Employers who investigate workers’ criminal or credit backgrounds may want to review federal guidelines released Mar. 10.
Way back on October 1, 2012 we titled a post “EEOC Making An Example Of Health Care Industry As ADA Violators.” Since then we have written innumerable posts in which we have detected a pattern of the EEOC’s targeting of health care facilities and providers for violating the ADA, and have even characterized these cases as: “low hanging fruit,” and “shooting fish in a barrel.”
We have often written that tattoos, certain headwear or other garb, and grooming habits, are not per se covered by Title VII.
Over the past year, the EEOC has been under fire for its failure to conciliate with employers before filing a case in federal court.
The EEOC has filed suit against the CVS pharmacy chain for ostensibly using “an overly broad severance agreement set forth in five pages of small print.
You’ve found yourself in an EEOC mediation, with a charge that should not be particularly worrisome. But now, your supposedly neutral mediator is shaking his head and reporting that you can almost certainly expect to be sued by the EEOC if you don’t pay up and settle this now.
It is common practice for employers in the process of terminating employees to present separation agreements that offer the employees severance benefits in exchange for a general release of claims.
“Low hanging fruit.” Like “shooting fish in a barrel.” Call it what you will, but “’shooting fish in a barrel’ is our way of describing the EEOC’s clear targeting of heath care providers for disability discrimination claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”).”
No matter what position the EEOC might take, I’ll always take the position that an employee’sregular, reliable attendance is an essential function of the job.