Does the ADA cover organ donors?

Every now and again I come across a case that offends my sensibilities. Rope v. Auto-Chlor Sys. of Wash., Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. 10/16/13) is one of those cases.

When Auto-Chlor hired Scott Rope as a branch manager in September 2010, he told his new employer that he planned to donate a kidney to his physically disabled sister in February 2011. In November 2010, he formally requested a 30-day leave of absence for the kidney donation and his recovery thereafter. His manager promised to “look into it.” Instead, on December 30, 2010, he fired Rope.

The court had little issue concluding that Rope’s disability discrimination claim could proceed. “Rope has thus met his burden to show the adverse employment action occurred under circumstances raising a reasonable inference that the disability of his or her relative or associate was a substantial factor motivating the employer’s decision.”

A few points to consider about this case:

1. The ADA does not require an employer to provide a reasonable accommodation to a person without a disability due to that person’s association with someone with a disability. Only qualified applicants and employees with disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodation. Thus, Rope could not claim that Auto-Chlor discriminated against him by denying time off as a reasonable accommodation.

2. California has a specific statute that requires 30 days of paid time off “to an employee who is an organ donor … for the purpose of donating his organ to another person.” Rope claimed that Auto-Chlor terminated him avoid having to incur the expense of his paid leave pursuant to that law, which, in turn, equated to disability discrimination. The court agreed.

3. Even without this specific organ-donation statute, however, the ADA likely nevertheless requires time off (albeit unpaid) for organ donation and the recovery thereafter. The ADA mandates that an employers avoid treating an employee differently than other employees because of an association with a person with a disability. Thus, if an employer grants time off to employees for their own surgeries, the ADA will require similar treatment to employees taking time off to donate an organ to one’s association or relation.

I’ve written before about the need to put the “human” back in “human resources.” This case is a textbook example. When Auto-Chlor hired Rope, it knew: (1) he had disabled sister, and (2) he needed time off to donate a kidney to her. Is is inconvenient for an employer to provide a month off to a new employee? Absolutely. Do you want to be in a position of defending your decision to fire that employee in the face of that leave request? Absolutely not. This decision is likely illegal, but it is also undoubtedly inhuman. It is that inhumanity that will cost your company dearly in front of a judge or a jury.

[Hat tip: HR Morning]

Is infertility fertile grounds for disability discrimination claims?

I’ve written before about employers getting themselves in trouble for pregnancy discrimination for firing employees while undergoing fertility treatments (here and here). Last week, the EEOC announced the settlement of case involving a different kind of “infertility” discrimination—the Americans with Disabilities Act.

A Hawaiian resort retailer will pay $60,000 for discriminating against an employee because of her fertility treatments and eventual pregnancy.… According to the EEOC’s suit, a female retail buyer in Honolulu informed the company that she began treatments for infertility in 2011. Upon disclosure of her disability, a company official allegedly made offensive comments about her intentions and became even less receptive upon disclosure of her pregnancy later that same year. The buyer was disciplined after disclosing her need for fertility treatments, and then discharged.… 

Timothy Riera, director of the EEOC’s Honolulu Local Office, added, “Federal law protects workers who are discriminated against due to their infertility, a covered disability. Workers who undergo fertility treatments should be treated like any other employee with a disability—with equal and careful consideration of reasonable accommodation requests.”

The EEOC’s approach to infertility as an ADA-covered disability is not novel. More than a dozen years ago, in LaPorta v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (W.D. Mich. 2001), a federal court concluded that because infertility substantially limits the major life activity of reproduction, it was an ADA-covered disability. With the expansion of the definition of disability under the ADAAA, the Act’s coverage of infertility should not be in dispute. (In that case, Wal-Mart was accused of denying a single day off as a reasonable accommodation for the employee’s fertility treatment).

While this issue is seldom litigated, employers that fail to accommodate employees’ infertility treatments, or otherwise discriminate against employees undergoing fertility treatments, could see an explosion of these types of claims. As the EEOC reminds us, “One of the six national priorities identified by the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP) is for the agency to address emerging and developing issues in equal employment law, including issues involving the ADA and pregnancy-related limitations, among other possible issues.” In other words, this issue is very much on the EEOC’s radar.

Infertility and its treatments are stressful on parents-to-be. Unless you’ve experienced a prolonged inability to conceive, and the fertility treatments that go along with it, it’s difficult to understand the stress it causes. Part of that stress is caused by the time away from work. Fertility treatments, particularly in vitro fertilization, are both time consuming and time sensitive. Do not exacerbate an employee’s stress by toying with their time away from work. Moreover, with this issue on the EEOC’s enforcement radar, employers that deny time off for fertility treatments may find themselves as the start of the EEOC’s next infertility-related press release.

WIRTW #300 (the “300th” edition)

Like a Spartan soldier raging into battle against the army of the Persian King Xerxes, I have ripped through 300 of these end-of-week compilations. Here’s the original post (Oct. 12, 2007) that started it all, so you can see how far we’ve traveled.

Here’s the rest of what I read this week:

Discrimination

• What Happens in a “He Said/She Said” Case? A Trial — from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• Discrimination award $27K, attorneys’ fee award nearly $700K — from Walter Olson’s Overlawyered
• Undue Hardship in the Financial Sense: A Viable Defense? — from Understanding the ADA
• FACT OR FICTION: Employers may discriminate based on family status — from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook
• I Swear It Can Be Harassment: Workplace Profanity — from The Blue Ink
• Court Summarily Dismisses “Familial Status” Claim Under Title VII and the PHRA — from Currents: Hot Topics in Employment Law

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• A Game Changer For Employers: Embracing Mobile As Consumers Have — from TLNT
• Personal devices in the workplace: a recipe for cost savings or disaster? — from Technology for HR

HR & Employee Relations

• Top 9 HR Fails of 2013 — from Evil HR Lady, Suzanne Lucas
• Does LOVE Work as an Employee Relations Method? — from Mike Haberman’s Omega HR Solutions
• When Should An Employer Investigate? — from Workplace Investigations Blog
• Drafting an Employee Sick Leave Policy — from Corporate Counsel
• What rules must we follow if we must lay off work-visa employees? — from Business Management Daily
• Labor and Employment Law in the Vineyards — from Legal Tastings – A Wine Law Blog
• Does your employer own the entire contents of your head? — from Fortune Management & Career Blog
• Protected Status Of Trade Secrets May Be Lost By Not Insisting On Confidentiality — from Trading Secrets

Wage & Hour

• When Do You Have to Pay “Executive” Employees Overtime? — from The Emplawyerologist
• Eleventh Circuit Affirms Employer’s Directed Verdict Based On FLSA Outside Sales Exemption — from Employment Class Action Blog
• Great Expectations: Salesman’s Incompetent Performance Does Not Defeat Exempt Status — from The Wage and Hour Litigation Blog
• A Family and Medical Leave Act for the 21st Century — from DOL’s Work in Progress

SCOTUS

• SCOTUS Ruling on Forum-Selection Clauses Good News for Employers — from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• SCOTUS DIGs “most significant labor case in a generation” — from from Phil Miles’ Lawffice Space

A Festivus for the rest of us (at work)

Yesterday, Evil Skippy at Work answered a reader’s question about whether an employer can prevent its employees from celebrating Festivus in the workplace.

“What is Festivus,” you ask? “I’ve never heard of it.” Watch this short, five-minute instructional video, and then let’s talk.

---

---

As you can see, Festivus, is not a religious holiday. It’s a parody, celebrated on December 23 as a non-commercialized alternative to the holiday season. According to Wikipedia, it started as a family tradition of Seinfeld writer Dan O’Keefe, who brought it into our collective consciousness by incorporating it into a 1997 episode of the show.

Which brings us back to the original question—can an employer ban Festivus at work? Because it’s a secular holiday, Title VII’s religious accommodation requirements do not apply. Unless, of course, it is an expression of an employee’s atheism, which is a “religion” Title VII protects and for which an employer must make a reasonable accommodation.

So, if the employee requesting a workplace Festivus Pole is doing so as an expression of his or her sincerely held atheism, then you should think long and hard before you deny the request. If, however, there is no religion supporting the request, then no law would prohibit you from banning Festivus at your company. Then again, why would you want to in the first place?

Regardless, if you are lucky enough to work for a company that embraces this holiday, consider it a Festivus Miracle.

Is social media a valid vehicle for harassment complaints?

A nuclear-medicine technician posted the following three items on her Facebook wall:

(At 9:00 am) Sara DeBord loves it when my boss adds an extra $600.00 on my paycheck for hours I didn’t even work ... awesome!!

(At 1:37 pm) Sara DeBord is sooo disappointed ... can’t believe what a snake my boss is ... I know, I know everyone warned me:(

(At 2:53 pm) Oh, it’s hard to explain. . . . basically, the MRI tech is getting paid for doing MRI even though he’s not registered and myself, nor the CT tech are getting paid for our areas ... and he tells me ‘good luck taking it to HR because you’re not supposed to know that’ plus he adds money on peoples checks if he likes them (I’ve been one of them) ... and he needs to keep his creapy hands to himself ... just an all around d-bag!!

Many of her coworkers saw the posts, including the “snake” of a boss with the “creepy hands.” Three different times, she denied authoring the posts when asked by HR. The hospital fired her a week later.

In DeBord v. Mercy Health Services of Kansas (10th Cir. 11/26/13), the court affirmed the dismissal of DeBord’s retaliation claim, concluding that thrice lying about posting information on Facebook, in addition to other violations, justified her termination.

In analyzing the retaliation claim, the court noted that the “Facebook post was not in accordance with Mercy’s otherwise flexible reporting system for sexual harassment complaints, and the post, by itself, did not provide any notice to Mercy.” Nevermind that, according to the court, “Mercy's management first received notice of this behavior … through a publicly available message on Facebook.”

An employer has a legal obligation to take reasonable steps to remedy harassment that it knows about, or should know about. This obligation not only exists when an employee makes a formal complaint under an employer’s “reporting system,” but also when an employer otherwise learns that harassment might be occurring. An employer cannot go into ostrich-mode in the face of workplace harassment.

My fear is that the DeBord court’s statement about the Facebook post not being in compliance with the employer’s “reporting system” could lead to employers thinking that it’s okay to ignore harassment complaints made on an employee’s social media page. Ignoring information about harassment is not okay. An employer does not have an obligation to look for problems on every employee’s Facebook, Twitter, etc. However, once an employer becomes aware of harassment or other unlawful conduct, it cannot pretend it doesn’t exist.

If you’re taking an employee’s deposition, don’t charge them for a day off work

Today’s blog post is a multiple-choice quiz.

An employee takes a day off work to attend his own deposition, which you are taking in defense of the employee’s discrimination lawsuit. Do you:

A. Charge the employee attendance disciplinary points for missing work to attend his deposition;

B. Permit the absence as unexcused with no points accumulated?

If you chose “A,” you might be liable for unlawfully retaliating against that employee, at least according to the court in Younger v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. (S.D. Ohio 12/3/13).

The attendance points at issue were assessed to discipline Younger for missing work to attend a deposition scheduled and noticed by the Defendant. Defendant’s scheduling of Younger’s deposition for a date and time when Younger also was scheduled to be at work at the very least placed Younger in a Catch 22 in which he risked discipline from the Court in the form of sanctions if he chose to skip the deposition to attend work or risked discipline in relation to his employment for missing work to attend the deposition.

Under the Supreme Court’s generous l adverse-action standard set forth in Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, the court concluded that under the unique facts of this case, the assessment of disciplinary attendance points, albeit points that were later removed and resulted in no ultimate penalty, could constitute an adverse action.

Retaliation is a low standard for employees to meet. This case illustrates how carefully employers must treat when dealing with an employee who engaged in protected activity.

Medical marijuana and the Americans with Disabilities Act

Bailey v. Real Time Staffing Servs. (6th Cir. 10/29/13) involves an employee fired for a positive random drug test for marijuana. Unknown to the employer, Bailey was HIV positive and taking prescribed medication which could result in a false positive for marijuana. The court sided with the employer in affirming the dismissal of Bailey’s ADA lawsuit:

Bailey cannot show pretext if Real Time had an honest belief that he used illegal drugs… It is not clear that there was an error in the drug test at all, and Real Time went through a reasoned process by consulting with its medical review officer. Real Time had to decide whether to credit Bailey’s story or to credit the medical review officer’s. Its decision to credit the medical review officer’s does not support an inference of discriminatory animus. Even if the positive result was in fact false, an employer’s reliance on an erroneous result does not create a claim under the ADA absent an independent showing that the real reason for the firing was a disability.

This case raises an interesting question. Medical marijuana is legal in 20 states plus in the District of Columbia. Can an employer fire an employee who tests positive for legally prescribed marijuana? The ADA does not cover employees who are currently under the influence of illegal drugs. If legally prescribed, however, marijuana is not illegal. Thus, its treatment under the ADA is akin to any legally prescribed medication.

Here are four general thoughts on the handling of any legally prescribed medication under the ADA, including marijuana:

1. Blanket prohibitions are illegal. The ADA imposes on employer an obligation to make individualized inquiries about implications such as reasonable accommodations and direct threats. A blanket prohibition against on-the-job use of prescriptions medications violates this obligation.

2. Drug testing. Drug testing programs can include legally prescribed drugs. And employer cannot, however, have a blanket policy excluding from employment any employee testing positive for a prescribed drug. Instead, following a positive test, the employer should ask if the employee is taking any prescribed drugs that would explain the positive result.

3. Drug-free workplace policies. It is permissible to include prescription drugs in drug-free workplace policies. These policies can require employees to disclose prescription drugs that may adversely affect judgment, coordination, or the ability to perform job duties. After disclosure, an employer must, on a case-by-case basis determine whether it can make a reasonable accommodation that will enable the individual to remain employed.

4. Post-disclosure handling. After an learns that an employee is taking a prescription drug that may affect job performance, it should request a medical certification regarding the effect of the medication on the ability safely to perform essential job functions. That certification will enable the employer to engage the employee in the interactive process and making the individualized determination of whether a reasonable accommodation is even possible.

Employers are wary about letting anyone work while under the influence of any drugs, legal or illegal. As explained above, however, the handling of employees taking legal prescription medications is highly fact sensitive and legally nuanced. Your best course of action is to consult with experienced employment counsel before implementing any policies or taking any action against employees that implicate these complex issues.