Job descriptions count (but not as much as you think) in ADA cases

Donald Bush worked as a chef manager for Compass Group. According his written job description, his duties included routinely lifting more than 10 pounds. Bush informed his employer that he suffered from rapidly progressing cervical/thoracic spondylosis (a degenerative back condition), and requested a transfer to a less physically demanding job. Ultimately, Compass Group fired him because his illness prevented him from heavy lifting of over 50 pounds.

So, who wins Bush’s disability discrimination claim? Bush (based on the 10 pound limit in his job description), or Compass Group (based on its estimation of the practical realities of his job’s lifting requirements)?

WIRTW #455 (the “God’s not in the restaurant biz” edition)

Two years ago I reported on a lawsuit the DOL filed against Akron, Ohio, televangelist Ernest Angley, alleging he employed unpaid volunteers in his church’s for-profit buffet restaurant. The judgment is in, and it’s not good news for Mr. Angley. U.S. District Judge Benita Pearson, in a scathing opinion [pdf], has ordered him and his church to pay employees more than $388,000 in damages (half for unpaid wages and half for liquidated damages).

Reverend Angley would suggest that Church members had an obligation to provide their labor to the Buffet, in service to God, and that a failure to offer their labor to the Buffet … would be the same as failing God. … Reverend Angley would thus coerce Church members into agreeing to volunteer at the Buffet. …  Reverend Angley thus used “scare tactics/bullying” and made “people feel bad” for not working at the Buffet. … Reverend Angley preached that he was God’s prophet, and saying “no” to Angley would be tantamount to saying “no” directly to God. … Reverend Angley also preached that repeatedly saying “no” to God or failing God ultimately leads to a person “blaspheming against the Holy Ghost,” which meant that the individual’s connection to God has been lost and was irredeemable. … 

The Buffet is a commercial, for-profit institution in competition with a number of other commercial eateries in its immediate vicinity. … Defendants stress the alleged religious purpose served by the Buffet and its ability to provide low-cost meals. … But they undoubtedly achieve those low prices, at least in part, by circumventing wage laws and maintaining a workforce that is largely unpaid. … Indeed, Reverend Angley admitted that the Buffet reverted to using volunteers as a cost-saving measure. … 

Seems like the correct result to me.

Here’s what else I read this week:

Social media may distract employees, but should we care?

I posted this from work yesterday

Earlier this week, I asked when employees will learn that online comments can, and will, be used against them. There is another half to the workplace-social-media equation—employers, who have the task of regulating their employees’ use of social media, which happens more and more in the workplace.

Yesterday, Cleveland reporter Olivia Perkins discussed a recent survey, which found that nearly 90 percent of employees access personal social media accounts at work, to varying degrees of distraction.

New surveys reveal that most employees favor paid leave and flexible schedules

America remains the only industrialized nation that doesn’t mandate some level of paid maternity and/or family leave for employees. Meanwhile, while the FMLA provides 12 weeks of unpaid leave, many will tell you that benefit is woefully inadequate for employees. Indeed, more than 40 percent of employees are not covered by the FMLA and are not eligible to take FMLA leave.

http://dilbert.com/strip/2013-05-10

Thus, the results of a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center should surprise few.

When will employees learn that online comments can, and will, be used against them?

Business in the front, party in the rear

I’ve recently given two different speeches discussing the balance between an employee’s privacy and an employer’s right to know. One of the themes of this talk is that social media has irreparably blurred the line between one’s personal persona and one’s professional persona, and employees best be careful with that they say online, because employers are watching and holding them accountable.

Case in point? Buker v. Howard County (4th Cir. 3/20/17) [pdf].

Bring me the head of employment at will

At his always excellent Connecticut Employment Law Blog, Dan Schwartz recently asked the following question: “What Does ‘At Will’ Employment Really Mean?”

Dan argues that while employment at will is still a valid legal doctrine, if a judge or jury cannot view your termination as “fair”, then they will look for another (illegal) justification for your decision. That examination may not go your way.

WIRTW #454 (the “Oxford comma, the results” edition)

Damn, does the Oxford comma have some traction. I can’t recall the last time a case as mundane as O’Connor v. Oakhurt Dairy lit up the internet. But it did. And I got curious—just how do people feel about the l’il ol’ Oxford comma. So I asked. And you responded, by the hundreds. You spoke loud and clear. You don’t just like the Oxford comma, you love it.

There you have it. By a margin of more than nine to one, the Oxford comma wins. As for the other eight percent, please step into the 21st century and start dropping in that comma before the “and” in your serial lists.

Here’s what I read this week: