This week, US Senators reintroduced legislation labeled as the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act (POWADA). The legislation aims to reduce an employee’s burden of proving an age discrimination claim. Currently, an employee must prove that age was essentially the sole reason for an adverse employment action.
A Q&A with the Women’s Bureau Director of the DOL about pregnancy discrimination was posted on the DOL’s Blog last week. The post includes an interesting interactive map of laws regarding pregnancy discrimination. The Q&A is here: http://blog.dol.gov/2015/02/13/qa-with-womens-bureau-director-latifa-lyles-on-pregnancy-discrimination/ The map is here: http://www.dol.gov/wb/maps/
If your answer is “yes,” then you better look for an attorney at the same time, because “fresh” is apparently a code word for young, and as a national restaurant chain just discovered, may be the basis of a claim for age discrimination. According to the EEOC, Seasons 52 refused to hire older employees for… Continue reading Looking to Hire “Fresh” Employees?
Earlier this month, we blogged about an EEOC case for religious discrimination involving a Rastafarian employee. Earlier this week, the EEOC announced a settlement in that case, and brought another religious discrimination case on behalf of another Rastafarian employee. Both cases involved failures to accommodate religious beliefs as manifested through employee’s dress/appearance. In one case, the… Continue reading EEOC Focus on Rastafarians
Earlier this week, the EEOC sued an employer for firing an employee who refused to complete an over broad medical release and because the release requested information about the employee’s family medical history. The employee was asked to complete the release in connection with a “fitness for duty” examination. According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, the release required that… Continue reading Employer Medical Release Too Broad
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… Continue reading Light Duty and Pregnancy
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. … Continue reading $1.39 Bag of Chips Costs Employer $180,000
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… Continue reading Age Discrimination Multiplied by Two
Not even where it is a religion invented by one of the employer-entity’s family members. In a case that sounds like an elaborate April Fools Day prank, the EEOC sued an employer for forcing employees to take part in religious activities related to a religion founded by one of the employer’s family members, called “Onionhead.” … Continue reading Employer May Not Impose Family Religion on Employees
In some cases, an employer can tell when an applicant for employment is pregnant. Even if curious, however, an employer should not ask a pregnant applicant questions about when they are due, how much maternity leave they plan to take, and what kind of childcare plans they have made. Further, unless an employer is eager… Continue reading Refusal to Hire Pregnant Applicant Costs Chick-Fil-A $10,000