News recently broke that the DEA intends to reclassify cannabis from a Scheule I drug to a Schedule III drug. That reclassification would permit health care providers to legally prescribe cannabis for medicinal uses.
BUT … check your state law.
Do you like what you read? Receive updates two different ways:
Subscribe to the feed or register for free email updates.
Do you like what you read? Receive updates two different ways:
Subscribe to the feed or register for free email updates.
Do you like what you read? Receive updates two different ways:
Subscribe to the feed or register for free email updates.
Do you like what you read? Receive updates two different ways:
Subscribe to the feed or register for free email updates.
$36 million is a number large enough to get anyone's attention. It certainly got the attention of Drivers Management, LLC and Werner Enterprises, Inc., after a federal jury awarded the EEOC that amount in a disability discrimination lawsuit it filed on behalf of Victor Robinson, a deaf truck driver, denied employment because of his disability.
Do you like what you read? Receive updates two different ways:
Subscribe to the feed or register for free email updates.
Do you like what you read? Receive updates two different ways:
Subscribe to the feed or register for free email updates.
Do you like what you read? Receive updates two different ways:
Subscribe to the feed or register for free email updates.
Do you like what you read? Receive updates two different ways:
Subscribe to the feed or register for free email updates.
Do you like what you read? Receive updates two different ways:
Subscribe to the feed or register for free email updates.
The reality is that this guy (who is independently wealthy) did no actual work, claimed as his excuse that he had a disability that prevented him from typing, yet was simultaneously tweeting up a storm.
Do you like what you read? Receive updates two different ways:
Subscribe to the feed or register for free email updates.
Do you like what you read? Receive updates two different ways:
Subscribe to the feed or register for free email updates.
"If I were Black in America, I think I'd get down on my knees every day and thank my lucky stars that my ancestors were brought over here as slaves."
"Have you lost your cotton pickin' mind?"
"Too many [blue-eyed people] are reproducing with Brown Eyed People."
Those are three examples of Colleen Koslosky's (a former American Airlines customer service agent) Facebook posts that went viral and caused her employer to fire her.
She claimed the airline fired her because of her disability — nerve damage and edema in her leg — based on its prior denial of a reasonable accommodation. The employer, on the other hand, argued that it properly fired her after Koslosky's posts went viral, customers complained, and employees refused to work with someone they believed was "racist."
The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals had little difficultly affirming the dismissal of Koslosky's lawsuit.
She … claims that a male American customer service employee who was not disciplined for his social media posts disparaging Trump voters — calling them "ignorant rednecks" and "uneducated racist white people." Koslosky does not argue American management knew about her colleague's inflammatory social media posts. This is dispositive. …
As Koslosky points to no evidence of pretext, we are thus left with one conclusion: American fired her because her racially insensitive social media posts violated its policies and generated an outcry from employees and customers alike. Because this is a legitimate justification for her ouster, we are not persuaded that the company violated any law here.
This employee had no business keeping her job or winning a discrimination lawsuit. Employees are absolutely responsible for what the post on their personal social media, and need to understand that their employer can, should, and will hold them accountable when warranted. In this case, it was warranted.
Do you like what you read? Receive updates two different ways:
Subscribe to the feed or register for free email updates.
If I've learned one thing from my 25+ years of practicing law it's that when a court describes your arguments as a "rambling and hyperbolic tirade," your goose is cooked.
This is the story of Meltzer v. The Trial Court of the Commonwealth, by John Bello, Administrator.
Do you like what you read? Receive updates two different ways:
Subscribe to the feed or register for free email updates.
This statute was aimed to prohibit the introduction of a device "into" the body. Wearing a mask on one's face isn't that.… Mr. Muckenfuss invites an interpretation that would render this statute absurd.… [H]is interpretation would suddenly prohibit all sorts of sensible mandates by employers. No longer could a company require a bleeding employee from wearing a bandage or band-aid "against" his wound. No longer could a company require an employee to wear a protective glove, or work boots, or goggles, or many types of personal protective equipment because they were likewise designed to be used "against" the body.
Do you like what you read? Receive updates two different ways:
Subscribe to the feed or register for free email updates.
Do you like what you read? Receive updates two different ways:
Subscribe to the feed or register for free email updates.
I was tagged on Twitter to address this situation.
My friend did a drug test for a part time job for the local school district. When she got her results, she found out that the district also did a pregnancy test. Besides ethical issues, this seems like a legal red flag given she wasn't told this would be done.
Do you like what you read? Receive updates two different ways:
Subscribe to the feed or register for free email updates.
If I asked you to identify Lyft's business, how would you answer?
"They're a transportation company," you'd say. There's no other correct answer … unless you ask Lyft.
Lyft will tell you that it's a tech company, not a provider of transportation.
Do you like what you read? Receive updates two different ways:
Subscribe to the feed or register for free email updates.
According to the suit, the employee advised her manager that she needed to bring her fully trained service dog to work to assist her with symptoms caused by PTSD, anxiety and depression. The company's human resources representative met with the employee to discuss her request but concluded the dog would present a safety concern because a coworker or customer might be allergic to or trip over the dog, or the dog might break something. Even though Hobby Lobby allows customers to bring service dogs and other dogs to the store, managers were unwilling to allow the employee's service dog in the store to see whether there was an actual safety concern. Hobby Lobby ultimately terminated the employee when she could not work without her service dog.
Do you like what you read? Receive updates two different ways:
Subscribe to the feed or register for free email updates.
I've written before about BrewDog (here and here), the multinational Scottish craft brewery accused by hundreds of former employees of systemic mistreatment through its sexist and misogynist work environment. The brewery's founder and CEO, James Watt, stands at the center of much of controversy and most point to him as the root cause of most of the allegation.
Earlier this week, Watt appeared as a guest on The Diary of CEO podcast. During the interview, Watt blamed his pattern of mistreatment of employees him possibly being autistic.
Do you like what you read? Receive updates two different ways:
Subscribe to the feed or register for free email updates.
Do you like what you read? Receive updates two different ways:
Subscribe to the feed or register for free email updates.