Below is a review of the posts (on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter) from the past week. You can check out the full posts by clicking on the links.
In the post on Sunday 4/22/18 we saw that the battle continues over nuisance geese in a community (and asked how your association would handle the situation). The Association wants to take lethal action against the geese; homeowners object despite the problems caused by the geese (detailed in the post). Other ways to deal with the problem were suggested by advocates and are in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Associations must act in the best interests of owners, but often there is more than one way to solve a problem.
The post on Monday 4/23/18 told us the Atlanta Hawks were sued for racial discrimination by a white ex-employee. We noted that the past becomes the present (more on this later). Margo, employed by the Hawks for over 5 years, alleges that an African-American male appointed as a supervisor of her department acted against whites as noted in the post, including making jokes about white culture and having different expectations depending on the employee’s race. Margo’s allegations include what happened after she complained – see the post. So what about the past? The Hawks were sued last year by a former security manager who alleged he was fired in retaliation for bringing up an alleged racist system of discrimination. The post contains the basis of that suit (which is still pending). And there is more – see the post.
TAKEAWAY: Remember that race discrimination can happen as against the majority too – make sure all employees are treated the same regardless of race.
In the post on Tuesday 4/24/18 we learned that no, it’s not a man’s world, which is why the EEOC sued. We all know that it is sometimes difficult to make supervisors or managers understand and abide by all rules. In the meantime, they act in ways that can be costly for the employer. In the post, Patricia worked at the stoves in a kitchen for a food service company. She applied for a promotion. Two others, from the outside, also applied. After not being chosen, Patricia asked why. The response she got is in the post – and will hopefully surprise and disgust you. When she complained, she suffered retaliation. See the post. The EEOC ended up suing on her behalf.
TAKEAWAY: if an employee acts in a way that is contrary to the law, admit it and make things right – don’t become embroiled in a lawsuit.
The post on Wednesday 4/25/18 asked: Does the ADA apply in the internet era? When the ADA was enacted in 1990, the internet did not exist as we know it today. Courts have come to contrary decision on the question of whether the ADA applies to goods and services provided solely via the internet. Those items are dealt with under Title III of the Act – see the post for more details on what it includes. Why (or how) the current issue arises is also listed in the post. In a 1998 case, the Third Circuit (the federal appellate court governing cases from PA) required a physical location for the ADA to apply. What other federal circuits have done is in the post. The big issue now is whether the ADA applies to websites.
TAKEAWAY: Know what the ADA does apply to and err on the side of caution on those things that are in the uncertain territory.
In the post on Thursday 4/26/18 we looked at service dog versus emotional support animal: Associations must k now the difference. Know that service animals and emotional support animals are NOT the same thing. The post notes the difference. When an Association has a no-pets (or limited pets) policy/covenant and the animal at issue might violate the policy/covenant, the Association must know how the animal is classified to know how it must be treated (and if the ADA comes into play).
TAKEAWAY: Know what animals must be allowed regardless of any policy/covenant; consult legal counsel if there is a question.
The post on Friday 4/27/18 clarified that working on the side doesn’t stop eligibility for unemployment benefits. At least in some situations. Here, Donald lost his job and applied for UC benefits. The question was whether or not he became self-employed (which affects UC eligibility). See the post for a summary of the facts and why the Court ruled as it did.
TAKEAWAY: Don’t assume that earning money through self-employment will automatically disqualify a former employee from receiving UC benefits – look at the facts.
Finally, in the post yesterday 4/28/18 we learned that a denied training request wasn’t gender discrimination. Here, in another case from the Third Circuit (the federal appellate court which governs cases from PA), we have a holding as to what constitutes an adverse action (that can amount to discrimination). Helen worked as a prison guard; she sued for gender discrimination. A jury found in her favor based on the employer’s failure to allow her to attend a training class (but permitting a male colleague to attend). The employer appealed. The Third Circuit’s ruling is in the post along with its rationale.
TAKEAWAY: Talk to your employment lawyer to ensure the basis for treating one employee differently than one from another class/protected characteristic is not sufficient to constitute discrimination.