Labor & Employment Developments Blog

I read with interest the news reports of the recent lawsuit filed against the University of Kentucky by an Astronomer who claims that his religion cost him a job.  

This weekend Cam Newton, the quarterback for Auburn University, won the Heisman Trophy.  For those of you who do not follow college football, the Heisman is an award given to the most outstanding player in collegiate football each year.  If you do follow college football, you are probably aware that this year’s award carries with it a scandal based on claims that Newton's father tried to get another college to pay $180,000 for his son to play for them.  Although it has suggested that its investigation is on-going, the NCAA so far has found no evidence that Cam Newton or Auburn knew about his father’s scheme.  Cam Newton has denied any wrongdoing, although he does have a past history of brushes with the law.  Not surprisingly, this situation generated a lot of discussion about whether Cam Newton is worthy of the award. 

This week the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion in Jakubowski v. The Christ Hosp., Inc. affirming a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the employer.  The plaintiff, Dr. Martin Jakubowski, was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, a condition that severely impeded his ability to communicate with patients and co-workers. 

The holidays are here again and they represent a minefield for employers.  It seems that every year the period of time from mid-November through the end of the year is guaranteed to generate employment litigation. 

Today, the Sixth Circuit issued a decision in Bates v. Dura Automotive Systems, Inc. that may appear to be of interest to employers who have or want to implement drug testing programs.  Unfortunately, the decision is of limited use in predicting future outcomes because, among other things, it is extremely narrow and was decided without reference to the ADAAA, having arisen before the amendments took effect.  Regardless, it is worth a look as it will be touted as a win for employers and some may be misled about its significance.

I know I just posted about the NFL but they keep doing things that are instructive to those of us with an interest in employment law.  During last week’s games, an unusual number of players were injured by blows to the head.  As a result, some fines were levied, including one to a Steelers player named James Harrison.

According to the latest news, jobs have dropped by another 95,000 in the past month and unemployment continues to hover at 9.6%.  In short, things do not appear to be improving and it is likely that we will continue to see workforce reductions until they do.

I read an interesting post this week at the HR Observations blog that addressed what to do when the victim of alleged harassment is a human resources employee.  In considering how to craft a harassment policy that would provide a solution for the HR/victim scenario, the suggestions centered on involving an outside investigator in the process.  Possible outsiders included: a member of the Board of Directors; an outside employment attorney; or an HR consultant.

In the last week, both in practice and in my daily review of labor and employment law websites and blogs, two issues have come up so frequently, I feel compelled to blog about them myself.

An issue that seems to come up weekly in my practice is whether employers may monitor employee e-mail, text messages and internet use.