;
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.
NOTE: remember that we now post every other day.
The posts on Sunday 9/20/2026, here and here, explained propane barbeque on deck caused condominium fire, officials say.
Yep, the six-alarm fire that completely gutted a condominium building was caused by a propane barbecue on the exterior deck of a first-floor unit. The incident was officially cleared (closed) and the property turned back over to the homeowners association. It remains fenced off and red-tagged, though, because there is still a danger of collapse throughout the entire building.
How long the fire took to fully subside is noted in the post. It quickly spread across about 50 condo units. Who, and how many, were injured is also noted in the post, along with when and how the American Red Cross did and continues to help fire victims.
This fire caused more damage than did one to nearby apartments in December 2025.
TAKEAWAY: This is a perfect (but sad) example of why many community associations with attached units prohibit grills from being on (or too near) decks. Check with your condo or homeowners association before placing a grill on your deck.
The posts on Tuesday 9/22/2026, here and here, told us Kroger settles claims it would not give cashier a chair or stool following cancer treatment. Ugh.
Kroger will pay $75,000 to settle EEOC claims that it unlawfully discriminated against a cashier who requested an accommodation for nerve damage associated with cancer treatments. The EEOC had filed suit in federal district court last year, alleging that when the employee requested permission to sit on a stool or chair while working at the cash register, a store manager said that Kroger did not “do accommodations like that” and would instead find lighter work for her. The discussions went on (as noted in the post) and eventually resulted in the suit being filed, alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. As part of the court-approved settlement, Kroger denied the allegations.
Let’s take a step back and talk a bit more about the ADA interactive process itself (and EEOC guidance) and the facts of this case.
EEOC guidance says that the process begins when an employee requests accommodation or when the employer knows, or has reason to know, that a disability exists or may be affecting an employee’s job performance. An employer’s obligations from that point are detailed in the post (as taken from the guidance). While the interactive process itself is fairly standard, there are still many potential pitfalls for employers, especially when managers or HR staff resist engaging in the process or lack the training necessary to identify when an accommodation could be needed. So how does that translate in this case?
The EEOC alleged that the cashier initially contacted the store manager about her disability in April 2023 following a medical emergency. She provided the manager medical documentation and a plan to return to work and followed up via a phone call days later. What the manager allegedly said during that call is in the post (and pretty much sets the tone for what was to come). Then, after receiving no further contact for four days, the cashier directly contacted an HR manager who said she had received no notice of the accommodation request or supporting documentation. After multiple attempts to provide updated documentation and repeated subsequent phone calls, the cashier received no answer to her accommodation request and had not been scheduled for work. Yep, a breakdown in the process by the employer – not good.
The fact pattern in this case is similar to one in a Texas lawsuit brought by the EEOC against Kroger, again alleging failure to accommodate. See the post for more on that. Litigation in that case is ongoing.
The EEOC also has brought similar cases in recent years, leading to settlements. Earlier this year, a manufacturer agreed to pay $100,000 in a lawsuit alleging that it unlawfully demoted an employee who requested an accommodation that would have cost a fraction of the settlement amount (see the post for a link for more details on that matter). And last year, the EEOC entered a $150,000 settlement with an employer it alleged refused to provide snack breaks to a diabetic employee whom the employer later fired. The post also has a link for more details on that case.
TAKEAWAY: Employers must take care to fulfill their obligations under the ADA to engage in the interactive accommodation process.
The posts on Thursday 9/24/2026, here and here, told us HOA with 3100 homes faces backlash over proposed rental restrictions. This author asks why tenants should not be required to follow the rules (which is pretty common in Pennsylvania).
Heron Bay, a master HOA, is experiencing pushback against a proposed overhaul of rental rules. Those objecting to the plan say it would narrow owners’ ability to lease their properties, add burdens for landlords, and open the door to uneven treatment of tenants. Let’s take a deeper dive …
What to know – The expected vote on a new set of leasing-related rules is being considered by Heron Bay’s master association (which consists of more than a dozen sub-associations).
Many owners and renters view the proposals as both anti-landlord and unnecessarily difficult for people trying to lease homes in the neighborhood. One of the proposed restrictions would allow only one lease per unit each year with the cap still applying even if a tenancy ends early because of eviction, termination, or death. And renewals would require more than a simple extension; the post explains what is being proposed there.
Critics of the proposed new restrictions also say they would expose renters to consequences that owners do not face in the same way. What rights the association would have relative to tenants are detailed in the post. NOTE: to respond to the argument that the proposed rules are harsher than as applied to owners, there is not an apples to apples comparison. Violations of the governing documents by owners would already be dealt with in those documents or applicable law.
More background – Jack Dhanji, a Herin Bay owner-resident who also rents out property there, said about 250 owners (NOTE: a vocal minority) had voiced opposition. What he said is in the post. Another landlord, A. J Steigman, said that in some sub-associations enforcement has turned into “show me the tenant or landlord, and I will show you the violation.”
The dispute also reflects a broader pattern of tension between HOA authority and homeowner autonomy. Across the country, HOAs are facing criticism for various restrictions including those common ones noted in the post.
What can be done? – If they are unhappy with action take by the associoation board, residents can submit written objections, attend meetings, organize with neighbors, and ask board members to explain how the restrictions will be enforced and whether they will apply equally to all residents. In Heron Bay, some owners have already sent letters to the board or threatened legal action.
Residents also have other options (internal and external) including those discussed in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Why shouldn’t non-owner residents be required to comply with the same rules as a resident owner? People buy into a community association expecting that its restrictions will be enforced, regardless of who occupies a unit. For problems of this nature or others, contact a community association lawyer.
The posts on Saturday 9/26/2026, here and here, explained that jury awards male surgical technician $105K for delivery room sex discrimination.
In a discrimination case brought by the EEOC, a jury recently awarded a male surgical technician formerly employed by Northwest Medical Center-Bentonville $105,000 in compensatory and punitive damages for sex-based discrimination. The most recent complaint was filed by EEOC in April 2025. It alleges that two female obstetricians in the labor and delivery department refused to allow the tech to perform his duties (including those listed in the post) solely due to his sex and because they wanted to work with women. After one doctor complained to the director of women’s services about her hiring a male technician, the director realized the doctors’ refusal to work with the technician could constitute discrimination. What happened after that, including CEO involvement, is in the post. The tech eventually quit due to lack of opportunity for work.
The jury found that NMC-Bentonville violated Title VII (the prohibitions of which are detailed in the post as a reminder). In its verdict form, the jury found the hospital could not prove it would have subjected the technician to the same treatment regardless of his sex.
If you see a pattern, you are right. This case is among the latest in EEOC lawsuits on behalf of a majority-group plaintiff (although notably it was initially filed in September 2024 during the Biden administration). See more in the post on sex discrimination against men and reverse discrimination claims, both of which types of cases have bene solicited by the EEOC (see the links in the post on this and EOC Chair Lucas’s defense of this practice).
In February 2026, EEOC obtained a $1.1 million settlement from the Southern restaurant group that owns Kickback Jack’s (the allegations of which are noted in the post). That also was a Biden-era lawsuit.
The EEOC’s solicitations may have found fodder as it filed a discrimination lawsuit in February against the New York Times. The post has a link to that along with more details on the alleged basis of the suit. The Times has pushed back, alleging the suit is just retaliation in response to its coverage of the Trump administration.
TAKEAWAY: This employer was warned internally but ignored the warning and continued down the same path … When your staff recognize a problem, and you do nothing, then there is a bigger problem.