Is It Discrimination To Require A High School Diploma?

By:       Scott M. Plamondon

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) thinks so. The EEOC recently posted a letter to its website stating that it may be unlawful for employers to require a job applicant to have obtained a high school diploma if the applicant suffers from a learning disability and has been unable to obtain one. The EEOC’s position represents a significant departure from traditional interpretation by the courts with regard to matters of unintentional discrimination resulting in a disparate impact on certain groups.

Continue Reading...

Weintraub's L&E Law Blog is in the Top 25

By: Chuck Post

Over the last year, Weintraub Genshlea Chediak Tobin & Tobin has tripled the size of its employment law department. In addition to enhancing the services we can provide to our clients, this growth has allowed us to continue presenting our quality seminars and maintaining our Labor and Employment Law Blog. Our results have paid off. We are pleased to announce that LexisNexis has ranked our blog as one of the Top 25 employment and labor law blogs in the nation for 2011. We are honored and proud to receive this recognition given the number of other high quality labor and employment law blogs out in the blogosphere.

Voting is now under way to determine the nation’s top (#1) employment and labor law blog for 2011. If you have enjoyed reading the commentary and information we regularly provide on our blog, please take the time to vote for “The Labor and Employment Law Blog” as the Top Blog of 2011 by clicking here.

We look forward to continuing to provide you with commentary and information about developing employment and labor issues in the years to come. Thank you.
 

Vote for Weintraub's L&E Law Blog!

Big news! Weintraub’s L&E Law Blog is one of the nominated candidates for the LexisNexis Top 25 Labor and Employment Law Blogs of 2011.

We need your help! Click here, log onto the Labor and Employment Law Community and then leave a comment at the bottom of the page saying “I vote for The Labor & Employment Law Blog.” Voting ends September 12th.

 

Feel free to share this with others (via social media or other avenues) to get out the vote.

 

Thanks for the support, and don't forget to vote!

The California Court of Appeals Limits the Remedies for Undocumented Workers

By: Meagan D. Christiansen

The Third Appellate District for the California Court of Appeals recently issued a decision that provides hope for those employers who unknowingly hire undocumented workers throughout California. In Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co., the court used the after-acquired evidence and unclean hands doctrines to bar Salas’ Complaint, ruling that undocumented workers are not entitled to recourse on a wrongful failure to hire claim, where they misrepresent their lawful ability to work in the first place.

Relevant Facts:

Vicente Salas was a seasonal worker at Sierra Chemical, a swimming pool chemical business. In 2006, he injured his back while working. After returning to work for a short time on modified duty, he reinjured his back when he was re-assigned to his regular duties. Following this injury, he brought a workers’ compensation claim against the company. In December 2006, Salas was laid off as part of Sierra Chemical’s annual reduction. In 2007 Sierra Chemical contacted Salas, informing him that he could return to work, provided he could establish he had received a medical release. Salas could not produce such a release and was precluded from returning pursuant to Sierra Chemical’s policies.
 

Continue Reading...

Employer's Exclusive Reliance On Workers' Compensation Calculations Can Add Up To Liability For Failing To Accommodate Disabled Employees

By: Brendan J. Begley

When an employee is disabled by an industrial injury, an employer’s obligations under the Workers’ Compensation Act generally can be measured with what could be called arithmetic-like calculations.  However, gaging the extent of an employer’s obligations in such circumstances can begin to resemble calculus when disability-discrimination laws are figured in the equation. 

For example, upon learning that an injured employee has received a high disability rating, an employer’s quasi-mathematical equation might read:  “Work Requirements + 90 Days of Light Duty + High Disability Rating = No Obligation to Continue Light-Duty Accommodation or to Hold Position Open.”  However, that formula is not properly calibrated to ensure that an employer reaches the correct solution under anti-discrimination laws.

Continue Reading...

LAW ALERT: EEOC Publishes New Regulations Governing Federal Disability Laws

by Brendan J. Begley

Taking the next step to implement the federal Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”), the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) published its long-awaited final regulations on March 24, 2011.  However, it is widely believed that the ADAAA and the recently published regulations will not greatly impact employers in California who are already covered by the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Continue Reading...

Federal Government Posts Online Toolkit to Help Employers and Employees in the "Return-to-Work" Process

By: Brendan J. Begley

Coinciding with President Obama’s designation of October as “National Disability Employment Awareness Month 2010,” the federal government has posted a toolkit on the internet to facilitate the return-to-work process for both employers and employees following a disability-related leave of absence.  The toolkit, which can be accessed at www.dol.gov/odep/return-to-work, is geared to educate both employees and employers about their respective rights and responsibilities so that workers may return to an existing or new job as quickly as possible.

Continue Reading...

LAW ALERT: Ninth Circuit Rules Disability Accommodations Must be Both Reasonable and Effective

by Brendan J. Begley

A recent opinion from a federal appellate court serves as yet another cautionary tale for employers in the area of disability accommodations.  The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in EEOC v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions suggests that employers must take proactive steps to ensure that accommodations being provided to a given disabled employee are not only reasonable but effective.  The outcome in this case also underscores the need to commence and continue the interactive process and to consult with legal counsel promptly when confronted with disability-accommodation requests or issues. 

Continue Reading...

LAW ALERT: $6.2 Million Settlement in EEOC Complaint Against Sears, Roebuck & Company Re: Inflexible Leave Exhaustion Policy Violates ADA

by Lizbeth V. West

On February 5, 2010, the EEOC issued a press release announcing the court approval of a $6.2 million settlement of its lawsuit against Sears, Roebuck & Company on behalf of 235 employees. The lawsuit maintained that Sears had an inflexible workers’ compensation leave exhaustion policy that terminated employees once they exhausted their workers’ compensation [leave] entitlement rather than engaging in the interactive process to determine if a reasonable accommodation existed to help return them to work. The settlement is the largest ADA settlement in a single case in EEOC history. Each of the 235 employees will receive approximately $26,300 in settlement funds.

Continue Reading...

ADA Amendments Act

On September 25, 2008, the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 was signed into law by President Bush. It becomes effective January 1, 2009. This new law is designed to undo several Supreme Court decisions and thereby broaden the number of individuals who can seek protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The amendments include the following highlights:

a. Employers must assess whether an individual is disabled without considering corrective measures, i.e. medical supplies or equipment (except for glasses or contacts); use of assistive technology; auxiliary aids or services; and learned behavioral or adaptive neurological modifications.

b. An impairment that is episodic or in remission constitutes a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity while active.

c. An impairment that substantially limits one major life activity need not limit other major life activities in order to be considered a disability.

d. The list of "major life activities" is expanded to include, but is not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating and working; as well as “major bodily functions” such as the function of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine and reproductive functions.

e. The "regarded as disabled" standard is lowered to prohibit an action prohibited under the ADA because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment, whether or not such impairment is perceived to limit, or actually limits, a major life activity. The “regarded as disabled” standard does not apply to impairments that are transitory and minor. A “transitory” impairment is one with an actual or expected duration of 6 months or less.

f. Employers may not use qualification standards, employment tests, or other selection criteria based on an individual’s uncorrected vision unless the standard, test, or other selection criteria, as used by the employer, is known to be related to the position and is consistent with business necessity.

Because the ADA Amendment Act brings the ADA more in line with California’s disability laws under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), California employers can expect to experience few changes in their administration of disability accommodation policies. Employers should continue to comply with the requirements of FEHA.