Below is a review of the posts on Facebook and LinkedIn from the past week. You can check out the full posts by clicking on the links.
The post on Sunday 6/16/2024 noted that supervisors playing doctor — unless they’re doctors — is a bad idea. The EEOC recently issued two press releases, one announcing a disability discrimination suit and the other about a recent settlement of age and disability discrimination claims. (Links to both press releases are in the post.) Both cases involve supervisors who allegedly thought they knew more than medical professionals. They were wrong.
In the suit, the EEOC alleges that the employer hired a package delivery driver who divulged having a disability that can cause pain and inflammation throughout the body. After the driver completed multiple training shifts, the company assigned them to a truck that caused the employee to have severe pain in the legs and feet. The employee then requested and received permission to return to the delivery terminal before the end of the shift. But before the employee’s next shift, a supervisor texted the employee, stating that due to the employee’s medical condition, the employee could no longer work for the company. What the employee said in response, and the company’s action, are in the post.
The EEOC said that employers cannot terminate employees because of a disability or an accommodation related to the disability. (Are you thinking to yourself, “duh”?!?!) The EEOC also referenced how the employer here was in violation – see the post.
And what about the case that settled? That involved a 57-year-old employee responsible for assisting with evacuations and acting as a liaison to the local fire department during an emergency. The EEOC had alleged that after the employee suffered a heart attack in December 2020 and returned to work, their supervisor repeatedly tried to convince the employee to retire, given the employee’s age and heart attack. Then the company fired the employee for the same reasons. This suit (brought on the bases of age and disability discrimination) settled for $22,500 and the non-monetary relief noted in the post.
What is the common denominator in both cases? The reminder that employers should not play doctor or stereotype employees based on fears or beliefs about their ability to perform job duties. What should an employee do when an employee requests an accommodation but the need for an accommodation is not obvious? See the post.
TAKEAWAY: Leave the doctoring to the medical professionals – and otherwise fulfill your legal obligations under the ADA or FMLA.
The post on Monday 6/17/2024 noted CVS reaches settlement with nurse practitioner in religious discrimination case. The nurse practitioner was fired by CVS Pharmacy without accommodating what she expressed as her sincerely held religious beliefs about prescribing hormonal contraception. The parties have now settled.
Since 2015, Robyn Strader had worked in a CVS Minute Clinic. She sought religious accommodation based on her belief that certain contraception prescriptions function as “abortifacients,” allowing conception but not implantation of an embryo. So for 6-1/2 years, she operated under an accommodation that allowed her to not prescribe hormonal contraception. What she did if a patient requested such a prescription is noted in the post.
Then in August 2021, CVS announced it would no longer provide accommodations to Strader or other employees who had religious objections to providing hormonal contraception. She was terminated in October 2021.
In February 2022, Strader filed a complaint with the EEOC. After receiving her right-to-sue letter from the EEOC, Strader filed suit against CVS in January 2023 alleging that it had violated Title VII when it adopted that policy. She also made claims against CVS based on Texas law (which are described in the post). Strader claimed that out of the thousands of patients she saw each year, only a tiny percentage — less than an estimated 0.2 percent — sought a prescription she could not personally provide due to her faith.
CVS confirmed the settlement. And apparently Strader found new employment after her termination by CVS and is still in that position today.
TAKEAWAY: Be aware of your duty to accommodate sincerely-held religious beliefs and the steps to take to fulfill that obligation – get assistance from an employment lawyer.
The post on Tuesday 6/18/2024 was about ex-Citi employee alleging she was fired for refusing to fudge data to Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). Not just alleging, but she filed suit.
Kathleen Martin was the bank’s interim data transformation chair when Chief Operating Officer Anand Selva allegedly asked her to hide information from the OCC because the data would make the bank “look bad,” she alleged in her suit filed in federal court. Martin was hired in 2021 after the OCC fined Citi $400M (yep, million) in 2020 due to what Martin termed a “pattern of misconduct” in Citi’s data governance practices; Martin was hired to revamp those processes and avoid further legal risk or liability.
Selva became Citi’s COO — and Martin’s direct manager — in 2023. Martin’s suit alleges that Selva pressured her to lie to regulators about Citi meeting certain metrics “almost as soon as he was promoted.” Why he allegedly did that is in the post. But what happened when Martin pushed back? See the post. Then she was fired on Sept. 25, 2023.
At the same time Martin was fired, Citi began a large reorganization. How large? See the post. That does not help Martin’s case. But what does is what internal documents show about her performance (yes, see the post). Citi said it would vigorously defend. The OCC did not comment. The relief Martin has requested in her suit is described in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Don’t ask employees to act in a way that is not legal. It can really come back to bite you and your company.
The post on Wednesday 6/19/2024 told us town board to review condo declaration for Toy Box vehicle storage facility. The meeting was to discuss and possibly approve the condominium plat and declaration for the Lake Country Toy Box vehicle storage facility. Examples of this type of facility can be found on the web at The Toy Barn Luxury Garage Storage Opening Two Additional Locations Near Scottsdale Arizona – Car Collectors Club and Custom, Exotic, Luxury & Classic Car Storage Facility in Kansas City MO (luxurycondogarage.com). The Town Engineer recommended approval of the plat and declaration. The contents of the declaration are noted in the post (and should sound familiar). The proposed 47 units would each be 30 feet by 50 feet.
TAKEAWAY: Remember that not all condominiums are residential – but the Governing Documents and applicable law must still be followed. Get assistance from a community association lawyer.
In the post on Thursday 6/20/2024, we saw the City to allow property owners to sell ADUs (accessory dwelling units). This is going on in California but may spread across the country so pay attention. San Jose becomes the first city in CA to take advantage of the provisions of a new law. The mayor said that ADUs are incredibly popular, one of the most common permit types for new home construction. Perhaps that is tied to their affordability?
But what is interesting (?) about the law and how it would work is that both parties (the owner subdividing their property and the party purchasing the ADU) would have to form an homeowner’s association (the purpose of which is noted in the post) and notify utility companies that one property has been split in two. Each owner would of course pay their own property taxes and utilities.
What is unknown is how lenders will handle owners selling part of the property before the mortgage is paid off.
And here’s another thing to think about that is not mentioned in the post: what if the property is already in a condo or homeowners association? Then applicable laws on master associations would come into play along with the existing association’s Governing Document provisions.
TAKEAWAY: There is almost always an interplay between condo/HOA restrictions and any existing municipal ordinance or applicable state – and often both or all apply. Contact a community association lawyer for legal assistance.
The post on Friday 6/21/2024 noted the EEOC sued 15 employers for failing to file required workforce demographic reports. You know, those pesky things you’ve been told about for years that you need to file? Well, you really do need to file them. To enforce that, the EEOC recently filed suit against 15 employers in 10 states, alleging the companies failed to comply with the mandatory federal reporting requirements.
What the employers failed to do is submit mandatory EEO-1 Component 1 data reports including for reporting years 2021 and 2022. Which employers are subject to the reporting requirement is noted in the post. The data collected includes workforce information by job category and sex, race, or ethnicity. What the data is used for is also in the post. The EEOC noted that the statute not only authorizes data collection, but also for the EEOC to sue to obtain compliance. The law requiring the data reporting is not new – when it became effective is in the post. The statute can be found at Section 709 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Section 1602.7 – 1602.14, Chapter XIV, Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The employers sued span many industries, including retail, construction, and others listed in the post. The list of employers sued by the EEOC for failure to file EEO-1 Component 1 data is in the post; the suits were filed in federal courts in Ohio, Missouri, New York, New Jersey, Alabama, Arizona, and 5 other states.
The 2023 EEO-1 Component 1 data report was due on/before June 1, 2024.
TAKEAWAY: If you are required to do so, file the EEO-1 report. The EEOC’s instruction booklet is available at https://www.eeocdata.org/eeo1.
Finally, in the post yesterday 6/22/2024, we asked: should more employers offer “chronoworking”? This is an interesting concept … So what is chronoworking? Aligning working hours to employees’ natural body clocks and sleep patterns. A recent survey found that most (87%) of the professionals surveyed believe employers should trial “chronoworking”. Almost half (48%) of those surveyed felt that their mental health would improve if they worked according to their natural sleeping pattern and they would also have an all-round better work-life balance. Who performed the survey and of how many respondents is noted in the post.
33% of those surveyed felt they would be more focused and productive in the workplace. And what did they say would be the preferred chronoworking starting and ending work times? See the post (you might be surprised at the answers).
Chronoworking takes hybrid or remote work a step further. A managing partner at Interval Group, which already has a chronoworking policy, said the three key benefits of the policy are increased flexibility, motivation, and productivity. And how does chronoworking specifically benefit employees? See the post. An HR expert said chronoworking will help minimize the time already lost (as identified in the post). An example of how chronoworking might help is by letting a parent works shifts in conjunction with their child’s education and schedule to spend ample quality time with their family. And what does this do mentally for the employees? See the post (and pay attention employers!).
But just as hybrid and fully remote work have become more and more a part of various industries and workforces, so too can employers get the benefits of chronoworking. How? See the post. Chronoworking may make the concept of a “global workforce” even more a reality which brings in many other benefits as noted in the post.
TAKEAWAY: If you are looking for ways to increase productivity without hiring more employees, and there are not set times when every output must be completed, perhaps you should try chronoworking. But get an employment lawyer involved to help formulate the policy for you.
York, Pennsylvania 17403