JD Supra
In Graziadio v. Culinary Institute of America, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit1 ruled that a human resources director could be personally liable as an “employer” for violating an employee’s rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The plaintiff, a payroll administrator, requested FMLA leave to care for her 17-year-old son, who was hospitalized for previously undiagnosed Type I diabetes. After the plaintiff returned to work, she submitted a medical certification supporting her need for leave to care for her son. That same day, the plaintiff’s 12-year-old son fractured his leg and underwent surgery. The plaintiff requested additional leave and asked whether any further documentation was required. Despite emails and calls by the plaintiff to learn what documentation was required, and despite the plaintiff providing some information, the HR director declared that the plaintiff must come into work for a meeting. In what the court described as “an excruciating exchange,” the plaintiff and the HR director exchanged emails over several days but could not schedule a meeting. The plaintiff retained an attorney who wrote to the company’s president and spoke with the company’s attorney; however, one week later the plaintiff’s employment was terminated. The plaintiff sued the company and the HR director for interference and retaliation under the FMLA and discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) on the basis of her association with a disabled individual. The trial court granted summary judgment on the claims and the plaintiff appealed.
Second Circuit Court Holds HR Director is Individually the “Employer”
JD Supra
In an opinion last week, the Second Circuit ruled that a company’s human resources (HR) director could be held individually liable for Family and Medical Leave Act violations.
The Court said that the HR director had enough control over an employee’s job and enough input into her firing to qualify her as an “employer” under the statute! Graziadio v. Culinary Institute of America, Shaynan Garrioch, and Loreen Gardella, No. 15-888-cv (March 17, 2016).
Is Telecommuting a Reasonable Accommodation?
JD Supra
Employers are often asked to allow an employee to telecommute as a reasonable accommodation for a disability. Should employers always grant such requests? What considerations come into play? Here’s a checklist to help employers consider and respond to a request to telecommute as an accommodation.
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC §§12101–12213), the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Pub L 110–325, 122 Stat 3553), and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Govt C §§12900–12996) all seek to provide equal opportunities to employees and applicants with disabilities. What makes these laws unique is that they all require that employers and employees engage in an interactive process to determine whether the employee is entitled to a reasonable and effective accommodation that will allow him or her to perform the essential functions of the job in question. More and more often, such accommodation includes a request to telecommute.
EEOC Sues Grisham Farm Products for Requiring Medical Information from Job Applicants
JD Supra
Grisham Farm Products, Inc. of Mountain Grove, Mo., violated federal law by requiring all job applicants to fill out a three-page health history before they would be considered for a job, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today. EEOC also alleged Grisham Farm Products does not maintain or retain employment records and applications for employment, as required by law.
Complying with FMLA and ADA Medical Information Restrictions
JD Supra
Two common laws employers must deal with regarding employee leave requests are the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Not surprisingly, these laws contain a thicket of regulations governing leave rights, and their detailed regulations regarding medical information present a stumbling block for many employers. Knowing their basic requirements is therefore critical.
Days Inn New Haven agrees to comply with ADA
New Haven Register
Days Inn New Haven has agreed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the last of six city hotels accused of violating the law to settle with the government, according to U.S. Attorney Deirdre M. Daly.
Daly in a press release Tuesday announced a settlement agreement between her office and the hotel, located at 270 Foxon Blvd.
Hotels, as “places of public accommodation,” fall under the act, which requires accessibility and bars discrimination against people with disabilities.
Twelve randomly selected New Haven hotels were asked to complete surveys about their compliance with the ADA, which were followed up by inspections. Six of the 12 failed the inspections, the release said. Five previously reached settlements with the government: the New Haven Hotel, La Quinta Inn and Suites, Courtyard Marriott New Haven, the Omni New Haven Hotel at Yale and Village Suites (formerly Premiere Hotel and Suites). The six hotels agreed to comply with the ADA.