Posts

Seventh Circuit: ADA Reasonable Accommodation and Discrimination Claims Tempered by Employee Behavior

APPLIES TO

All Employers with IL, IN, and WI Employees

EFFECTIVE

July 23, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Graham v. Artic Zone Iceplex, LLC, a former employee claimed a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by the employer for (1) failure to provide reasonable accommodations of his disability, and (2) terminating him due to his disability. The Court explained that identifying a “reasonable accommodation” for an employee requires input from both employee and employer, and is a collaborative effort. This includes notice by the disabled employee to the employer if an accommodation provided does not meet the employee’s needs. If the employee fails to provide sufficient information in this regard, the employer cannot be held liable for failing to accommodate the employee.

Read more

Seventh Circuit: Obesity is a Disability Under the ADA Under Limited Circumstances

APPLIES TO

All Employers with IL, IN, and WI Employees

EFFECTIVE

June 12, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Richardson v. Chicago Transit Authority, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal stated that obesity would only be considered a disability under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) if the obesity is caused by a physiological disorder or condition.  This decision aligns the Seventh Circuit with the Second, Sixth, and Eighth Circuit courts.

Generally, employers covered by the ADA are required to provide disabled employees with reasonable accommodations that will allow the disabled person to perform the essential function of their job.  Richardson provides employers with guidance on how the ADA applies to obesity.  If an obese individual’s condition prevents them from performing essential job duties, or threatens the safety of others, employers may still need to engage in the interactive process to determine if the individual’s condition qualifies under the ADA or other state or local laws.

Action Items

  1. Review interactive process procedures for consistency with this ruling.
  2. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.

© 2019 ManagEase

Wisconsin: Supreme Court Ends Practice of Deferring to State Agency Interpretations of Law

APPLIES TO

All Employers with WI Employees

EFFECTIVE

June 26, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. DOR, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ended a longstanding practice of deferring to state administrative agencies’ interpretations of the laws the agencies enforce. Previously, Wisconsin state agencies were given “great weight deference” once certain conditions were met, preventing courts from adopting different interpretations of the law, even if the alternative interpretation was more “reasonable” than the interpretation enforced by the state agency.

Wisconsin: Disabled Employees Must Prove an Employer’s Knowledge or Intent to Discriminate

APPLIES TO

All Employers with WI Employees

EFFECTIVE

June 26, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. Labor and Industry Review Commission and Charles Carlson (Carlson), the Wisconsin Supreme Court stated that employees who claim disability discrimination must prove discriminatory intent or that the employer knew the employee’s misconduct or poor performance was caused by a disability.

There, Carlson suffered from bipolar I disorder and was disciplined for customer mistreatment and avoiding his job duties. While awaiting final discipline, he presented doctor letters regarding his disability. After a final warning was issued, Carlson again avoided his job duties and claimed he needed to leave work for illness, but did not specify his disorder. His computer activity during this time suggested he was not actually ill. Again, while awaiting final discipline, he presented doctor’s letters regarding his disability. Ultimately, Carlson was terminated for policy violations.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court stated that the employee must show that the employer’s decision at the time was based on its knowledge of a causal connection between the employee’s misconduct and the disability. The court stated that the doctor’s letters presented by Carlson did not notify the employer of a connection between his disability and his behavior at work, and therefore the discipline was not unlawful.

Action Items

  1. Employers are recommended to carefully review information submitted by employees who claim poor performance based on a disability.
  2. Employers are recommended to have legal counsel review proposed discipline against a disabled employee before implementation to ensure compliance with state and federal anti-discrimination laws.

Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.

© 2018 ManagEase

Seventh Circuit: ADEA Applies to Employees and Job Applicants

APPLIES TO

All Employers with IL, IN, and WI Employees

EFFECTIVE

April 26, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In a split from an Eleventh Circuit ruling last year, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently stated that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”) provides protections not only to current employees aged 40 or older, but to similarly situated job applicants as well.

Seventh Circuit: Defines Application of the Ministerial Exception in Discrimination Claims

APPLIES TO

All Employers with IL, IN, WI Employees

EFFECTIVE

February 13, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Miriam Grussgott v. Milwaukee Jewish Day School, Inc., the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal used a “totality of circumstances” approach to determine that a Hebrew teacher’s position was ministerial in nature, rendering her ineligible to pursue an employment discrimination claim under the Americans with Disability Act.

In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court used four factors to determine whether an employee’s role is ministerial: (1) formal job position title, (2) substance of the position based on the title, (3) the employee’s use of the title, and (4) the religious functions the employee performed for the religious institution. Here, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal used these factors to analyze the employee’s claim, and indicated that the factors must be reviewed under the totality of the circumstances. Specifically, although the employee’s job title of “Hebrew teacher” was not ministerial nor did she hold herself out as a religious leader, when looking at the totality of the circumstances, the court stated that the facts supporting the substance of the job title and her actual job functions outweighed those considerations.

The Seventh Circuit’s decision emphasizes the need to clearly communicate an employee’s job title, duties, and the organization’s expectations.

Action Items

  1. Have job descriptions reviewed for consistency with ministerial duties, if applicable.
  2. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.

© 2018 ManagEase

Wisconsin: Temporary Workers Can Now Sue Employers for Workplace Injuries

APPLIES TO

All Employers of WI Employees

EFFECTIVE

January 26, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In In Re the Estate of Carolos Esterley Cerrato Rivera v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Company, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals recently stated that a temporary worker could opt out of making a workers’ compensation claim under the Wisconsin Workers’ Compensation Act (the “Act), and bring a tort claim against the employer instead.

March Updates

APPLIES TO

Varies

EFFECTIVE

Varies

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

This Short List addresses the following topics:
  1. U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Rule on DACA Program
  2. Reminder: 2017 EEO-1 Filing Deadline March 31, 2018
  3. H1-B Visa: Filing Deadlines and New Requirements
  4. Federal Judge Blocks EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Background Checks
  5. Reminder: Massachusetts Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Effective April 1, 2018
  6. Wisconsin’s Non-Compete Rules Apply to Non-Solicitation Agreements

Read more

Wisconsin: Employee Non-Solicitation Agreements Must Be “Reasonable”

APPLIES TO

All Employers with WI Employees

EFFECTIVE

January 19, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Wisconsin, post-employment restrictive covenants must be “reasonable” to be enforced. In Manitowoc Company, Inc. v. Lanning, the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently stated that post-employment non-solicitation agreements must meet the same standard as other post-employment restrictive covenants (e.g., non-competition and non-disclosure agreements). Specifically, a “reasonable” non-solicitation agreement must be necessary for the protection of the employer, provide reasonable time and territorial limits, and not be oppressive to the employee or contrary to public policy.

Seventh Circuit: Additional Months of Leave after FMLA not a Reasonable Accommodation

APPLIES TO

All Employers of IL, IN, WI Employees

EFFECTIVE

September 20, 2017

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Employers may already know that certain types of leaves of absence may qualify as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  However, the Seventh Circuit recently confirmed that an employee’s request to take additional months of leave after exhausting his FMLA allotment was not a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.