Recently, many health care employers and other large corporations have implemented programs requiring their employees to get a flu vaccination. Some legal experts have suggested that these mandates may be problematic for employers. Specifically, employers may face religious based objections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or disability based objections under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it has filed lawsuits in recent years against employers under Title VII where employees were fired for objecting to a vaccination for sincere religious beliefs. The EEOC has also stated that a company would likely violate the ADA, if it were to take adverse action against an employee who refused to get a flu vaccination for a disability related reason, such as an allergic reaction to the vaccine.
In a potentially important decision over workplace accommodations in an environment when telecommuting is more common, the Sixth Circuit ruled on April 10 that an employer does not need to permit an employee to work from home when an essential aspect of the employee’s position requires being in the office.
This Wednesday, December 3, 2014, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Young v. UPS, No. 12-1226, on appeal from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal. The Young case has received significant attention because it asks the Court to directly address the question of what, if any, accommodation is required for a pregnant worker with work limitations under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, incorporated into Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in 1978, where the employer provides work accommodations to non-pregnant employees with work limitations, such as those affected by on-the-job injuries or a disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Stressing that technology has made telecommuting easier, the Sixth Circuit yesterday revived the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's claims that Ford Motor Co. failed to accommodate a worker with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) by refusing her request to work from home most days.
The recently released 2012 EEOC enforcement statistics indicated an overall decrease in charges and increase in damages paid by employers. Notably, for the second consecutive year, the EEOC reduced its pending inventory of private sector charges by 10% from fiscal year 2011, bringing inventory to 70,312. However, the EEOC obtained the largest amount of monetary recovery in 2012, totaling $365.4 million. Leading the states in originating charges was Texas at 9.0% of charges filed nationally, followed by Florida (8.0%) and California (7.4%).
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Coronavirus
- Employment Law
- Department of Labor
- Discrimination
- Arbitration
- Labor Law
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Religion Discrimination
- Disability Discrimination
- IRS
- NLRB
- Race Discrimination
- Litigation
- Employer Policies
- OSHA
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Social Media
- Retirement
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Accommodation
- National Labor Relations Act
- National Labor Relations Board
- ERISA
- Employer Handbook
- Employment Litigation
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Wage & Hour
- EEOC
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- ADAAA
- NLRA
- Title VII
- Unions
- Employer Rules
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Sexual Harassment
- Technology
- Privacy
- 401(k)
- Transgender Issues
- FMLA
- Workplace Accommodations
- Disability
- Workplace Violence
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Sixth Circuit
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Securities Law
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Health Savings Account
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Benefits
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Environmental Law
- Overtime Pay
- Privacy Laws
- Representative Election Regulations
- Department of Justice
- Healthcare Reform
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Electronically Stored Information
- Telecommuting
- Affirmative Action
- Compensable Time
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Security Screening
- Supreme Court
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- Taxation
- Antitrust
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
Recent Posts
- The Practical Employment Law Podcat: Labor & Employment Law Update Week of 1/23/23
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: The Obligatory New Year's Episode
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: The Obligatory Holiday Party Episode
- Independent Contractor Classification - Deadline to Submit Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is Approaching
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Thanksgiving for Plaintiffs' Attorneys
- Why Every Employer Including Those Outside NYC Should Stay Abreast of the NYC Pay Transparency Law
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Interview with Author and Lawyer Steven Mitchell Sack
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Are You Caught in a TRAP?
- California New Pay Transparency Law
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: The Controversial Episode