print

July 2015 Newsletter

The following is a scatological post, so grab a stool, have a seat, and listen up! (Or get a magazine.) On Monday, a federal jury in Atlanta awarded two hourly warehouse workers $2.2 million in a lawsuit brought under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The controversy started when Atlas Logistics Group Retail Services, a grocery distributor, had a problem with someone who was going to the bathroom in the warehouse...
Yep, in this precedential opinion, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals created a Family and Medical Leave Act loophole that could protect “the most frivolous leave requests.” Folks, if your business is covered under the FMLA, and you’ve ever had to deal with a questionable medical certification for an employee’s serious health condition, read on… An ineligible employee submits an insufficient FMLA certification.Deborah Hansler...
This one just smells fowl.  Delbert (not sure if he goes by Del or Bert, so I’ll just call him Delbert) decided not to show up for work at Tyson Fresh Meats on December 28. Instead, he asked his girlfriend, who also worked for Tyson, to report his absence for him. She obliged and told Delbert’s supervisor that he “would be absent or late” on December 28. On that same day, Delbert texted his supervisor, stating that he was “having...
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not prohibit employers from requiring employees to follow a particular dress code or wear a designated uniform. However, it does prohibit employers from requiring employees to pay for uniforms, if such costs would cause an employee’s pay to drop below the minimum wage. This article provides basic information to guide employers in developing dress codes or uniform standards in a manner that complies with...
On June 1, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an employer's dress code prohibiting all headwear is not necessarily a defense against liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in cases where the employer suspects, without confirmation from the applicant, that the applicant wears a head scarf for religious reasons. Six days later, the New York Times published "A Muslim Lawyer Refuses to Choose Between a Career and a...
On June 1, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States decided whether an employer’s obligations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are triggered only when an applicant has informed the employer of his or her need for an accommodation of a religious practice. In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court ruled that an applicant with a disparate-treatment claim is not required to show that an employer had knowledge of his or her need for an...
Back to Top