Two recent cases exemplify how easy it is for an unaware and unprepared employer to run afoul of employment laws.
In one, an employer’s handbook promised more benefits than the law required the company to provide. In another, the employer transferred a disabled employee apparently just to ease a supervisor’s discomfort with dealing with a disabled staff member.
Both cases show employers must look at the big picture the same way a jury would.
Handbook no balm for Gilead
A 7th Circuit Court of Appeals case, Peters v. Gilead Sciences, decided in July involved an injured Indiana employee who took two short medical leaves in quick succession and was offered a different position when he returned to work. He declined and the company terminated him.
He filed suit under the , alleging he had been denied reinstatement to the same or equivalent position. His suit also included a claim of promissory estoppel under In...(register to read more)
- You must protect customers—Even from off-Duty workers
- Safety trumps faith: Feel free to ban religious garments if they pose a workplace hazard
- Good-Faith Process—But Not Absolutely Correct Conclusion—Is Enough to Fire Harasser
- Don't suggest delaying EEOC filing near deadline
- Make managers aware of potential personal liability