KMK Law Management Rights Blog

Determining how to reasonably accommodate an employee with a disability can be difficult for employers.  The Sixth Circuit’s decision in Kempter v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., et al. affirms common-sense law – namely, that in reasonably accommodating a disabled employee, employers are not required to convert temporary light-duty work into a full-time position, reassign a disabled employee to a position he/she is not qualified for, or which would displace another employee’s rights, or create a new position. 

As most employers are aware, the definition of what constitutes a “disability” for purposes of providing a reasonable workplace accommodation was broadened significantly with the enactment of the Americans with Disability Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA). 

Employers received more good news from the U.S. Supreme Court this week with decisions in two cases that toughen standards for determining who is a supervisor and for proving retaliation. 

For employers, compliance with wage-hour laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) is more important than ever.  A top lawyer at the Department of Labor (“DOL”) stated earlier this month during a conference that the DOL has a new emphasis on investigations of potential FLSA violations. 

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its long awaited decision in American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant. 

In addressing a disability discrimination claim under the ADA, the Eleventh Circuit ruled this past week that an indefinite leave of absence does not constitute a reasonable accommodation.

The recently released 2012 EEOC enforcement statistics indicated an overall decrease in charges and increase in damages paid by employers.  Notably, for the second consecutive year, the EEOC reduced its pending inventory of private sector charges by 10% from fiscal year 2011, bringing inventory to 70,312.  However, the EEOC obtained the largest amount of monetary recovery in 2012, totaling $365.4 million.  Leading the states in originating charges was Texas at 9.0% of charges filed nationally, followed by Florida (8.0%) and California (7.4%).   

As the FMLA celebrates its 20^th birthday this February, social media continues to be an increasingly important resource for employers in combating frivolous FMLA interference and retaliation charges by former employees. 

There have been a couple of interesting developments this week in labor and employment law.  First, some may recall that I posted earlier this summer about the employment practice of refusing to consider the unemployed for open positions.  I mentioned at the time that a bill had been introduced, the Fair Employment Act of 2011 (H.R. 1113), that would amend Title VII to add “unemployment status” to the list of protected classes.  Employment Law Matters reports that the effort to pass such a law continues:

Those of you who follow such things have no doubt enjoyed the recent federal court decisions taking the EEOC to task for its “sue first, ask questions later” approach to class action litigation.  As one commentator has noted:

Perhaps the most notable of these recent cases is EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., in which the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa dismissed a sexual harassment case filed by the EEOC on behalf of 67 women, and awarded CRST more than $4 million in attorneys’ fees. The district court, in finding the EEOC’s prosecution of the case to be frivolous, unreasonable and without foundation, sharply criticized the EEOC’s litigation strategy as one of “sue first, ask questions later.” Here, the district court found that the EEOC failed to investigate the specific allegations of the 67 class members until after the civil action was commenced. In fact, the EEOC had not interviewed any of the women who were supposedly sexually harassed and did not subpoena any documents to determine if the allegations were true. Before filing suit, the EEOC also did not identify any of the 67 female class members and did not attempt to conciliate the allegations of those women. In the end, the district court found that the EEOC had not complied with its own administrative requirements and dismissed the case due to the jurisdictional defects.