Labor & Employment Developments Blog

The Sixth Circuit issued a decision in Lewis v. Humboldt Acquisition Corp. on March 17, 2011 that is based on an interesting anomaly in the Sixth Circuit’s treatment of ADA claims.  Ms. Lewis was a registered nurse who began working at the Humboldt Manor Nursing Home in July 2004.  Sometime in September 2005, she developed a medical condition that “among other things, affected her lower extremities.”  As a result of the condition, Ms. Lewis sometimes used a wheelchair.  Humboldt Manor terminated Ms. Lewis’ employment in March 2006 because of an “outburst” that she had at the nurses station.  Three co-workers testified that she yelled, criticized supervisors and used profanity.  Ms. Lewis and another employee testified that she was upset but did not act inappropriately.  Ms. Lewis alleged that the true reason for her termination was her use of a wheelchair and that Humboldt Manor exaggerated the severity of her behavior to use it as a pretext for disability discrimination. 

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.