If your workplace is one where banter between co-workers occurs (and most workplaces fit this description), consider implementing a new manager training where this — as well as the myriad other — supervisory rules are emphasized.

Employers should note that the ADA does not require employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees who associate with a person with a disability.  However, such employees should be treated the same as other employees.  In addition, employers must provide such employees with the same access to health insurance coverage as other employees.  Again, though, additional coverage is not required.

Spees sued for pregnancy and disability discrimination, due to her transfer and subsequent termination.  The lower court granted the employer summary judgment on all counts.  While the Sixth Circuit upheld the grant of summary judgment with respect to the termination (based on leave exhaustion), it held Spees had viable claims relating to her transfer.  First, the supervisor’s statement that “common sense” trumped  Spees’s medical clearance to return to work was impermissible.  Further, it appeared the employer may have “regarded Spees as” disabled, due to her prior pregnancy complications.     

Make sure supervisors understand the rules when it comes to working with pregnant employees.  Even the benevolent employer who is trying to keep its employees safe can run afoul of the law.

The court will almost certainly hold that such time constitutes “hours worked” and thus needs to be compensated.  A more interesting question, though, is what the proactive employer should do now.  Under the statute, if an employee claims he worked X hours worth of overtime, it is incumbent upon the employer to disprove the claim or be stuck with the employee’s estimate.  Accordingly, employers should consider ways to accurately track time their employees spend on PDAs and the like.  One simple solution would be to create a form for employees to track their time and have supervisors review and approve it.  In any event, the issue is one employers should be giving some thought to.

Gipson subsequently sued for interference with his FMLA rights.  At issue was whether Gipson provided his employer with sufficient notice of his need for FMLA leave.  The lower court held, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed, that he did not.  Gipson underwent triple bypass surgery two years prior to his termination.  He was afforded FMLA leave at that time.  However, at the time of his firing, he never mentioned that his heart was acting up, or that he needed leave related to his condition.  Complaining of a headache was insufficient, as a matter of law.

So what constitutes adequate notice under the FMLA?  Employees do not specifically have to mention the FMLA when requesting leave, to trigger their rights under the statute.  But they must provide enough information to put a reasonable supervisor on notice that they are suffering from a serious health condition.  Simply complaining of not feeling well or having a headache will not be enough.

The duty to accommodate religious beliefs is a serious one, and often carries the day in religious discrimination lawsuits.  This case highlights the major exception employers can rely on: safety.

The case arose out of a failure to promote two African-American employees at a Tyson chicken plant in Alabama.  Two whites were promoted instead, and there was evidence that the decision-maker referred to the plaintiffs by stating “boy” during the promotional process.  Regardless of the plaintiffs’ loss, it is still the case that racially charged terms such as “boy” — particularly given certain historical and geographical contexts — can evince discrimination.  

Why did the article upset me?  And, more importantly, what does this have to do with you?  It is beyond dispute that President Obama is Christian, always has been, and always will be.  The fact that so many still do not know this, or are so easily misled by false information, is alarming. Even more striking to me, though, is that people care about his religion.  ”Muslim” has become almost a dirty word, and this should concern every employer, regardless of your political or religious leanings.  When prejudice becomes socially acceptable, it is all the more likely to spill into the workplace.  However, it is just as illegal as any other type of prejudice, such as stereotypes based on race or gender.

There was a sharp increase in religious/national origin discrimination claims after 9/11.  The EEOC went after them just as hard as any other type of claim.  Make sure to include this type of potential discrimination in your supervisory training, and stay on the lookout for brewing problems.

A number of factors distinguished the male employee from the plaintiff.  First, whereas the plaintiff had been written up for numerous safety violations, the male had only the one.  Second, they had different supervisors and decision-makers.  Finally, the male employee’s violation resulted, at least in part, from faulty information he had received from another employee.  Accordingly, the court held Corell failed to establish even a prima facie case of sex discrimination.

It is noteworthy that the employer in this case had solid documentation of its termination decision, as well as its decision to treat the male employee more favorably.  Make sure supervisors know how to document, and to do so thoroughly.  Their seemingly mundane jottings could someday be “Exhibit A.”