This bill was in direct response to the decision in Rope v. Auto-Clor System of Washington, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 635 (2013), which found that an employee who merely makes a request for
an accommodation does not engage in protected activity for purposes of a FEHA retaliation claim. Under this bill, the Government Code
Supreme Court Issues its Decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Answering the Question: When Does an Employer Have to Accommodate an Applicant’s Religious Practices?
Abercrombie & Fitch (AF) refused to hire Samantha Elauf, a practicing Muslim, on the basis that the headscarf she wore during her interview conflicted with AF’s “Look Policy” which prohibits employees from wearing “caps” (a term that the Policy did not define). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit on Elauf’s behalf, alleging a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, inter alia, prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant because of the applicant’s religious practice when the practice could be accommodated without undue hardship. Elauf wore the headscarf as part of her religious practice as a Muslim but she did not communicate this to the manager who interviewed her nor did she ask for an accommodation in order to wear the headscarf.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Issues its Decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Answering the Question: When Does an Employer Have to Accommodate an Applicant’s Religious Practices?
EEOC Weighs in on Employer Wellness Programs
Employer-sponsored “wellness programs” have become very popular, and are touted for the potential benefits to employees and employers alike: reduced absenteeism, lowered health care costs, reduced injuries, improved morale and productivity. But are these programs compliant with the ADA and other federal laws?
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has issued proposed regulations that are hoped to help employers make the most out of wellness programs while complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The EEOC is also publishing a fact sheet for small businesses and a “Q&A” for the general public.
Key points from the guidelines:
Employers covered by the ADA (i.e. with 15 or more employees), who generally are restricted from collecting medical information from employees under the ADA, can do so as part of a wellness program. The wellness program must be designed to promote health and prevent disease, and must have a “reasonable chance” of improving health or prevent disease. If it is, an employer may conduct voluntary medical examinations, including voluntary medical histories, as part of an employee health program available to employees, but still must comply with the ADA, including non-discrimination, reasonable accommodation, and confidentiality requirements.
Continue Reading EEOC Weighs in on Employer Wellness Programs
U.S. Supreme Court Issues Decision in Young v. UPS
The United State Supreme Court issued its much anticipated decision in the case of Young v. UPS on March 24, 2015. As of now, Young’s pregnancy discrimination claim remains alive and well.
Below is a summary of the court’s ruling:
Factual and Procedural Background.
Young was a part-time driver for UPS. When she became pregnant, her doctor advised her that she should not lift more than 20 pounds. UPS, however, required drivers like Young to be able to lift up to 70 pounds. UPS told Young that she could not work while under a lifting restriction. Young subsequently filed a lawsuit under the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (the “Act”), claiming that UPS acted unlawfully in refusing to accommodate her pregnancy-related lifting restriction. She brought only a disparate-treatment (intentional) claim of discrimination, which a plaintiff can prove either by direct evidence that a workplace policy, practice, or decision relies expressly on a protected characteristic, or by using the burden-shifting framework set forth in the case of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff has “the initial burden” of “establishing a prima facie case” of discrimination. If she carries her burden, the employer must have an opportunity “to articulate some legitimate, non-discriminatory reason[s] for” the difference in treatment. If the employer articulates such reasons, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff who has “an opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the reasons . . . were a pretext for discrimination.” (cites omitted)
UPS filed a summary judgment motion in the District Court. In reply, Young presented several favorable facts that she believed she could prove. In particular, she pointed to UPS policies that accommodated workers who had lifting restrictions similar to hers because they were either injured on the job or had disabilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). UPS policies also accommodated employees who couldn’t drive at all because they had lost Department of Transportation (DOT) certifications. Young argued that these policies showed that UPS discriminated against its pregnant employees because it had a light-duty-for-injury policy for numerous “other persons,” but not for pregnant workers. UPS responded that, since Young did not fall within the on-the-job injury, ADA, or DOT categories, it had not discriminated against Young on the basis of pregnancy, but had treated her just as it treated all “other relevant persons.”
Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Issues Decision in Young v. UPS
Upcoming Seminar: From A to Z, The Alphabet Soup of Leave Laws
Summary of Program
Administering leaves of absence and disability accommodations in California can be very challenging. California has a new paid sick leave law and numerous other leave laws and wage replacement benefits that interact with one another. To properly administer leaves and accommodate employees, employers need to understand the various types of leave/accommodations available,