An employer’s past leniency in applying and enforcing its attendance policy did not contradict the employer’s later position that regular worksite attendance was required for employment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held.
On Dec. 30, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued its opinion in McAllister v. Innovation Ventures, LLC, No. 20-1779 (7th Cir., Dec. 30 2020), and held that an employer did not violate the ADA where it terminated its employee after it became clear that she would require several additional months of leave after she had already been granted a two-and-a-half-month leave of absence due to her disability.
A federal court in Pennsylvania held that a medical marijuana user’s claims for disability discrimination and retaliation were sufficiently alleged to survive the employer’s motion to dismiss.
While its rollout has been slow, the vaccine is being administered across the U.S. and in other countries. For a variety of reasons, organizations want to know whether their workforce members (employees, contractors, etc.) have been vaccinated. The EEOC has provided some guidance on the issue.
Since 1996, when Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), employers have been struggling with whether and to what extent they could offer incentives to employees to participate in certain “wellness programs.” On Jan. 7, the EEOC proposed a new approach that may provide employers some certainty, particularly as many employers are wondering about incentives to encourage employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.
As we enter flu season (in the midst of a national spike in COVID-19 cases), and it now appears that a COVID-19 vaccine is on the horizon, employers are struggling with whether they should require employees to be vaccinated for seasonal influenza and/or COVID-19 infection.
A federal court in Indiana dismissed an employee’s claim that his employer did not have the right to request a medical examination after he tested positive for drugs and subsequently admitted that he was taking numerous prescription medications that could create a safety risk.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued two technical assistance documents on Aug. 5, 2020, addressing accommodation issues under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for employees who use opioid medications or may be addicted to opioids.
Despite significant legal obstacles, on May 4, 2020, a group of plaintiffs filed a class action complaint alleging the Queens Adult Care Center (QACC) violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Title III) and its precursor, Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), by failing to provide a level of care to safeguard their health and safety at its assisted living facility during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The EEOC’s most recent update provides an answer to the following question: “May an employer administer a COVID-19 test (a test to detect the presence of the COVID-19 virus) before permitting employees to enter the workplace?”
As the CDC continues to study COVID-19, the agency is regularly updating guidance on precautionary measures to further prevent the spread across the United States. The agency has expanded its recommended precautions to include “wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where social distancing measures are difficult to maintain”.
The EEOC published a webinar to address common employer questions regarding the COVID-19 outbreak, including: taking employees temperatures, appropriate and inappropriate disclosure of information related to an employee’s COVID-19 diagnosis, and managing employee accommodation requests including requests from employees in the high risk categories identified by the CDC.
For nine years the Disability Management Employer Coalition (DMEC) and Spring Consulting Group have partnered to conduct annual research on employer leave management. Our national survey tracks employer methods for … Read More
For nine years, DMEC and Spring Consulting Group have partnered to conduct annual research on employer leave management. With information from over 873 employers, the national survey tracks employer methods … Read More
On Jan. 14, 2020, the 5th Circuit ruled on whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires an employer to excuse terminable misconduct — in this case, sleeping on the job — based on an employee’s after-the-fact, disability-related explanation.
Navigating the legal landscape when an employee has a disability related to his/her mental health can be challenging. At the outset, it is not always clear that an employee may need a reasonable accommodation.
Profound changes in work, workplaces, and workers are creating demand for new approaches to leave policies. Our session at the 2019 DMEC Compliance Conference, Keep Up With the Competition: Creating Innovative Company Leave Programs, will enable you to understand these changes; identify how they impact your company; and learn how to incorporate this knowledge into the design of leave policies that create a competitive advantage while maintaining legal compliance and coordination with other benefits.
The 6th Circuit held “regular, in-person attendance constitutes an essential function of most jobs,” but an employer must tie time-and-presence requirements to some other job requirement in order to prove that in-person attendance is indeed an essential job function.
Can you be regarded as disabled based on a potential future disability? In a case just decided by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, EEOC v. STME, LLC, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) espoused precisely this position.
DMEC routinely hears from employers struggling with the complexities of managing Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation activities. With little regulatory guidance on the administrative aspects of managing requests and … Read More