Alabama never ceases to surprise.
On September 20, 2017, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision that a requested three month medical leave due to a disability was not a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. Although there is some discussion of the particular facts in the case, much to the delight of management-side attorneys like me, the case goes beyond saying that the leave was not reasonable in this particular circumstance.
Instead the Court noted that the ADA is not a medical leave statute. The Court held that an accommodation need only be granted under the ADA if it will help the employee work. Since an employee who needs leave cannot work, then they cannot be considered a qualified individual with a disability.
The Court does note that a brief leave of days or perhaps a few weeks, might, in some circumstances be a reasonable accommodation. But, and here’s the good part, “a medical leave spanning multiple months does not permit the employee to perform the essential functions of his job. To the contrary, the “[i]nability to work for a multi-month period removes a person from the class protected by the ADA.”
The subject of how long must an employer grant leave to a disabled employee is a common one. Often, it is the source of great frustration for employers. Although there is still no bright-line test as to just how much leave must be granted, this case certainly seems to limit that time to less than two months for employers within the Seventh Circuit.
Employers should still be cautious as many state and local laws that require reasonable accommodations for disabilities may not be interpreted in the same manner.
If you want to read more, the case is Severson v. Heartland Woodcraft Inc. 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18197.
The devastation in Texas is breathtakingly sad. Although the storm has passed, recovery efforts continue. For many, it will take months and years to recover.
Today I received my first call from a client asking about its obligations towards an employee who will be traveling to Texas to help with the recovery efforts. Many states do have laws that protect first responders from being disciplined or terminated for missing work while responding to an emergency.
New Jersey, for example, is one such state that has a law that provides that an employer cannot “terminate, dismiss or suspend an employee who fails to report for work at his place of employment because he is serving as a volunteer emergency responder during a state of emergency declared by the President of the United States or the Governor of this State.”
Under the New Jersey law, a volunteer emergency responder is defined as “an active member in good standing of a volunteer fire company, a volunteer member of a duly incorporated first aid, rescue or ambulance squad, or a member of any county or municipal volunteer Office of Emergency Management, provided the member’s official duties include responding to a fire or emergency call.”
In the last few days, President Trump has declared a state of emergency in Texas and Louisiana. As such any New Jersey volunteer emergency responder who is traveling to aid with the Hurricane Harvey recovery efforts may be entitled to leave.
The leave does not have to be paid. Employees may be able to use available or vacation days while out on leave, but cannot be forced to use such time.
The bad news for employers is that the law does not provide a limit on the amount of work that can be missed by the employee. Many other jurisdictions besides New Jersey provide similar protections. Employers with questions about first responder leave are encouraged to contact employment counsel.
For those wanting to help victims of Hurricane Harvey, Consumer Reports and the New York Times have written some helpful guidance on avoiding scams, as well as listing some charities that are in the best position to help.
A couple of weeks ago we asked whether the federal government would pass a paid family leave law. Although it is still unclear whether a federal law will pass, it is clear, for now, that there will not be an expansion of paid family leave in New Jersey.
Governor Christie vetoed legislation that would have expanded paid family leave. In his veto remarks, Governor Christie complained about the financial impact of the law.
The veto is conditional, meaning if the legislature approved a bill with Christie’s suggested changes, the law would pass. However, it is clear that the legislature would not make Christies’ suggested changes as they have complained that his changes would gut the law.
Included in President Trump’s 2018 budget proposal is a request for funding a paid leave program. The program would require $19 billion from the budget and would provide that employees were entitled to 6 weeks of paid leave from work.
So far, Republicans have not warmed to the idea.
Yesterday, at least 100 Democrats wrote a letter to President Trump also expressing concerns over the proposal. However, the Democrats are concerned that the proposal does not go far enough. Democrats are pushing for consideration of other Democrat-sponsored bills that would provide for 12 weeks’ paid leave, matching the FMLA leave entitlement.
At this stage, it really is too early to tell whether some form of paid family leave will wind up in the final budget or if it will become a casualty of the horse-trading that goes on when trying to reach a consensus on the budget.
We will be keeping an eye on this one.
Under the law, Arizona employers with less than 15 employees will have to provide up to 24 hours of paid sick leave. Employers with 15 or more employees will have to provide up to 40 hours of paid sick leave.
In anticipation of the law, the Arizona Industrial Commission has issued FAQs, which can be found here. The FAQs do make one significant change from the text of the law. The FAQs do make clear that when counting employees for purposes of determining how much leave is to be offered, employers need only count employees working in Arizona. Don’t get too excited. This could change as the Commission itself notes that there might be further legislative guidance on this issue.
Arizona’s law, like many others, contains a no retaliation provision. However, this provision should give employers pause. Under the law, if any adverse action is taken against an employee within 90 days of them using sick leave, there is a presumption that adverse action was retaliatory. Employers will then bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the action was for a legitimate purpose.
Employers should tread carefully before disciplining any employee who has recently used sick leave.
Catherine Savio writes:
On May 31, 2017, the Second Circuit seemingly broadened the scope of liability under a New York state anti-discrimination law by holding that non-employer third parties can be held liable for violating rules regarding the use of a job applicant’s criminal history records in hiring processes.
The plaintiffs in Griffin v. Sirva Inc., No. 15-307 (2d. Cir. 2017), were employed by Astro Moving and Storage Company, a New York-based moving company. Astro is a contractor for the nationwide moving company Allied Vans Incorporated. Allied prohibited the companies with which it contracted from employing individuals if they had ever been convicted of a sexual offense.
In 2011, Astro terminated the plaintiffs’ employment following a background check that revealed plaintiffs’ prior convictions for sexual offenses. In Griffin, the plaintiffs brought claims against Allied, a third-party contractor by whom they were not directly employed, under the New York State Human Rights Laws (“NYSHRL”) for violations of NYSHRL’s limitations on the use of criminal background checks in hiring decisions.
The United State District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the claims brought against Allied, holding that the NYSHRL criminal conviction ban only applies to employers. On appeal, the Second Circuit overturned the lower-court’s decision, holding that NYSHRL covers entities other than those who directly employ the workers, including third-party contractors. The court cited a four-part test from a 1985 fourth department decision, State Div. of Human Rights v. GTE Corp., 109 A.D.2d 1082 (4th Dep’t 1985), noting that the power to control a worker’s performance is the most important factor in determining whether or not an entity is acting as a workers “employer” for NYSHRL purposes. The Court remanded the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York to determine whether or not Allied qualified as an employer for NYSHRL liability purposes.
Catherine Savio is an associate in the firm’s Litigation Department, resident in its New York office.
A notable case caught our eye recently coming out of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Namely, The EEOC sued CRST International, Inc. (“CRST”) claiming that it, among other things, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by failing to accommodate and retaliating against a prospective truck driver.
The new driver allegedly requested the use of a prescribed emotional support animal to mitigate post-traumatic stress and mood disorder. CRST purportedly told the new driver simply to leave his dog at home and refused to provide an accommodation, citing unbendable company policies, and effectively rescinded his employment offer. Unfortunately, usually these policies must bend, or at the very least the possibility explored.
While the CRST case is in its early stages, and no court decisions have yet been issued, this complaint serves as a great illustration of just how far reaching the disability discrimination laws are. Here many employers would scoff or summarily dismiss the seemingly unworkable request of having a service animal in a trucking business. However, the CRST complaint reminds us of the potential disability accommodations that employers must consider and make. Regardless of the nature of the requested accommodation, the employer is, at the very least, required to engage in the interactive process with the employee and determine what, if any, reasonable accommodations can be made. Otherwise, you may end up on the wrong side of an EEOC lawsuit alleging ADA retaliation and failure to accommodate.
Please remember that when an employee or prospective employee requests a workplace disability accommodation in order to perform his or her job, an employer generally must consider the accommodation and, if it can be implemented without undue hardship, it must be granted. Anytime an accommodation request is received, never dismiss the request out-of-hand. Make sure to talk to your in-house human resources department or legal department, or involve outside counsel if necessary, to determine your legal obligations. Also, note that your state or local laws may provide additional protections beyond the ADA.
Today’s post comes to us courtesy of Justin Schwam, an associate in the Labor and Employment Department in Roseland:
With the trend of local paid sick leave ordinances continuing its progressive sweep in cities across the country, a consistent concern for companies located in the vicinity is whether their operations fall within the local law’s reach. Does it only apply if the company is physically located in the city? Or does any employee activity within the city trigger the often onerous recordkeeping obligations?
A few weeks ago, a Minneapolis judge limited the reach of the City’s law slated to go into effect later this year. Judge Dickstein issued a temporary injunction against the enforcement of its Ordinance against businesses not physically located in the City. Although the City argued that its exclusive enforcement authority meant that it would not apply the Ordinance against businesses outside the City, the court recognized that such assurances, “however sincere,” did not alter the Ordinance’s plain language.
The court’s analysis of this issue is also notable for its dissection of the City’s argument that its action was a permissible exercise of its police powers to protect the health and welfare of residents. The court found that the City’s attempt to regulate extraterritorial businesses whose employees “are unlikely (or may never) enter the city while sick” was not a narrowly tailored means of addressing “identifiable harms within the city limits,” such as a rule governing the inspection of extra-territorial cows whose milk was sold within the city. Because a prime justification for these local ordinances is typically the need to protect residents from the spread of contagion, the court’s refusal to accept policymakers’ assumptions that ill workers would use the sick leave benefit to “protect against potential harm” is significant.
Although the injunction ultimately may be lifted, or the ordinance amended – it’s not scheduled to take effect until July 1, 2017 – employers not located in Minneapolis are breathing a sigh of relief. For now, employees who occasionally travel to Minneapolis will not be entitled to accrue sick leave under the law.
As local action on this issue will no doubt continue to pick-up steam, since more state governments are looking at measures to prevent municipal action than are moving to enact state-wide measures, it will be interesting to see how cases like this one influence future legal challenges and how future paid sick leave laws are drafted. We will keep an eye out and report back on any developments.
The end of the year, that is. Although given the number of celebrity deaths in the last week, I think some people might be reading that headline a little more broadly. We are not making doomsday predictions, however.
Back in the fall, we started a list of employment laws that were going to go into effect in January 2017. We tried to get a jump start on the list as we knew how quickly the end of the year can creep up on you. How right we were as the Fall flew past and now we find ourselves just days away from the New Year without having updated the list.
Our first big update is to remind everyone that the FLSA salary test has been enjoined. The other big changes have to do with sick leave laws. The last few years have seen a lot of jurisdictions adopting sick leave laws. This year is no exception. The sick leave laws going into effect in January 2017 are as follows:
- Executive Order 13706 — Back in September, President Obama issued an Executive Order that applies to federal contracts entered into, sent out for bid, or renewed after 1/1/17. The EO requires that contractors provide up to a maximum of 56 hours paid sick leave per year. The DOL has issued guidance for the Final Rule, which can be found here.
- Morristown, New Jersey becomes the latest New Jersey municipality to have a paid sick leave law. The law goes into effect on 1/11/17 and requires employers with 10 or more employees to provide up to 40 hours of paid sick leave. Employers with less than 10 employees are not exempt from the law; they only have to provide 24 hours of sick leave.
- Vermont – The law applies to employers with 6 or more employees and goes into effect on 1/1/17. This law does have two phase-in provisions. For employers with less than 6 employees, the law will not be effective until 1/1/18. For other employers, in the first year, they must only provide up to 24 hours of sick leave. After the first year, employers must provide up to 40 hours of sick leave.
- Spokane, Washington – This law is also effective as of 1/1/17 and is similar to Morristown’s law in that there are different requirements for employers with 10 or more employees and less than 10 employees. Employers with 10 or more employees must provide up to 40 hours of paid sick leave while employers with less than 10 employees must provide up to 24 hours of sick leave.
The laws will not only require a review of policies to insure that employees are being provided with sick leave, they also come with record keeping requirements and notice requirements. Employers with questions are encouraged to seek the advice of employment counsel.