HT: Rich Meneghello via Twitter.
The raw data:
The consent decree settling the suit, signed by Judge Gray H. Miller, requires the company to pay $55,000 in monetary relief to Kratz and provide him with six months of outplacement services. Additionally, the decree requires training for the company’s managers and human resources professionals on equal employment opportunity compliance, disability discrimination law and responsibilities regarding reasonable accommodation to employees and applicants. The company must also post an anti-discrimination notice.The EEOC continues to take the position that "[t]he law protects morbidly obese employees and applicants from being subjected to discrimination because of their obesity."
One interesting aspect of the Act is that it incorporates by reference the FLSA, instead of enacting the actual text from the FLSA:
An employer shall not be in violation of this subsection if the employer is entitled to utilize, and acts consistently with, section 7(j) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. § 207(j)) and regulations promulgated under that provision.Question for you statutory construction buffs: What if the incorporated section changes? Are PA employers exempt if they comply with the amended FLSA? Or are PA employers only exempt if they comply with the FLSA as it stood st the time the PA law was enacted? I'd argue the former, but would be willing to entertain arguments in support of the latter.
provides an overtime exemption for air carrier employees who work in excess of forty hours in a workweek as a result of a voluntary agreement among employees to trade scheduled work hours or air carrier employees who have collective bargaining agreements or other agreements that cover the required hours of work and compensation.Not to be too particular or anything . . . .
[A] failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities . . . .” § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii).Disney claimed that because the plaintiff could use a wheelchair (allowed under Disney's policy), allowing a Segway is not "necessary." Annnnd, this is why Judge Kozinski is a fan favorite:
Read as Disney suggests, the ADA would require very few accommodations indeed. After all, a paraplegic can enter a courthouse by dragging himself up the front steps, see Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 513-14 (2004), so lifts and ramps would not be “necessary” under Disney’s reading of the term. And no facility would be required to provide wheelchair-accessible doors or bathrooms, because disabled individuals could be carried in litters or on the backs of their friends. That’s not the world we live in, and we are disappointed to see such a retrograde position taken by a company whose reputation is built on service to the public.The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Disney and remanded to the trial court.
New technology presents risks as well as opportunities; we must not allow fear of the former to deprive us of the latter. We have every confidence that the organization that, half a century ago, brought us the Carousel of Progress and Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln can lead the way in using new technology to make its parks more welcoming to disabled guests. As the man who started it all said, "Disneyland will never be completed as long as there is imagination left in the world."Awww, am I the only one who hears "It's a Small World" in my head right now?
[Lee's former assistant] now complains that Lee denied him overtime despite being on call 24 hours a day and working up to 16 hours a day when Lee was on tour. He also claims that whenever Lee was upset with him, he would dock his pay. Further, the lawsuit alleges Sullivan often paid for supplies for Lee, his family, and his business but wasn’t reimbursed for the expenses. But perhaps the impetus for the lawsuit lies in Sullivan’s accusation that Lee smeared his reputation and interfered with his ability to get another job in the rock world. The lawsuit alleges that after Sullivan left Lee’s service, Lee began "a campaign of disparagement" that sabotaged potential tour manager jobs with the bands Bush and Godsmack.Motley Crue to Bush to Godsmack - It's like he's working his way through the 80s, 90s, and 00s. I wish him well, and that he one day makes it to bands that are currently popular. HR Hero reports that the case settled for $400,000.
[T]he rocker's former assistant [claims] that she is owed unpaid wages and was subjected to unethical requests such as instructing her to hire a hacker and falsify legal letters.She filed a lawsuit based on wrongful termination, wage violations, and breach of contract.
responsible for continuously monitoring the plant’s equipment to prevent malfunctions that could result in explosions, property damage, interruptions of medical services, injuries, or fatalities.Surely he took those responsibilities seriously right (hint: if his case is on this blog . . . well, I don't want to give it away just yet)?
found [Plaintiff] sleeping on the floor of the office, with a pillow, one or two blankets, and an alarm clock.Yeah, that's not gonna help the ole' discrimination claim. The plaintiff claims he was just "relaxing." The Court checked the record for evidence of discrimination and pretty much came up empty. The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the
. . . because of the race, color, religious creed, ancestry, age, sex, national origin or non-job related handicap or disability or pregnancy or the use of a guide or support animal because of the blindness, deafness or physical handicap of any individual or independent contractor . . . .Question for strict textualists . . . does the pregnancy have to be "non-job related"? I'd love to litigate the case where that issue comes up! The bill also defines "pregnancy" as "women affected by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions."
Accountant Tammy Armstrong is claiming wrongful termination and intentional infliction of emotional distress because her employer asked her to do a lot of work. She also wants to be paid overtime because her employer had the audacity to claim her as a salaried worker and then paid her a salary. Basically, if she wins, then every single junior office worker in law or finance should be able to sue their employers.And there's some support for that description. It's hard to believe that a "Senior Accountant" is not an exempt employee, and her allegations do appear to allege constructive discharge because her job was too hard. For example:
On August 2, 2011, fearing that the increasing stress and pressure placed on her by Defendant would cause her further and more severe heart problems, Ms. Armstrong was forced to resign her position in what amounted to a constructive discharge.But let's give Ms. Armstrong the benefit of the doubt here. She also alleges that she was subjected to "verbal abuse" and "assault." She also claims her heart problems resulted in two trips to the emergency room, and her employer refused to engage in the "interactive process."
[The Pennsylvania] Courts of Common Pleas that have considered discovery requests for Facebook information appear to follow a consistent train of reasoning. The courts recognize the need for a threshold showing of relevance prior to discovery of any kind, and have nearly all required a party seeking discovery in these cases to articulate some facts that suggest relevant information may be contained within the non-public portions of the profile. To this end, the courts have relied on information contained in the publicly available portions of a user's profile to form a basis for further discovery.The opinion also covered other jurisdictions, including Michigan, Nevada, Indiana, Kansas, and New York. The Judge noted that "[u]nlike our Common Pleas Court cases . . . other jurisdictions have wrestled to establish a middle ground between the wholesale denial of the request on the one hand and the granting of unlimited access to the user's profile on the other."
Whether a case becomes moot, and thus beyond the judicial power of Article III, when the lone plaintiff receives an offer from the defendants to satisfy all of the plaintiff ’s claims.This captures the flavor, but fails to explain what's really going on in this case.
An employer may not request or require that an employee or prospective employee disclose any user name, password or other means for accessing a private or personal social media account, service or Internet website.And thou shall not discharge, discipline, or penalize an employee (or threaten to do one of those things), or refuse to hire an applicant, for refusing to disclose the info.