Archive for the ‘EEOC’ Category
I have blogged on many occasions about the Americans with Disabilities Act or ADA. This statute and the amendments to it prevent an employer from discriminating against an employee due to an actual or perceived disability. This act not only includes termination or demotions, but also requires that an employer provide accommodations to those with qualified disabilities. For many years, the scope of this act was severely limited due to several rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, but due to recent amendents by Congress, the scope of this act has now been expanded to include many different kinds of disabilities.
It seems the most recent disability that will now be covered under the ADA is obesity. The EEOC has recently filed suit against Resources for Human Development (RHD), a national non-profit human services organization, claiming it fired a child-care worker because she was obese. The agency claims the firing violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case involves Lisa Harrison, who worked with young children of mothers undergoing treatment for addiction in an RHD-run facility in suburban New Orleans.
The EEOC alleges that Harrison was fired because RHD perceived Harrison as being substantially limited in a number of major life activities, including walking, because of her weight, the EEOC claims. But the agency says Harrison was able to perform all of the essential functions of her position. Before the EEOC filed suit, Harrison died. Her private interests will be represented in the lawsuit by her estate.
Up to this point, many courts have ruled that obesity does not fall into the category of disability under the ADA.
But with the passage of the ADA Amendments Act, the definition of disability was substantially widened.
The lawsuit is EEOC v. Resources for Human Development, U.S. Dist. Crt., E.D. LA, No. 2:10-cv-03322.
If you believe you have been the victim of workplace discrimination due to obesity or the perception that you are obese, you should contact an employment lawyer to discuss your possible legal options.
Employees walk by them almost everyday and seemingly pay no attention, but they should. They spell out their rights and obligations under national and state employment laws. What are they?
State and federal laws impose numerous requirements and prohibitions on American businesses, but one of the most overlooked obligations for employers is the responsibility to conspicuously post various government labor law notices in the workplace. The purpose of these labor law posters is to inform employees of their rights under applicable laws and provide information on how to report discrimination, wage and hour violations and other rights infringements to the government.
While many employers do not readily embrace the idea of conspicuously posting information that tells their employees how to bring legal action against them, the obligation to display these notices is explicit in various labor laws and government regulations. The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), for example, includes a provision requiring all covered employers to display the federal minimum wage poster in an area frequented by employees. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) regulations specifically require employers to post a federal safety and health poster or a state equivalent. Failure to comply with government labor law posting requirements could lead to citations and fines during an inspection. Fines vary by poster and by enforcing agency, ranging from as low as $110 up to a potential maximum of $10,000. In total, businesses that don’t post these required notices or post outdated information could face combined fines up to $17,000 per location.
Posting the required information in a back room that employees never enter is not enough to ensure compliance. Government regulations specifically require that the information be displayed in an area frequented by employees during the normal course of the workday. For many companies, that means posting the mandatory notices next to employee time clocks or in lunch areas.
Additionally, some posters must also be displayed in lobbies or applicant areas, as they describe laws that protect job applicants from unlawful discrimination or harassment. One example is the federal “Equal Employment Opportunity Is the Law” Notice, published by the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission).
If your employer does not post posters at your workplace relating to your rights under EEOC laws, OSHA and the Fair Labor Standards Act, then you need to either let them know or report the violation to the EEOC or U.S. Department of Labor. If they continue to fail to comply, enlist the assistance of an employment lawyer.
This may seem like an obvious point, but you all need to be aware that the federal and state sexual harassment laws apply to minors in the workplace just as much as they apply to adults. So, if your sixteen year old working at a fast food location is being sexually harassed, the child or their parent needs to make a report with Human Resources or go to the EEOC. Parents whose children are in the workplace also need to let their kids know that this kind of conduct does not need to be tolerated.
A perfect example is the latest settlement that Starbucks reached in a case out in California. Starbucks has recently agreed to settle a harassment lawsuit, in which a former barista alleged she was pressed with incessant sexual demands from her manager at only 16 years of age. Kati Moore was only 16-years-old when employed as a barista at a California-based Starbucks coffee shop. Moore, contended Tim Horton, her 24-year-old supervisor, would send her inappropriate text messages on a daily basis. For instance, one of hundreds of unruly messages read, “I’d like to f— tomorrow.” Moore accused Starbucks of failing to protect her from the daily workplace harassment. She also asserted her other Starbucks supervisors were conscious of the illicit activity, yet carelessly kept quiet about the matter.
Moore’s case was even featured in a “20/20” investigation concerning teenage victims of workplace sexual harassment. Dr. Susan Strauss, a sexual harassment expert interviewed during the report, noted that such workplace issues are not unusual. The problems can be especially common in fast food restaurants where many teens become employed for the first time. “They’re vulnerable, they’re young, they’re new to the workforce,” Strauss said. According to a study conducted in Maine, one in three high school students reported experiencing unwarranted sexual advances in the workplace.
If your teen expresses concerns to you about whats going on in his/her workplace speak to an employment law attorney to make sure they are not taken advantage of.
One of the areas of frequent complaint with employers, especially in areas such as South Florida and California is whether an employer can force an employee to speak only english in the workplace. In some instances, this requirement is a violation of federal and/or state law constituting national origin discrimination.
Some of these rules implemented by employers are referred to as “English Only” rules. The question with these types of rules is whether the employer had a business justification for having such a rule. Even where an English-only rule has been adopted for nondiscriminatory reasons, the employer’s use of the rule should relate to specific circumstances in its workplace. An English-only rule is justified by “business necessity” if it is needed for an employer to operate safely or efficiently. The following are some situations in which business necessity would justify an English-only rule:
For communications with customers, coworkers, or supervisors who only speak English
In emergencies or other situations in which workers must speak a common language to promote safety
For cooperative work assignments in which the English-only rule is needed to promote efficiency
To enable a supervisor who only speaks English to monitor the performance of an employee whose job duties require communication with coworkers or customers
So for example, if you work in a bank, it may be appropriate for your employer to speak only English in dealing with customers or on the front line, but it may not be appropriate to discipline an employee for speaking another language in the break room with another employee.
As with other employment laws, it would also be illegal for an employer to terminate or retaliate against an employee for complaining about English only requirements in the workplace.
If you believe that your employer is wrongfully using an English only rule, you should speak with the Human Resources Department or if necessary go the the EEOC or an employment lawyer to discuss these issues and possibly file a Charge of Discrimination.