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 7/8/18 we learned that FedEx failed to quash a trans worker’s sexual orientation claim. So what happened? Miko, a transgender man assigned female at birth and now married to a woman, sued FedEx under state law after he was fired in March 2017. FedEx says it fired him because he wouldn’t work extra shifts. One legal (procedural) argument made by FedEx is in the post. The court said that when it comes to sex and sexual orientation bias, “no case law definitively states that these terms are either distinct from one another (and thus, must be specifically claimed), or closely related to one another (and thus, do not require separate claims). That underlies the ruling which is in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Whether or not sexual orientation is included in ‘sex’ for discrimination purposes is a legal battle being fought at all levels of the judicial system – with the EEOC and Department of Justice on 2 different sides of the argument. Talk to an employment law attorney to make sure your interests are protected.
The post on Monday 7/9/18 was an alert that SCOTUS says #Union “fair share” dues can no longer be collected from non-members. This is the portion of the union dues not allocated to political activities that has traditionally been collected from non-members who, the argument goes, still benefit from the Union’s representation in wage and benefit matters. This was a 5-4 decision with the newest Justice, Gorsuch, providing the swing vote. The arguments for and against payment of the fair-share are in the post. Also in the post is the basis upon which the decision came down.
TAKEAWAY: Even long-time legal precedent may be overturned at some point; employers (and others) must stay alert to what they can and cannot legally do at any given time.
In the post on Tuesday 7/10/18 we were reminded that homeowners’ and condo Association documents are there for a purpose. Planned communities, whether single-family or condominium, have become more and more popular. With them is the proliferation of documents that bind those who live in the community. The documents are legally valid (in most cases). The post gives an example of how this can play out, whether or not an owner likes the result.
TAKEAWAY: Community Association documents are legal documents; get help from a community association lawyer to ensure your rights are protected.
The post on Wednesday 7/11/18 was another reminder, this time that a religious accommodation need not be the employee’s preferred accommodation. Ok, we all know that employers have a duty to accommodate religious beliefs if possible and reasonable. The question is how far that goes and who gets to decide what is reasonable. In the post a federal court gave us some answers to those questions. Jerome worked for an airport employer which required mandatory work on Saturdays. Jerome’s religion prevented him working on Saturdays; he requested that the employer assign him to Sundays instead. How it played out is in the post, culminating in him quitting and filing suit. An overview of the court’s analysis is also in the post, including the fact that it ruled contrary to EEOC history.
TAKEAWAY: Religious accommodation is now on even footing with other accommodation where the employee’s requested accommodation is not necessarily what must be offered by the employer. Consult an employment law attorney to be sure.
In the post on Thursday 7/12/18 we looked at individual liability under COBRA (and how to avoid it). Under federal EEO laws (such as Title VII, ADA, ADEA), there is generally no individual liability for discrimination. That can differ under the FMLA, FLSA and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act in some circumstances. A federal court in PA recently ruled on whether there is individual liability under COBRA. The basis for bringing the individuals into the suit as defendants is in the post. What the court based its decision on is also in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Before filing (or defending) a suit, make sure to look at all relevant documents. And prepare the documents in such a way that they do what you want them to from the start.
The post on Friday 7/13/18 told us that New Prime Inc. (a subsidiary of Prime Inc., a trucking firm) is in MeToo hot water for alleged sexual harassment. The EEOC filed suit alleging that Prime failed to take adequate steps to prevent the sexual harassment of a female truck driver, and, additionally, created a hostile working environment. Prime partnered the female with a former trainer who previously had been involved in the sexual harassment of a female he was training. Oh but that’s not all; more of the lurid background is in the post. What is ironic is that as a result of a prior suit, Prime got rid of its same-sex trainer program. See the post about that too.
TAKEAWAY: Not only must an employer be aware of illegal actions taken by its employees, it must make sure they don’t occur again – employers cannot just turn a blind eye.
Finally, in the post yesterday 7/14/18 we learned that a typo in the new tax law may hurt employees too. Not just employees, but those who are already victims of (allegedly) illegal behavior and are trying to put it behind them. As you probably know, and as a collateral consequence of the MeToo movement, the new tax law bars employers from deducting their legal fees for sexual harassment settlements that require victims to sign nondisclosure agreements. This is the law now, but there is a typo explained in the post. As written and enacted, the law now applies to the (alleged) victim too. An example of how it might be applied is in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Employees agreeing to settlements should know on what they might be taxed. Employers already know as the law does what it was supposed to relative to them.
York, Pennsylvania 17403