Statement of Interest: Marytza Golden v. Indianapolis Housing Agency | PDF
Housekeeper's workers' comp claim morphs into ADA, retaliation case
HR.BLR.com
The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals—which covers Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia—recently decided a case that had a little bit of everything, including disability and workers' compensation issues. There is an extensive factual background that helps us better understand why the court reached its decision. Read on to see how the court handled the multiple issues raised on appeal.
Rideau v. Keller Independent School District, 15-10095 (5th Cir. 04/05/2016)
Texas Lawyer
Fifth Circuit Education Law Appellants, the parents of a severely disabled child, sued the school district where the child suffered abuse at the hands of his special education teacher. They asserted claims under federal disability law on behalf of their child, as well as claims of their own. A jury awarded a verdict in favor of appellees. Appellees challenged the verdict claiming the parents were never the proper parties to bring the claims initially. The district court held that the bank, the minor child’s guardian, was the proper party and dismissed the claims rather than allow the bank to ratify the parents’ actions pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 17(a)(3) holding failure to include the bank was not an understandable mistake and ratification would prejudice appellees. The court of appeals held the bank, as guardian, should have brought suit to recover claims on behalf of the minor child in accordance with Rule 17(c) and Rule 17(b) which, read in conjunction, mandates the use of state law in determining a representative’s capacity to sue. Tex. Estates Code Ann. §1151.104(a)(1) Despite this standing decision, the court of appeals held the district court erred in dismissing the claims holding Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a)(3) required ratification when timely sought. Additionally, the court of appeals held the failure to name the bank as a party in the case was an understandable mistake as they held their capacity to sue was based on the understanding they were “next friends” and “natural guardians”. Accordingly, the district court erred in failing to permit the ratification of the judgment. Rideau v. Keller Independent School District, Fifth Circuit, Case No.: 15-10095, 04/05/2016
EEOC Issues Guidance on Providing Unpaid Leave as a Reasonable Accommodation Under the ADA
JD Supra
Motivated by the increasing number of disability discrimination charges related to leave policies, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently issued new guidance discussing unpaid leave as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The guidance can be found at https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/ada-leave.cfm.
The guidance makes clear that exhausting the employer’s normal paid or unpaid leave policies "is not the end of an employer’s obligations under the ADA … An employer must consider providing unpaid leave to an employee with a disability as a reasonable accommodation … so long as it does not create an undue hardship for the employer." Thus, employers must consider unpaid medical leave as a reasonable accommodation to employees with disabilities, regardless of whether the employers offer leave under their existing policies, or the employees are ineligible for or have exhausted their leave benefits. The guidance also addresses the interactive process as it relates to return-to-work issues, maximum leave policies, reassignment and undue hardship.
Are Employers Too Focused on Maximum Leave Limits?
Bloomberg BNA
There may be nothing new in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's recent resource document on leave requirements under federal disabilities law, but workers and employers should both find needed clarity in the guidance, a pair of EEOC commissioners and others told Bloomberg BNA.
Employee communication: The missing piece in the HR technology landscape
HR.BLR.com
Driven by the needs of today’s tech savvy, multigenerational, and geographically distributed workforce, organizations and their HR professionals are looking for new ways to get employees the information they need—how they want it, when they want it, and where they want it.
Older technologies, such as e-mail, Intranet portals, posters and banners, and even the incredibly important town hall meeting are falling short, delivering generic information to an audience looking for increasingly personalized, real-time communications.
Further, a host of technology solutions addressing multiple HR processes have fragmented employee communications—as well as employee- and company-specific data—across multiple applications and third-party systems.
Medical Marijuana and an Employer's Rights in DC, Maryland, and Virginia
JD Supra
The District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia have all taken steps toward legalizing marijuana in some form. However, these laws differ in many respects and raise some interesting questions for employers. Because medical marijuana continues to be illegal under federal law, pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act, courts residing in jurisdictions where the use of medical marijuana is legal have found that an employer may maintain a drug-free workplace and terminate an employee for failing a drug test.
While some states such as Arizona specifically provide protections for employees that have a valid prescription for medical marijuana, neither the District of Columbia, Maryland nor Virginia have such specific protections in their respective statutes. The lingering questions is whether an employer’s decision to take an adverse action against an employee for using medical marijuana is protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) or a state’s disability discrimination statute, or under public policy. To date, however, courts have ruled that, absent statutory protections, employers remain free to set their own drug policies and to discipline or terminate employees who violate those policies.
This article details the medical marijuana laws in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia, and addresses the current legal landscape regarding an employee’s use of medical marijuana and employment law. Employers should evaluate their current drug policies, and continue to monitor the changing landscape surrounding the use of medical marijuana. As some states do provide specific protections for employee’s use of medical marijuana, national employers should pay special attention to each individual state’s laws where employees are located and confirm that their handbook complies with each state’s respective laws.