Strategic HR Solutions, LLC

06/18/2024

https://wp.me/p9EjWo-Bx

A federal judge dismissed with prejudice Friday an attempt by several state attorneys general to block the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s pregnancy accommodation rule implementing t…

06/14/2024

Interesting read...........

In a recent decision, Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the standard for determining whether an adverse employment action is a sufficient basis for a discrimination cla…

05/22/2024

Jury should decide if employee’s objection to COVID-19 vaccine was based on religious beliefs, court says.

A jury must decide whether a former marketing and sales representative objected to her employer’s COVID-19 vaccine requirement because of sincerely held religious beliefs or for reasons that were “truly medical and masked by religious language,” an Ohio federal district court held May 13.

The sales rep, who identifies as a devout Christian, requested an exemption in 2021, after her employer, a health services company, began requiring that employees get vaccinated against COVID-19, according to court documents in Isensee v. Amplity, Inc. In her request, which her pastor signed, she cited Bible verses and expressed a religious concern about stem cells being used to make the vaccine, court records said. A company review board denied the request.

After her termination, the sales rep sued the employer for allegedly failing to accommodate her religious beliefs in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “While the Court does not doubt Isensee’s faith,” she made conflicting statements as to the sincerity of her religious beliefs relating to vaccinations, the court said. This raised a “quintessential” question of fact for trial about why she sought the exemption, it ruled.

The case raises an ongoing issue for employers: What do they do if an employee’s request to be exempted from a vaccine policy on religious grounds is met with potentially conflicting evidence regarding its sincerity?

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission offers a straightforward recommendation: Generally, when an employee or job applicant notifies an employer that a requirement conflicts with their religious views and requests a religious accommodation, the employer “should proceed on the assumption that [the request] is based on sincerely held religious beliefs,” an EEOC guidance says.

05/15/2024

Interesting read.........

General Electric is commemorating its split into three new companies with a high-production handbook given to employees.

05/14/2024

Class-Action Suit Claims Nike Failed to Provide Pumping Breaks, Lactation Room

In lieu of a dedicated lactation facility, the plaintiff alleged she was given the choice of pumping in her manager’s office, the store’s bathroom or her car.

Nike violated California’s labor codes and unfair competition law when it failed to accommodate postpartum and nursing female workers, a former retail employee alleged in a class-action lawsuit May 8.

According to the suit, filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, the plaintiff primarily breastfed her 3-year-old child “until she was forced to stop” due to Nike’s policies. She claimed Nike failed to provide reasonable breaks to pump and that the store she worked at did not have a dedicated lactation facility.

The plaintiff sued on behalf of herself and similarly situated current and former employees.

Protections for nursing employees received a boost in 2022 via the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act, or PUMP Act. Under the law, nursing workers have the right to reasonable break time to express breast milk for up to one year after their child’s birth, and employers are required to provide a nonbathroom space that is shielded from view, free from intrusion, available as needed and functional for pumping.

02/09/2024

Friday Morning Inspiration.........

02/09/2024

Did You Know..........

McDonald’s Franchisee Settles R**e Case for $4.35M

Rice Enterprises, a McDonald’s franchisee in Pennsylvania, has settled a lawsuit filed on behalf of a former 14-year-old employee who was r***d by a restaurant manager. Rice settled for $4.35 million, according to a press release.

A spokesperson for the plaintiffs’ attorneys said that McDonald’s is not contributing to the settlement and has not admitted any liability in the case.

According to the lawsuit, McDonald’s and Rice Enterprises were both aware the manager, Walter Garner, was s*xually harassing children employed by Rice before Garner r***d the employee mentioned in the suit. Garner, a registered s*x offender, later pleaded guilty to criminal charges stemming from that incident and is incarcerated.

Rice Enterprises said that as soon as it became aware of the complaint against Garner in 2021, it terminated his employment.

“[We] offered our full support to the impacted employees and law enforcement investigating this case.” Rice Enterprises said in a statement. “Since then, we’ve redoubled our efforts to ensure a positive and respectful experience for all employees in our restaurants, and our organization maintains a zero-tolerance policy for harassment of any kind.”

Before Garner s*xually assaulted the 14-year-old employee in February 2021, he had already made the restaurant “an objectively hostile and abusive work environment for women” through continual s*xual harassment and unwanted touching of multiple female employees, including another minor, according to the lawsuit. Several of the employees, including the 14-year-old worker, spoke to the hiring manager about Garner’s conduct.

McDonald’s, according to the complaint, took no action. Garner r***d the employee in February 2021 and later coerced her into s*xual acts on at least one other occasion. He continued to s*xually harass her and other employees, per the complaint.

Shortly thereafter, the lawsuit alleges, managers for Rice Enterprises saw Garner groping female employees on security footage while investigating an alleged theft from the cash register. Garner was emboldened in his abuse after “McDonald’s management spoke to Garner about the conduct viewed on video but did not discipline or fire him,” the suit states.

02/08/2024

Thursday Morning Inspiration.........

02/08/2024

Did You Know.........

‘Honest Belief’ Defense Goes Up in Smoke in Employee H**p Case

A defense claim by Airgas that it fired an employee in the honest belief he was using ma*****na while on the job was knocked down by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals because the specialty gas supplier never reasonably investigated the employee’s claim he failed a drug test because of his use of h**p to ease cancer treatment symptoms.

The worker sued the company for disability discrimination after it fired him for a second positive test that found THC in his system.

He had asked the company to check with the drug-testing company whether his h**p use could have been the cause of his failed test. The company never posed the question before firing him.

“The employer need not show that it left ‘no stone unturned,’” Judge Raymond Kethledge said in the ruling by a panel of three judges. “But if the employer conducts no meaningful investigation, it cannot show the requisite ‘honest belief.’”

The company gave the employee a leave of absence to treat his liver cancer, so it knew he was ill. After he returned to work, he began to use a h**p product called Free H**p to relieve treatment symptoms, although he didn’t share that information with the company.

When he tested positive for THC after a random drug test conducted by a third-party contractor, he disclosed his use of the h**p product and asked to be retested to rule out a false positive. He also asked the company to ask the contractor if h**p can lead to a false positive for THC. A key ingredient in h**p is THCA, a close relative to a key ingredient in ma*****na, THC.

The company directed the contractor to conduct a retest, but instead of having the employee provide a new sample, it gave the contractor the previous sample. After the sample again tested positive for THC, the company fired the worker, who sued for disability discrimination.

The company asked for, and won, summary judgment in the district court, saying it acted in honest belief he was using ma*****na on the job based on the second positive finding for THC.

In reversing summary judgment, the appeals court said the company couldn’t show honest belief if it didn’t make a reasonable effort to investigate the worker’s claim that the h**p could have caused the false positive.

Although the company did pose the question to the contractor, and was told h**p would not have caused a false positive for THC, it didn’t investigate that until after it fired the worker.

02/07/2024

Wednesday Morning Inspiration...........

02/07/2024

Our latest blog.........

This is the first installment of a two-part series on little-known FMLA facts. Today’s installment covers under-utilized FMLA tools. Our next installment covers FMLA traps. Under-utilized FMLA Tool…

02/05/2024

Monday Morning Inspiration..........