We posted in the past about an employer’s obligation to provide “light duty” to a pregnant employee. The new EEOC Pregnancy Guidelines clarify the EEOC’s position on this issue. The Guidelines state that an employer is required to provide light duty under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) “if it provides light duty for employees who are not pregnant but who are similar in their ability or inability to work. An employer may not treat pregnant workers differently from employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work based on the cause of their limitations. For example, an employer may not deny light duty to a pregnant employee based on a policy that limits light duty to employees with on-the-job injuries.”
Although the EEOC’s position on this issue is not law, courts often give deference to agency interpretations of the laws they enforce. As a result, any employer who is covered by the PDA (15 or more employees), should be consider revising a light duty policy that solely provides light duty to employees with work related injuries. http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/pregnancy_qa.cfm
Links to the Guide, and Questions and Answers about the Guide and related issues can be found here: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/
Walgreens fired an 18 year employee with a good track record because she ate a bag of potato chips without paying for them first. When Walgreens investigated the incident, the employee explained that she ate the chips before paying because her blood sugar was low and she did not have time to pay before eating. She was fired for the incident. The EEOC sued Walgreens on the grounds that the employee was fired because of her disability. Although not mentioned, the EEOC presumably also alleged that permitting a diabetic employee to eat something and pay for it later during a hypoglycemic attack is a reasonable accommodation. The $1.39 bag of chips cost Walgreens $180,000. http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-2-14b.cfm
The EEOC has initiated a lawsuit against Wal-Mart for disability discrimination. According to the allegations, intellectually disabled employee William Clark had successfully worked at a Wal-Mart store for 18 years. As a long-standing accommodation to Clark, Wal-Mart had given him written job assignments. The EEOC also alleges that the “accommodation had been the “key” to permitting Clark to successfully perform his job and meeting the company’s performance expectations. Wal-Mart then “just took away — with no good reason — an effective workplace accommodation of [the] intellectually disabled employee” and then fired him. Obviously, this is the action from which lawsuits are born. According to the EEOC, it now intends “to show that the company’s action was a particularly senseless violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act — an especially hurtful injustice — that Mr. Clark is entitled to full make whole relief and to punitive damages, and that the public interest requires strong injunctive measures to correct Wal-Mart’s practices.”
The takeaway? Don’t mess with an effective workplace accommodation.
An employer recently paid $1,350,000 to settle an EEOC lawsuit arising from the employer’s failure to consider ADA leave as accommodation for absent employees and employees who had exhausted their 12 weeks of FMLA leave. According to the EEOC, the employer fired employees who were not eligible for FMLA leave after being absent for a short time and fired employees who did not return to work after exhausting their 12 weeks of family leave.
This settlement is a reminder to employers to consider an employee’s potential right to leave as an accommodation whenever an employee cannot return to work upon expiration of their FMLA (or OFLA) leave, and to examine the reason for employee absences before terminating an employee for such absences. Where an absence appears to be for a health condition that might qualify as a disability (whether or not the FMLA/OFLA applies), employers need to engage in the interactive process with the employee to determine if unpaid leave is a reasonable accommodation for that disability.
Noel Canning is the name of Pepsi distributor who challenged a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision concerning a collective bargaining agreement on the grounds that the NLRB lacked a quorum because 3 of the 5 board members had not been properly appointed. On June 26, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that Noel Canning was right – the NLRB appointments were invalid because of how President Obama appointed the challenged Board members. The Supreme Court decision potentially impacts any actions taken by the NLRB during the time period that the NLRB included improperly appointed members.
The decision is here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1281_bodg.pdf
An excellent explanation of the decision and its impact can be found here: http://www.fedregsadvisor.com/2014/06/26/scotus-holds-obama-made-unconstitutional-nlrb-recess-appointments-regulations-and-adjudications-at-risk/
Proposed rule would expand the definition of “spouse” in the Family Medical Leave Act include eligible employees in same-sex marriages regardless of whether the state where they reside recognizes same-sex marriages. The DOL press release is here: http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/whd/WHD20141208.htm
This week, the Ninth Circuit ruled that delivery drivers are employees, not independent contractors. In Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11123 (9th Cir. 2014), the plaintiffs performed delivery services in for Affinity Logistics under contracts that expressly stated the drivers were independent contractors. The plaintiffs argued they were misclassified and brought claims for various employee benefits. The Ninth Circuit ruled that despite the contract terms to the contrary, and the fact that the plaintiffs formed their own corporate entities, paid for their own trucks, and could hire their own helpers, the plaintiffs were employees because Affinity Logistics sufficiently controlled the drivers’ workdays and work methods.
Once again, businesses must remember that if they want workers to be independent contractors, the workers must control the means and manner of how they perform their work. Here’s the decision:
Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee with regard to hiring, tenure, or any term or condition of employment for the purpose of encouraging or discouraging union membership. Recently, the National Labor Relations Board found that Starbucks improperly terminated a pro-union employee who got into an altercation at a store with a manager that involved the employee yelling obscenities in front of customers. The Board’s decision that Starbucks was motivated to terminate the employee because of his pro-union support was based, in part, on the following facts: the manager provoked the altercation with the employee; the manager was not disciplined even though he also used obscenities; other employees who engaged in similarly disruptive or insubordinate misconduct were treated more leniently and; the memo documenting the discharge stated that the employee was ineligible for rehire because he strongly supported the union.
Just as with discrimination based on Oregon and federal employment laws, employers need to impose discipline on employees without consideration of their union membership or support, or face potential liability under the NLRA. The NLRB decision can be found here: http://www.nlrb.gov/cases-decisions/board-decisions
The EEOC recently announced another ironic settlement: an employer that provides employment opportunities to disabled individuals, paid $40,000 to settle claims that it discriminated against two applicants because of their age. According to the EEOC, two applicants over the age of 70 applied for a shared mail clerk position and were extended job offers. When the CEO found out their respective ages, the job offers were revoked, and younger individuals were hired for the shared position. There is no information in the EEOC news release about the employer’s defenses, if any, to the EEOC’s allegations. As an organization that provides employment to people with disabilities, however, the employer probably did not want to go to trial and risk public disclosure of discriminatory practices. http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-17-14.cfm