Discrimination

Subscribe to Discrimination via RSS

Continuing our Employment Law IQ series, today we focus on Anxious Annie. Anxious Annie works as a receptionist for P U Waste Disposal. She is a decent employee, but seems to have trouble coming to work on time, and often calls in “sick” on Mondays and Fridays. When Annie is written up for absenteeism, Annie tells her supervisor she needs a leave of absence to deal with panic attacks. Annie’s supervisor reports the request to P U’s HR Director, but laughs it off and says the request “smells funny.” P U has more than 15 employees.

Which of the following statements is correct?

A.  Because Annie’s disability is not obvious, P U is entitled to receive “reasonable documentation” about the disability and its functional limitations.

B.  Because Annie’s disability is not obvious, P U can ask to see Annie’s medical records.

C.  Because Annie’s disability is not obvious, P U can ask about the nature of the disability and its functional limitations.

D.  Both A and C are correct.Continue Reading Employment Law IQ: Absenteeism and Questionable Leave Requests

Tis election season! And it is impossible to ignore the political debate that is unfolding in the media, on social networks, and in everyday conversation. Can and should employers restrict political discussion in the workplace? It depends.

Private employers enjoy wide latitude in determining whether and how to regulate employees’ expression of their political views in the workplace. Contrary…

Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion expressly recognizing “a ministerial exception,” which bars “ministers” employed by faith based employers from suing for discrimination. In Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC, the Supreme Court considered the case of Cheryl Perich, an elementary teacher at a Church School. Although Perich was also…

Unless you’ve been living under a rock this week, those in the employment law/human resources field have inevitably heard about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Wal-Mart v. Dukes case.  The decision, which was handed down Monday, reversed the Ninth Circuit’s certification of a class of approximately 1.5 million female employees claiming gender-based pay/promotion…