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 9/15/19 we saw that Trump’s “go back” comment in the workplace can get you fired. You know, the comment the president made to 4 congresswomen of color. He was taken to task for it, but if it happens in your workplace, there could be even more severe consequences. The EEOC explained what might be considered severe – see the post – and subject to employment discrimination laws. It’s just too bad that the congresswomen can’t take advantage of those laws (why not is in the post). But many others have as EEOC statistics and settlements show; some are noted in the post. Who the anti-discrimination laws apply to is also discussed in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Our current President might be (or feel that he is) above the law, but your workplace is not – know what can and cannot be said and train your employees accordingly.
The post on Monday 9/16/19 was an ALERT: Third Circuit said that employers cannot opt out of Obamacare birth control mandate. You are probably aware that in 2017 HHS (and the Dept. of the Treasury) allowed a religious exemption to employers from the ACA’s requirement to provide insurance coverage for contraception. Well, the federal court that governs PA and NJ blocked that exemption. First, the court said it was done not in conformity with procedural requirements – see the post – so it cannot stand. But that wasn’t all. The Court also blocked the exemption on another basis described in the post. Finally, not only did the Court block the exemption for PA and NJ, it took action noted in the post.
TAKEAWAY: For now, employers must provide their employees with insurance coverage for contraception just as they did after the SCOTUS decision in Hobby Lobby – but stay tuned in case the Administration tries again.
The post on Tuesday 9/17/19 told us a plumbing company settled EEOC claims that it assigned only Latino workers to sewer duty. The EEOC claimed that the company assigned Latino plumbers to work differently than white plumbers. How? See the post. It also alleged other different treatment of Latino workers as opposed to white workers. Again, see the post. As part of the settlement, the company will pay $82,500 to 2 former employees plus other things noted in the post.
TAKEAWAY: National origin is a protected characteristic – don’t treat employees less favorably based on that. If you do, you better contact an employment lawyer to help you clean up the pieces.
The post on Wednesday 9/18/19 was about how ghost owners can impact your Association. We suggested you contact us for help with this and other community association legal matters. So what do we mean by “ghost owner”? Someone who rents the unit or is away for a long time (including snowbirds). You can probably think of a few in your community. And what types of problems do ghost owners present? Lack of attendance at association meetings – which results in those things noted in the post. What else? Access to the unit (if necessary, especially with a condominium or other attached units). Often the Governing Documents permit entry to the Association in emergency, but what can the ghost owner and Association do to avoid having the door kicked in and a cost incurred for that? See the post.
TAKEAWAY: It is not only community engagement that is a problem with ghost owners – it is also a matter of the Association being able to fulfil its required responsibilities.
In the post on Thursday 9/19/19, we told you to freeze! Put your hands up and go review your attendance policy ASAP. (We also suggested you consider having an employment lawyer review your policies for legal compliance.) This even applies to “no fault” policies relative to FMLA compliance. In the case in the post, there was a collectively bargained, no-fault attendance policy requiring termination as noted in the post. Points were accumulated (and subtracted) for the reasons in the post. FMLA leaves did not count in the point accumulation, but did have another effect – see the post. And that is what got the employer into legal hot water.
TAKEAWAY: Make sure your policy is fully legally compliant – even if it doesn’t sound like it, the effect may be a violation.
The post on Friday 9/20/19 taught us that a federal court says QR Code on envelope violates Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The post is a reminder of what you can and cannot do with identifying information when trying to bill or collect from someone. Not only a federal court, but the one with jurisdiction over cases in PA, so pay attention. Here, a woman received a collection letter with an unencrypted QR code on the outside of the envelope that linked to her account number. The collection agency’s argument (in the post) did not carry the day; instead, the Court relied on a prior decision discussed in the post. This case settled with payment to those in the class as noted in the post.
TAKEAWAY: When billing or collecting from someone, make sure to do it in a legal way – get assistance from a lawyer to protect yourself if you are unsure about any part of your process.
Finally, in the post yesterday 9/21/19, we saw that SoftPro will settle an EEOC disability discrimination suit. We also reminded you not to assume someone is disabled – that might be a costly mistake – and suggested you contact counsel first. SoftPro is a software company. Matthew worked there in an IT position. He had a record of opiate addiction; the treatment he got is important and in the post. When he returned to work, he was questioned about his leave. He told them why. He was fired – the reason is in the post. Suit was brought. Suit is not settled for $80,000 and more as noted in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Don’t assume someone is disabled or needs an accommodation – assume they can perform the essential functions of the job until you see or are told to the contrary.
York, Pennsylvania 17403