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 6/23/19 we read about accommodating service animals in the workplace. We suggested you know what is required under which law and put policies in place if they don’t already exist. Yes, the ADA can override your pet policies, BUT the animal in question must be a service animal. The first requirement is that it be a dog (ok, or miniature horse, but that’s extremely rare). Next, it must be trained to do work or perform tasks for a person with a disability. Examples of covered tasks, which must be directly related to the disability, are in the post. So how do you know if the animal is covered? What can you ask the employee? Only the 2 questions listed in the post. What you cannot ask or do is also in the post. The animal must remain under control; under certain circumstances (listed in the post), the employer can ask the employee to remove the animal from the workplace. So what do you do if one employee needs the service animal and another is allergic? See the post.
TAKEAWAY: Know what is required under the ADA related to service animals. Also know what may be required, especially if it is more, under applicable state law, Consult an employment lawyer to assist you.
The post on Monday 6/24/19 said: You’ve got my mail: court rejects challenge to employer’s computer access. I know you’ve imagined it – what happens when former employees do things with email and computer files? In the example in the post, the employer terminated its former Executive Director, Robert Christie. They were negotiating severance details when the employer asked for information from him. Christie did not answer, so it went into his computer and looked through his emails. What they found (in the post) resulted in a withdrawal of the severance offer. Christie sued, alleging a violation of the CFAA and other laws (federal and state). The employer counterclaimed (on the bases in the post). The court recently ruled in favor of the employer on all claims. The most relevant is the CFAA claim. The Court said the claim, and potential liability, hinged on the wording of the statute and the facts – see the post for what it meant. The analysis of the other claims is also in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Know how the various laws apply to employer and employee alike – and what remedies are available to whom for any violations.
The post on Tuesday 6/25/19 was about how to prepare your condo or homeowners’ association for turnover from the developer. There comes a time in almost every community association where the developer turns over control to owners – the timing may vary, but it (usually) happens. So what should owners do before that time? Ask for copies of certain documents (such as those noted in the post), or at least review those documents (and take notes). Think about doing what is suggested in the post to aid in the transition.
TAKEAWAY: Applicable state law provides for certain things to happen at turnover; to ensure the law is complied with, or to assist if it is not, consult a community association lawyer.
The post on Wednesday 6/26/19 told us the EEOC sued O’Reilly Auto Parts for sexual harassment and retaliation. (We noted that is not the way for any employee, especially a manager, to act). You know, the same O’Reilly for which you hear ads on the radio. Well, the EEOC alleged in a suit it filed that O’Reilly violated the law by subjecting females to sexual harassment. How? Well … by making sexually charged comments (like asking women for oral sex and other things in the post), grabbing female employees on the buttocks and taking other actions noted in the post. Employees complained. Sometimes managers laughed when interviewing women relative to the complaints. And then O’Reilly managers retaliated as noted in the post. Keep your eyes open as this suit progresses.
TAKEAWAY: Don’t let your employees do anything that those in the post did – train them and take appropriate action if deserved.
In the post on Thursday 6/27/19, we learned that you don’t panic! 3 things to know about a recent ADA court ruling. While the decision was in the auto dealership context, it has wider application, so pay attention. Judith worked as an accounts payable clerk. Soon after she began employment, she had chest pains and went to the ER. She learned it resulted from a panic attack. Judith told her employer and tried to return to work. What happened next is in the post. When she again tried to return to work, she was discharged for the reasons in the post. Yes, she filed a charge with the EEOC and then it filed suit on her behalf, alleging a violation of the ADA. The judge just denied the employer’s motion to dismiss and let the case proceed toward trial. Why the judge ruled as he did is analyzed in the post.
TAKEAWAY: There are things an employer can do to help in case of administrative charge or lawsuit – work with an employment lawyer to get those things in place early on.
The post on Friday 6/28/19 was a reminder about trade secrets – courts won’t protect you if you don’t protect yourself! In this example, the company sued former employees and a competitive company they started for misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 and state law. The alleged violations are in the post. The company wanted an injunction and money damages. The court denied the preliminary injunction after reviewing the facts in front of it. Facts that weighed against the injunction included not having in place any non-disclosure and confidentiality agreement, having no applicable policy, and more noted in the post.
TAKEAWAY: If it’s valuable to you and your business, then take care to protect it – evenly and always.
Finally, in the post yesterday 6/29/19 we learned that a court said rumors about sex for promotions constitute actionable sexual harassment. Let’s delve into that a bit. We’ve all heard or seen (but hopefully not experienced) the fact that successful women are often the subject of rumors that they’ve slept their way to the top. Well, it’s that rumor that led to a lawsuit and court ruling. Parker alleged that after rapid promotions, the rumors started to fly about her, which blocked further promotions. She complained. What happened after that is in the post. She sued on the bases of hostile environment, sexual harassment and retaliation. The trial court ruled in favor of the employer. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded for trial on the basis of that rumor (and how it applies – see the post.
TAKEAWAY: Any time something affects employment, especially if there is a complaint, don’t sit idly by; instead, properly and fully investigate and take appropriate action.
York, Pennsylvania 17403