Pre- and post-job offer physical ability tests (PATs) continue to face challenges from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) and occasionally private litigants.
As the East Coast braces for yet another hurricane, we should contemplate the impact that natural disasters can have on employees and employers, both personally and professionally. While individuals prepare their homes and employers prepare their businesses for the physical damage, employers will benefit from also assessing the practical and legal implications surrounding the unpredictable events Mother Nature throws our way—and planning accordingly.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) focus on challenging pre-employment testing highlights the importance of carefully validating such tests before implementing them and reexamining existing pre-employment tests to ensure they will withstand legal scrutiny.
We all know (or should know) that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and other discrimination laws prohibit intentional discrimination “because of” protected characteristics like race, age, gender, or disability. We can easily imagine instances of intentional discrimination—a sexist manager refusing to hire female applicants, a racist boss refusing to promote qualified African Americans, and the list goes on.
On December 13, 2017, a Florida district court of appeal held that Miami Beach violated Florida law by enacting a local ordinance increasing the minimum wage. According to the court, Florida law prohibits municipalities from setting a minimum wage higher than the state minimum wage.
While nearly half of all states expressly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity, Missouri is not one of those states. However, the Missouri Court of Appeals recently issued a decision in favor of a gay employee who filed a lawsuit alleging sex discrimination based on sex stereotyping.
In contrast to Parker v. Crete Carrier Corporation, et al, in Kowitz v. Trinity Health, et al, No. 15-1584 (October 17, 2016), a split panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for an employer on an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim, finding a factual dispute about whether the employer knew the employee needed an accommodation despite the absence of a formal request for accommodation.
In Parker v. Crete Carrier Corporation, et al, No. 16-1371 (October 12, 2016), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a trucking company complied with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in requiring its drivers with body mass indexes (BMI) of 35 or above to undergo in-lab sleep studies to determine if they had sleep apnea, which could cause them to fall asleep at the wheel.