Posts tagged Employment Law.

The big news in employment law this week was the Supreme Court’s decision in Staub v. Proctor Hospital, the so-called “cat’s paw” case.  For those of you not familiar with the term, the cat’s paw theory holds an employer liable for the discriminatory animus of a manager who played no role in the adverse employment decision but exerted some influence over the actual decision maker.  

I came across an interesting article in The New York Times about hospitals and medical businesses in many states adopting strict policies against hiring smokers.

The first significant Supreme Court pronouncements on employment law are here and both seem tailored to create further litigation.  The first, decided late last week, is NASA v. Nelson, unanimously reversing a 9th Circuit decision that government employment background check questionnaires violated the constitutional right to “information privacy.” 

Most companies that have employment policies use some form of progressive discipline.  That is fine if it’s done the right way.  Unfortunately, in my practice I run across poorly executed and applied progressive discipline policies with alarming regularity.  Here are some thoughts on this subject that are all based on hard lessons learned by employers that I have represented.

I have been following a case concerning an employer’s obligation to protect employee data that has now come to a conclusion with two Ninth Circuit decisions.  Krottner et al. v. Starbucks arose from the 2008 theft of a laptop that contained the unencrypted names, addresses, and Social Security Numbers of approximately 97,000 Starbucks employees.   

I read with interest the news reports of the recent lawsuit filed against the University of Kentucky by an Astronomer who claims that his religion cost him a job.  

This weekend Cam Newton, the quarterback for Auburn University, won the Heisman Trophy.  For those of you who do not follow college football, the Heisman is an award given to the most outstanding player in collegiate football each year.  If you do follow college football, you are probably aware that this year’s award carries with it a scandal based on claims that Newton's father tried to get another college to pay $180,000 for his son to play for them.  Although it has suggested that its investigation is on-going, the NCAA so far has found no evidence that Cam Newton or Auburn knew about his father’s scheme.  Cam Newton has denied any wrongdoing, although he does have a past history of brushes with the law.  Not surprisingly, this situation generated a lot of discussion about whether Cam Newton is worthy of the award. 

This week the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion in Jakubowski v. The Christ Hosp., Inc. affirming a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the employer.  The plaintiff, Dr. Martin Jakubowski, was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, a condition that severely impeded his ability to communicate with patients and co-workers. 

The holidays are here again and they represent a minefield for employers.  It seems that every year the period of time from mid-November through the end of the year is guaranteed to generate employment litigation. 

Today, the Sixth Circuit issued a decision in Bates v. Dura Automotive Systems, Inc. that may appear to be of interest to employers who have or want to implement drug testing programs.  Unfortunately, the decision is of limited use in predicting future outcomes because, among other things, it is extremely narrow and was decided without reference to the ADAAA, having arisen before the amendments took effect.  Regardless, it is worth a look as it will be touted as a win for employers and some may be misled about its significance.

Subscribe

Topics/Tags

Select
Jump to Page
Close