (kids’ playing); Sept. 2, 2005 (Army tanks); Jan. 12, 2004 (orchestras); Mar. 8-10, 2002 (bagpipes); Dec. 22-25, 2000 (military brass bands and gunfire during infantry training). In Worcester, England, teenager Natasha Hughes, who is accused of grievous bodily harm directed at another woman and was charged with violating her bail conditions, will not have to wear an electronic monitoring anklet after she successfully argued that the device violated her fashion sense and looked bad with skirts. (Nick Britten, “You can’t tag me. . . I like to wear skirts”, Daily Telegraph, Nov. 11). For a similar argument made in this country, see Dec. 4, 2000 (exotic dancer). And the following exchange was heard on the floor of the House of Lords this Wednesday:
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware of the case that I read about recently in which there were three main suspects for a crime: a rich lawyer, a poor lawyer and a tooth fairy? Needless to say, the rich lawyer was arrested because the other two were figments of the imagination.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it does the House no credit to do anti-lawyer jokes.
(Hansard, Nov. 16). Reader Bob Clarke, of Birmingham, U.K. who called this exchange to our attention, writes: “I don’t think that my learned Lord should drop his day job and start being a stand-up comedian. He made the same joke in 2000“.
Laws requiring employers to tolerate guns
The National Rifle Association, breaking with its usual pro-freedom stance, favors the enactment of state laws of this sort. But they’re a really, really bad idea. (Prof. Bainbridge, Nov. 15).
Setting up the employer for a retaliation claim
Job applicants wouldn’t do that on purpose, would they? At least not unless they were following the advice of a EEOC staff lawyer interviewed for a Wall Street Journal article. According to McGuire Woods attorney Lou Michels, writing in the new-to-us blog Suits in the Workplace, “what the EEOC attorney appears to be proposing is simply outrageous” and “reeks of gamesmanship”. (Oct. 11).
Meatpacker to pay $3m for using strength test
At the Armour Star meat packing plant in Fort Madison, Iowa, run by a subsidiary of the Dial Corporation, workers are expected to engage in “repetitive lifting of a 35-pound rod of sausages to a height of approximately 65 inches.” Concerned about a high rate of worker injuries, the company foolishly thought that it could introduce (in 2000) a physical test which “required the repeated lifting of 35 pounds to a height of 65 inches.” Wrong: sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the company is now going to be paying out $3 million for its troubles. The EEOC argued, and a court agreed, that the test had “disparate impact” on women because 97 percent of men but less than 40 percent of women passed, that it appeared some applicants who failed the test might nonetheless be able to handle the job duties (by standing on tiptoe while heaving the weights, for example, which the test did not permit), and that the company had not shown a “business necessity” to use the test since it could take other measures to improve safety. According to the EEOC, “52 women who were rejected for entry-level production jobs because they had failed a strength test will be offered jobs at Dial and will share approximately $3,390,000.”. (EEOC press releases, Feb. 8 and Sept. 29) (via George’s Employment Blawg)(& welcome Fark readers).
Court: workers’ comp covers hockey-fight injury
Confirming every suspicion about ice hockey:
A former minor-league hockey player who injured his shoulder in a fight he claimed his coach told him to start is entitled to workers’ compensation, a Virginia appeals court ruled.
The Virginia Court of Appeals upheld a Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that “fighting is an integral part of the game of hockey” and that Ty A. Jones’ injury arose in the course of his employment as an “enforcer.”
(Sonja Barisic, “Court: Workers’ comp covers hockey player”, AP/Detroit News, Nov. 4).
Mysterious Wal-Mart suit
One can understand why Wal-Mart is upset that a former executive, Tom Coughlin, allegedly swiped a half-million dollars, and wants to stop paying him in addition to referring the matter to federal prosecutors. But one doesn’t understand why Wal-Mart, in an effort to recover a fairly small sum, is arguing to the court that it should disregard the mutual waiver and release that Coughlin signed with Wal-Mart when he left the job. Surely the corporation would be better off on the whole with a legal rule that strictly enforces releases than one that judges the validity of a release on a case-by-case basis. (AP, Nov. 2).
EU shelves “tan ban”
Ducking a heated controversy, the European Parliament has declined to rule on “whether workers such as bare-chested builders should be required by their employers to cover up to avoid excessive sun.” The issue will now be left up to national legislatures. “MEPs found themselves under siege from angry business groups and German building workers, who staged a shirtless protest.” (David Rennie, “MEPs run for cover in ‘tan ban’ dilemma”, Daily Telegraph, Sept. 8). “Socialists and Greens argued EU legislation was vital to cut skin cancer rates among outdoor workers, but the right denounced it as an example of the nanny state running amok and over-burdening business.” (Aine Gallagher, “Builders and barmaids avoid EU tan ban”, Reuters/Swissinfo.com, Sept. 7). More: Jim Leitzel at Vice Squad has the dirndl angle (Sept. 11).