Posted on May 13th, 2009 by Randy Enochs | No Comments »
Filed under: ., Discrimination, Employee Benefits, HR Issues | 
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently opined that “an employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it required employees to undertake a health risk assessment (“HRA”) as a condition of participating in the employer’s group health plan.” The case the EEOC based its informal opinion letter on involved a county that had implemented an HRA which included answering a short health-related questionnaire, taking a blood pressure test, and providing blood for use in a blood panel screen. Employees declining to participate in the program (and members of their families) were ineligible for coverage under the employer’s self-funded health plan.
The EEOC, in forming their opinion, distinguished between disability-related inquiries and medical examinations that are job-related and consistent with business necessity and voluntary wellness programs:
[O]nce employment begins, an employer may make disability-related inquiries and require medical examinations only if they are job-related and consistent with business necessity. The EEOC determined that requiring all employees to take this HRA that includes disability-related inquiries and medical examinations as a prerequisite for obtaining group health coverage does not appear to be job-related and consistent with business necessity, and therefore it would violate the ADA. …
A wellness program is considered voluntary only if employees are not required to participate and are not penalized for non-participation. With regard to the HRA, an employee’s decision not to participate resulted in the loss of the opportunity to obtain health coverage through the employer’s plan. Thus, even if the HRA could be considered part of such a wellness program, the program would not be voluntary because individuals who do not participate in the assessment are denied a benefit (i.e., they are penalized for non-participation).
Posted on May 13th, 2009 by Tim Eavenson | 1 Comment »
Filed under: ., Discrimination, HR Issues |
In the early days, Current Employment focused much of its attention on a stream of bizarre employment lawsuits and news stories that we’d constantly stumble across. (See, e.g., here, here and here.)
In fact, one of the chief inspirations for this blog was Gary Skoning‘s annual “Wacky Employment Cases” reports published in the National Law Journal.
For months, though, we’ve been busy with important legislation and constant economic changes that required seriousness and professionalism. That, and we had a complete lack of content. I can’t remember the last time a wacky story crossed my desk, and I was honestly starting to worry.
Then the ABA Journal drops a bomb like this:
The federal agency in charge of enforcing anti-discrimination laws has taken up the cause of a Texas strip club waitress allegedly illegally fired due to her age.
Some stories just write themselves.
According to the Houston Chronicle story cited by the Journal, 56-year-old Mary Brassi had worked for AHD Houston, which owned 5 area strip clubs (an impressive amount for any city), since 1993. She was earning near six figures waiting tables at a club called Cover Girls. She was popular with the customers. She sold a lot of drinks. But for all her success, according to the EEOC, she got called “old” by her bosses, and teased about menopause and Alzheimer’s. Then the club started bringing in “younger women” and giving them the prime shifts.
And then in 2006, they let her go. Just like that. Imagine – a 15-year veteran of the Houston live adult entertainment community, tossed out into the blaring sun and uncomfortable gravel parking lot like a best man who got too “handsy”. Wondering if she’d get to serve $13 bottles of beer to distracted drunk guys with expense accounts ever again.
Refusing to go down quietly, Brassi brought her case to the EEOC and the agency investigated. Last week, they filed suit on her behalf. And this, of course, is the moral of the story: it doesn’t matter who you are, or what your job is; you can always go to the EEOC for help. And it doesn’t matter what sort of business you’re in; if you employ people, the EEOC can always come knocking. That’s their job, after all.
Although, if recent events are any indication, the EEOC may be superseded by karma this time around. According to the Chronicle, Brassi (now 59) is waiting tables for a competitor.
As for Cover Girls? Burned to the ground. In 2007.
Posted on March 27th, 2008 by Tim Eavenson | No Comments »
Filed under: Uncategorized |
Today’s WSJ (HT – Workplace Prof Blog)is reporting that the number of Pregnancy-related claims filed at the EEOC jumped 14% last year, and are up 40% from 10 years ago.
My original assumption that there must be 40% more babies being born was apparently false. The article attributes the rise in claims to “both changing demographics and a new activism among mothers,” but points out that claims are also high because working women don’t exactly understand how they are protected:
[E]ven now, 30 years after passage of the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act, there is still confusion about what protections it provides. “I thought we were protected,” said an advertising executive during a recent gathering of 100 working mothers. “Then I find out we can be fired while we’re pregnant, employers can refuse to hire us — what exactly are our rights?”
Ok, if the law said you couldn’t get fired while you were pregnant, or that somebody had to hire you, that 40% jump wouldn’t have been such a funny joke (if it ever was to begin with). Of course you can get fired. If you suck at your job, you can always get fired. Well, almost.
You just can’t get fired on account of the little Biff or Jilly or Pilot Inspektor you’ve got in there. And thank God for that. So, a 14% jump based on more empowered women is ok. I think most of us are a little tired of the race/sex/national origin merry-go-round.
Let’s do pregnancy for a little while and wait for the inevitable spike in religion cases next year…
