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 8/18/19 we learned about a McDonald’s franchise being sued for religious discrimination against job applicant. The EEOC field the suit on behalf of a Hasidic Jew who applied for a part-time maintenance job. He was told that he’d be hired, but needed to shave his beard due to the grooming policy (which is in the post). The applicant said no due to his religious beliefs. However, the applicant offered something else to resolve the situation (see the post), but the idea was rejected. Now the employer is a defendant.
TAKEAWAY: Employers must accommodate religious beliefs unless to do so would impose a hardship – and violation of an existing policy is not a hardship.
The post on Monday 8/19/19 told us SCOTUS was asked to clarify ADA website claims. Yes, the battle over whether websites are covered by the ADA as a public accommodation. Two entities (listed in the post) filed an appeal from a decision of an appellate court holding that websites are indeed subject to the ADA as public accommodations. That holding was in a case mentioned in the post involving a well-known national retailer.
TAKEAWAY: Obviously this case has ramifications far and wide – stay tuned and then act appropriately.
The post on Tuesday 8/20/19 told us that a detective agency paid $35K to settle sex discrimination and retaliation suit. So what where the allegations against the employer? That the owner and CEO subjected a female employee to sexually charged comments (see the post for examples) and retaliated against her for rejecting him (again, see the post). After conciliation failed, the EEOC filed suit, and then this settlement happened. What the employer agreed to do is in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Not only should employers make sure managers know what they can and cannot do and say, the employer (and owner) must also know and not stray.
The post on Wednesday 8/21/19 was about an Association telling 82-yr-old granny to curb her American flag enthusiasm, but she refuses. Who wins? The Association told her that the new flag decoration doesn’t fit the neighborhood’s look. Who is the woman? See the post. This all started when a firefighter on an emergency call to a neighbor asked why house numbers were not painted on the curb. She then asked the HOA; its response is in the post. She then hired a company to paint hers – what it looks like is in the post. Then the trouble began. What the HOA says is the violation is in the post. She has not yet removed the flag.
TAKEAWAY: Planned communities must evenly enforce their rules, period. But sometimes things happen that result in exceptions being created to existing rules.
In the post on Thursday 8/22/19, we learned that Google is to pay $11M to settle an age discrimination class action. NOTE: this updates a prior post … The class consists of 227 plaintiffs who allege that Google engaged in a pattern or practice of age discrimination; the suit was filed in federal court in CA. What they accuse Google of doing is in the post. Google denies the accusations. So the matter settled with Google to pay $11 million and also take the actions noted in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Everyone must abide by the ADEA, no matter how big or famous – and being found in violation can be costly.
The post on Friday 8/23/19 was a reminder that when mining employees’ social media, take an evenhanded approach. Employers are becoming more proactive in keeping track of employees’ socmedia posts – which leads to more adverse actions as a result. One recent example from down the road in Philadelphia is in the post. (Note that York City also had a part to play relative to socmedia posts – check out local news.) The problem with these monitoring efforts is they can run up against that little thing called the First Amendment. To whom it applies in the work environment is noted in the post. For other employees, there are protections under the National Labor Relations Act (along with the other laws mentioned in the post).
TAKEAWAY: Yes you can monitor employees’ socmedia posts; no, you should not do it alone. Consult an employment lawyer to make sure the monitoring does not get you in legal trouble.
Finally, in the post yesterday 8/24/19 we saw that a decision not to reappoint worker after lawsuit was not retaliation. We also noted that what is not in the post is whether she timely filed with the EEOC or state agency prior to filing suit (and if not, whether a motion to dismiss on that basis is was filed by the employer). The employee at issue was a maintenance employee at a college; she was not reappointed 10 months after filing a discrimination claim against the college. Details on the woman (and her protected status) are in the post. She made a request which was denied, and she sued. She lost. Shortly thereafter, she was told she would not be reappointed (the reasons are in the post). She was then transferred to a building with pool conditions – including discolored drinking water and more noted in the post. Her replacement was almost her opposite – see the post. She then sued (again). The trial court ruled in favor of the college; she appealed on the discrimination and retaliation claims. What the appellate court found is in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Employers must be careful not to retaliate against employees who have complained (or sued), but that does not mean an employer can never take adverse action. Talk to your employment lawyer first though.
York, Pennsylvania 17403