Skip to main content

What I've Been Reading This Week


I think I spent less time in the office this week than I have in any other week all year.  Hard to believe so many courts wanted to have hearings this late in the year...but perhaps it is a fitting way to end 2017.  With that being said, one of the more intriguing articles I came across dealt with service or assistance animals in the workplace.  While I cannot recall working in an office (or any work environment for that matter) with a service or assistance animal before, I think this is a topic that many employers will start to be confronted with over the coming years.  While the article below does not have a definitive answer for how employers should deal with this matter, it does provide some guidance and is a useful resource to consider.

As always, below are a few articles that caught my eye this week.


Will Service or Assistance Animals in the Workplace Become the Norm?

File this one under a topic that I am on board with.  Patrick Dorian wrote an article last month that pondered whether service or assistance animals in the workplace will become considered common practice.  While this matter is still new for many employers and there is not a great deal of legal precedent to rely upon, Dorian does provide some guidance and practical things for an employer to consider.  With a lawsuit having been filed earlier this year against a company that did not let a driver trainee bring his emotional support dog on the road with him, Dorian suspects that we are likely to see this become a growing matter for employers to consider.  As noted, although the Americans with Disabilities Act does not expressly mention the use of service or assistance animals in the workplace, it is suggested that employers treat these requests the same as any other employee request for a disability related reasonable accommodation.  Although this article does not give the definitive answer for employers on the matter, it does provide some good things to consider.



Jeff Nowak at FMLA Insights used a recent case from a federal district court in Pennsylvania to consider whether an employer can lawfully terminate an employee that has FMLA leave but also accrues excessive unexcused absences.  (In the district court case, a nurse had FMLA leave but had over 10 unexcused absences over the course of a year unrelated to the reason for her FMLA leave.  Her employer had a policy in place that an employee was subject to termination when they had seven unexcused absences in a rolling 12 month period and therefore terminated the nurse.  The district court ultimately held that the nurse's termination was lawful as she had too many unexcused absences, in violation of her employer's policy, notwithstanding the fact that she had qualified for FMLA leave.)  As Nowak points out, the employer was smart to document each absence (including the reason for each absence) to establish each unexcused absence and the fact that those unexcused absences were unrelated to the reason for the nurse's FMLA leave.  Employers, as the saying often goes:  DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more