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 3/18/18 we found out that a federal court holds that settlement offer on time-barred debt may be an FDCPA violation. The court governs us in PA, so pay attention. The plaintiff owed over $1200 to a fitness center. The defendant, a debt collector, sent a letter with settlement language (which is in the post). At the time the letter was sent, applicable state law barred collection on the debt. The debtor sued. The debt collector won a dismissal at the trial court level, but she appealed. The Court looked at its prior case, distinguishing it, and noted what the issue was for decision (see the post). The court’s holding is in the post and makes sense given its analysis.
TAKEAWAY: Be careful of the language you use – in settlement offers or elsewhere. Those words could indeed be used against you in a court of law, even in a civil matter.
The post on Monday 3/19/18 we read that the FMLA (probably) does not cover the loss of a pet. Here, Joseph was a machinist. He had to put his dog to sleep. He requested use of a vacation day which was approved. The next day he called in again. The employer deemed it unexcused. He also went for medical treatment. What followed is in the post. He ended up being terminated for excessive absence and sued. The court’s analysis is in the post and provides a good reminder of what an employer should look at in this situation.
TAKEAWAY: Don’t just ignore an employee experiencing grief over the loss of a pet; likewise, don’t just give in either. Follow the law.
In the post on Tuesday 3/20/18 we saw that female firefighters faced scalding showers and urine-soaked walls (said a federal lawsuit). Oh yes, they also faced death threats. And the suit was brought by DOJ against the City of Houston. The suit alleged that male firefighters urinated in the women’s bathroom and dorm; more allegations of male behavior are in the post. Finally, it alleges that the employer did nothing after the women complained (a no-no).
TAKEAWAY: Make sure your employees know that certain behaviors will not be tolerated – and then do not tolerate them if investigation of a complaint proves they occurred.
The post on Wednesday 3/21/18 noted Google fired disabled, transgender man for opposing his co-workers’ bigotry and white supremacy, lawsuit alleges. Tim was a site reliability engineer. He alleged that Google’s internal social media was widely used to belittle and harass women, people of color, LGBTQ employees, and others. He also alleged that when he objected, he was fired. The reason allegedly given to him by HR for his termination is in the post. Some of his other allegations, which are pretty revealing, are in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Treat all employees equally; especially don’t take adverse action based on a protected characteristic or opposition to discrimination against another.
In the post on Thursday 3/22/18 we learned the EEOC is prioritizing pay equity cases and noted employers should review compensation systems. The EEOC has 6 priorities for the 2018-21 time frame and pay equity is one of them. Four companies recently found out just what that means. One, Pizza Studios, was found to pay men and women differently and to have retaliated against a female employee who had complained about the pay differential. More details about that case, along with the other 3 companies’ stories (which were also in court cases) are in the post. It’s not only gender pay equity that concerns the EEOC – other differentiating factors are in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Make sure you pay employees the same for doing the same job and be able to justify any differences.
The post on Friday 3/23/18 told us a former Chobani employee sues company citing disability discrimination. Griselda alleged that Chobani wrongfully terminated her employment and refused to accommodate her disability. What happened before that is in the post.
TAKEAWAY: When faced with a request for accommodation, engage in the interactive accommodation process. Don’t just fire the employee.
Finally, in the post yesterday 3/24/18 we noted an ADA accommodation doesn’t have to continue indefinitely. There is no bright line, but indefinite is definitely too long. Bobby had a stroke in 2014, underwent lengthy medical leave and rehab, and then returned to work. He had difficulties; after another accommodation request, he was transferred. He was then fired. More of the details between those bare facts are in the post. The court’s analysis is also in the post. It is also interesting to note the employer (at the end of the post).
TAKEAWAY: Employers have a duty to accommodate (when there is no hardship and accommodation is possible), but not forever.
York, Pennsylvania 17403