News

The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. DeJoy made it much harder for employers to justify denying an employee’s request for religious accommodations. Since then, most refusal-to-vaccinate lawsuits have been settled in favor of employees.

Enforce your dress and grooming code too rigidly and you could find yourself on the losing end of a failure-to-accommodate lawsuit. Here’s a case showing that common medical problems may require employers to bend their dress-code rules to accommodate employee disabilities.

Some forms of ADA accommodation don’t directly affect essential job functions. Instead, they help employees manage their disabilities.

Employers can require employees accused of violence at work to take a drug test. But what happens if the test reveals the presence of marijuana in the system of an employee whose use of medical marijuana is authorized by state law?

The ADA requires employers to engage in an interactive process to figure out if a reasonable accommodation will let a disabled employee perform the essential functions of her job. The employer gets to choose the accommodation. If, after trying possible accommodations, the employee still can’t do her job, the employer can terminate her.

An employee with a medical issue may be disabled and entitled to reasonable accommodations but doesn’t have to request one. It’s enough that he lets someone in management know about the condition and requests a change in the workplace.

Most disability accommodations don’t cost much at all to provide. Penalties for violating the ADA by not accommodating an employee’s health needs can be expensive indeed.

Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Groff v. DeJoy, employees and their lawyers have been testing the limits on how far employers must go to accommodate religious beliefs and practices.

A recent Florida state court decision makes it clear that in that state, workers can’t be fired for the off-duty use of medical marijuana if the usage is related to a disability and the employee isn’t impaired when working.

For an hourly worker, more frequent milk-expression breaks can be unpaid if she’s completely relieved of work duties during pumping time. But what about making scheduling changes that may cut pay? According to a newly filed lawsuit, that’s not an appropriate approach.