Under Title VII, an unlawful employment practice is established when an employee demonstrates that gender is a motivating factor for an adverse employment action. Under that analysis, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the Title VII claims of a female hotel desk clerk who was fired after a company decision-maker complained that
Non-disabled individual can support claim of “improper medical inquiry” under the ADA.
The Americans with Disabilities Act makes it illegal for employers to discriminate against disabled individuals. To that end, the Act includes a provision that, prior to an actual offer of employment, an employer “shall not conduct a medical examination or make inquiries of a job applicant as to whether such applicant is an individual with
To support religious discrimination claim, employee must show that she met performance expectations.
A former editorial writer for the Indianapolis Star who claimed that she lost her job because of her “traditional” Christian beliefs regarding homosexuality was unable to support claims of religious discrimination under Title VII, because she could not show that she met the legitimate business expectations of her employer. Patterson v. Indiana Newspapers, Inc., 7th
FTC guidelines may create company liability for employees’ online endorsements.
In October 2009, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued final guidelines, which became effective on December 1, 2009, regarding the use of “endorsements and testimonials” in advertising. “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising,” 16 CFR Part 255. Under those guidelines, employees who use social media like blogs or Facebook to make
Fear of potential violence by an impaired employee can be a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for termination.
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and parallel state statutes, an employer cannot take an adverse action against an employee because of that person’s disability or perceived disability. However, an employer is justified in taking such action if the action is based upon a legitimate business reason, and if that reason is not simply a
Ogletree Deakins E-Alert: COBRA Subsidy extended
On December 21, 2009, just in time for the holidays, and as part of the 2010 appropriations bill for the Defense Department (the Act), President Barack Obama signed into law an extension to the subsidy for COBRA created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The legislation extended the period during which involuntary terminations
Leave of absence taken in order to recover from a disability is not necessarily a “reasonable accommodation” under the ADA.
In an unpublished opinion, the 2d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that an employee who requested a leave of absence to consult an orthopedic surgeon was unable to prove that the absence would allow him to perform the essential functions of his position. Therefore, the absence was not a "reasonable accommodation" for purposes
Attendance at work is an essential function of the job in most instances.
In an unpublished opinion, the 2d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that an employee of the New York City Department of Education could not establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, because she could not prove herself to be “otherwise qualified” within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Rios
Documentation of employee’s “dereliction of duty” precludes liability on claim of discrimination.
In an unpublished opinion, the 3d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reminded employers of the importance of acting consistently with written policies, and of documenting that action. Coleman v. Blockbuster, Inc., 3d Circ., No. 08-4056, November 17, 2009. In that case, the Court upheld summary judgment in favor of an employer on the basis
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) has taken effect.
With little fanfare and even less reaction from employers, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) took effect on November 21, 2009. GINA generally prohibits employers, employment agencies, and unions from collecting genetic information – which specifically includes family medical history – related to employees or applicants. The law also precludes any type of genetic testing