News

A recently filed EEOC lawsuit provides a timely reminder for employers regarding the religious accommodations process and why you must not ignore a now-two-year-old Supreme Court religious accommodation case involving time off for religious services.

A memo encourages federal employees to display religious items, pray in groups when off the clock and encourage co-workers to join their faith.

Are temp workers covered under PWFA after clocking in once, even though they have not worked more than 1,250 hours?

Do you have a policy requiring injured workers to be 100% healed before they can return to work? Then get ready to write a big check, either for court-ordered damages or—if your lawyer is smart—to settle a lawsuit before it reaches the courtroom.

We are an employer covered by the FMLA. We have an employee who is pregnant and understand we need to accommodate her pregnancy-related conditions that lead to tardiness or absences. Do we track these separately? Or do we track this as FMLA leave, too?

By now, we are all familiar with the idea that morning sickness experienced during pregnancy must be accommodated under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. But if a recent lawsuit is any indication, the EEOC is pushing the idea that many common pregnancy problems are also protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Under the ADA, there’s no obligation to reasonably accommodate a spouse’s illness. But a recent case in California under that state’s ADA equivalent may portend a trend.

An employee states she has a disability (fibromyalgia) and undiagnosed autism. She says this makes it hard for her to process thoughts, which makes her slower at reading notes on the computer, processing client requests, answering phones as quickly as others and the ability to multitask. She has never provided any reasonable accommodation information from her doctor.

Can a perceived customer preference for non-disabled front-of-house workers make being able to stand and walk without a limp an essential function of the job? One employer found out when it ended up paying $100,000 for turning down a request for a stool.

In a mixed decision that may invite other cases, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a retired disabled individual could not sue her former employer over an alleged discriminatory policy change that cut her retiree health benefit.