Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A.

Subscribe to Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A.'s Posts

Consider this scenario:

Carmen Parada worked for Banco Industrial de Venezuela in New York as a credit analyst, a largely sedentary job that involved organizing credit letter applications, ensuring that certain documents complied with various standards, and issuing credit letters. In 2007, she fell on the sidewalk and suffered a spinal injury in her lower back. As a result, the employee was directed by her doctor to avoid “prolonged sitting” and to stand after 10 or 15 minutes of sitting. She borrowed a colleague’s ergonomic office chair temporarily, and was able to sit using that chair without the need for standing breaks. The employee asked her employer (a bank) multiple times for a permanent ergonomic chair as a “reasonable accommodation” under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). However, she never received the chair and was ultimately terminated.

Which of the following statements is correct?

A. The bank may deny the employee’s request for the ergonomic chair as a reasonable accommodation under ADA, since she is not precluded from sitting at all times.

B. The bank must grant the employee’s request for breaks to allow her to stand after 10-15 minutes of sitting as a reasonable accommodation under ADA but is not required to provide the chair at the employer’s expense.

C. The bank must grant the employee’s request to either stand periodically or use an ergonomic chair, but not both, and the employee has to pay for her own chair.

D. The bank must grant the employee’s request and provide the chair at the employer’s expense, if the employee can show that she is a qualified individual with a disability and the chair will allow her to perform the essential functions of her job.


Continue Reading Employment Law IQ: Reasonable Accommodation, Termination and the ADA

The Florida Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg early June 2014, a case that employers, insurance carriers, and workers compensation attorneys are closely watching. The First District Court of Appeal, which hears all workers compensation appeals from the Judges of Compensation Claims, certified the following question:

Is…

Consider this hypothetical.

Erin Bragovich works in the permitting department of Shortcut Land Development Company (“Shortcut”). In a phone call, Erin tells her supervisor that she believes that Shortcut is violating a local zoning ordinance enacted by Sunshine City. Immediately after telling her manager about the suspected zoning violation, Erin files a sworn complaint with the Sunshine City Zoning Department reporting the violation. Shortcut fires Erin after it learns about her complaint.

Which of the following statements is correct?

A.  Erin has a claim for whistleblower protection if she had a good faith belief that Shortcut was violating a zoning ordinance, even if there was no actual violation.

B.  Erin has a claim for whistleblower protection because her complaint to the City’s Zoning Department represents a valid exercise of her First Amendment Right to Free Speech.

C.  Erin does not have a claim for whistleblower protection because she did not disclose the violation to her supervisor in writing, nor did she give Shortcut a reasonable opportunity to correct the violation before she made the report to the Zoning Department.

D.  Erin does not have a claim for whistleblower protection because the subject of her disclosure was the violation of a local ordinance, not a violation of state or federal law.Continue Reading Employment Law IQ: Retaliation and Whistleblower Liability

Consider this scenario. Cathy works for Clean As a Whistle, Inc. as a janitor. Cathy recently developed a sensitivity to all cleaning chemicals. Initially, Cathy brought in a doctor’s note limiting her to two hours of chemical exposure per eight hour work day. Clean As a Whistle agreed to limit her exposure to two hours. When that limitation failed to abate Cathy’s symptoms, her doctor modified the restriction to “no exposure to cleaning solutions.”

Clean As a Whistle tried to find a solution for Cathy, but ultimately determined there was no way to accommodate her because the chemicals were airborne so merely working in the building resulted in exposure, and providing a respirator was too expensive. After she was terminated, Cathy sued.

Did Clean As a Whistle violate the ADA?

A.  Yes, because Clean As a Whistle did not engage in the interactive process.

B.  No, because Cathy did not have a disability.

C.  Yes, because Clean As a Whistle should have provided a respirator.

D.  No, because Cathy was not “qualified” to do her job based on the doctor’s restriction.


Continue Reading Employment Law IQ: Disability, Termination, and the ADA

Consider this scenario:

Valerie has worked full time for a local hospital since December 2012. In January 2014, Valerie takes six weeks FMLA leave following the birth of her baby. In April 2014, Valerie gives the hospital notice that she will need additional FMLA leave this calendar year after she adopts her twelve-year old niece.

Which of the following statements is correct?

A. The hospital does not need to grant Valerie any more FMLA leave because she is adopting a family member.

B. The hospital must grant Valerie an additional twelve weeks of FMLA leave for the adoption since childbirth and adoption are separate qualifying conditions under the FMLA.

C. The hospital must grant Valerie up to an additional six weeks of FMLA leave only if the niece she adopts has a serious health condition.

D. The hospital must grant Valerie up to an additional six weeks of FMLA leave following the adoption.Continue Reading Employment Law IQ: Child Birth, Adoption and FMLA Leave

Apple Blue Ivy Moonbeam, a Generation X HR Director who considers herself super savvy when it came to all things Interweb, drafted a social media policy to include in FacePlace, Inc.’s employee handbook. FacePlace is a non-union workplace with over 300 employees, most of whom work from various “virtual” offices away from FacePlace’s home office. Convinced she created the best social media policy ever, Apple submitted the policy to the NLRB for review.

Which of the following policies do you think the NLRB found lawful?

A. You should never share confidential information with a team member unless the person has a need to know the information to perform their job.

B. Offensive, demeaning, abusive or inappropriate remarks are as out of place online as they are offline, even if they are unintentional.

C. Employees should avoid harming the image and integrity of the company and any harassment, bullying, discrimination, or retaliation that would not be permissible in the workplace is not permissible between team workers online, even if it is done after hours, from your home network.

D. The NLRB found all three unlawful.Continue Reading Employment Law IQ: Social Media Policies and Handbook Headaches

Consider the following scenario:

Wynona Whiner is hired as a file clerk for a local law firm. Wynona gets a paper cut on her second day at work and files a workers’ compensation claim. Wynona’s doctor takes her off work for three days after the cut becomes infected over the weekend. On Monday, Wynona presents the law firm with the doctor’s note stating that she can return to work on Tuesday. However, Wynona does not return to work until the following Monday. When she returns to work, the law firm terminates Wynona under the firm’s no call, no show policy.

Which of the following statements is correct?

A.  Wynona may not bring a retaliation claim if her workers’ compensation claim is denied.

B.  Wynona may not bring a claim for retaliation because she was fired during her 90-day probationary period.

C.  Wynona will prevail on a claim for retaliation because she was fired within three months of filing a workers’ compensation claim.

D.  Wynona may have a claim for retaliation if the no call, no show policy has only been enforced against employees who have filed workers’ compensation claims.


Continue Reading Employment Law IQ: Workers’ Compensation Claims and Retaliation – What Would You Do?

Consider the following hypothetical:

Scenario: Amy is a receptionist for Judgment Day Church. The Church fires Amy after it learns that she had an elective abortion. The termination notice states that Amy is being terminated for violating a pledge she signed at the time she was hired stating she would not engage in immoral conduct that is contrary to Church teachings.

Which of the following statements is correct?

A.  Amy may have a claim against the Church for invasion of her Constitutional right to privacy.

B.  Amy may have a claim against the Church for pregnancy discrimination.

C.  Amy does not have a claim against the Church for discrimination because Church employees are exempt from discrimination claims under the Ministerial Exception created by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

D.  Amy does not have a claim against the Church because the alleged misconduct occurred outside regular working hours.Continue Reading Employment Law IQ: Can a Church Employee be Fired for Having an Abortion?

Continuing in our series of Employment Law IQ, what would you do?

Scenario:  Valerie recently graduated from FGCU and got her first job, a position as HR Director for Hire You Too, a local, non-union staffing agency. Though Hire You Too has been in business for a number of years, Valerie is the company’s first dedicated HR employee. Eager to establish herself as an important member of the Hire You Too team, the first thing Valerie does is review Hire You Too’s Employee Handbook. While most of the Handbook looks good, Valerie wants to revise the Acknowledgement, because she remembers from her “Labor 101 Class” that the NLRB has cracked down on at will employment disclaimers.

Which of the following statements should Valerie avoid for the Acknowledgement?

A. I further agree that the at will employment relationship cannot be amended, modified, or altered in any way.

B. The relationship between you and Hire You Too is employment at will. This means that your employment can be terminated at any time for any reason, with or without cause, by you or Hire You Too.

C. Employment with Hire You Too is employment at will. Only the CEO of Hire You Too has the authority to alter the at will employment relationship, and then only in writing.

D. Valerie can choose any one of the three, since Hire You Too is a non-union workplace and does not have to worry about the NLRA.Continue Reading Employment Law IQ: At Will Employment Disclaimers – A Violation of NLRB?