Business & Employment Law Attorney
866-693-5541 | 303-424-4286

Posts tagged "current events"

Do Anxiety and Depression Qualify as Disabilities Under the Law?

Ms. DeGerolamo began working for her employer as a Marketing Coordinator in November 2007. Ms. DeGerolamo took a leave of absence in August 2012 for anxiety and insomnia under the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), alleging that she suffered from "great anxiety and depression" which was especially aggravated by crowded roadways experienced during the heavy traffic of rush hour.

Is Sexual Orientation Discrimination Legal?

Ms. Flood was a customer service employee at a Bank's 24-hour call center in Maine from July 24, 2006, through October 1, 2010. In March 2009, Ms. Flood met a woman named Keri who cleaned at the call center where Ms. Flood worked. The pair began dating in October 2009 and would frequently spend their break time together. In April 2010, Ms. Flood was at a bank social event and was sitting at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender ("LGBT") table. Ms. Flood's supervisor, Ms. Castle, approached the table and saw a photo of Ms. Flood embracing her girlfriend at a local bar. Ms. Castle appeared shocked and quickly walked away. After seeing the photo, Ms. Castle contacted the LGBT table's sponsor and complained that the picture was offensive because it depicted alcohol; the sponsor then removed the photo from the premises.

Does the Employer or the Employer Pay for Unemployment Benefits?

I was recently volunteering and a man came in with a legal question about unemployment benefits. His wife had been denied her benefits after working at the same company for twenty (20) years. The gentleman wanted to know how the company could deny her money since she'd been "paying into unemployment for twenty years." This prospective client's misconception is very common. While some states require an employee to pay for unemployment; in Colorado, it is illegal to require an employee to pay into an unemployment benefits fund.

Can Forcing an Employee to Use Technology Violate Their Religious Freedom?

In 2012, Consolidation Coal Company installed an attendance tracking system for payroll purposes at a mine in West Virginia. The system was a biometric hand scanner that creates and stores electronic information about an individual's hand geometry for purposes of future identification. Mr. Butcher, an evangelical Christian, who had worked at the mine for thirty-five (35) years, stated that his religious beliefs prohibited him from submitting to the scanning and requested a religious accommodation. Mr. Butcher gave his manager a letter explaining his beliefs about the relationship between hand scanning technology and the Mark of the Beast. As discussed in the Book of Revelation, the Bible describes, "a beast that has authority on earth during end times and forces all people, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads." (Rev. 13:16-17). Some Christians believe that technology will be used to implement the mark. Mr. Butcher proposed that the mine allow him to continue submitting his time and attendance manually as he had previously done, or that he be permitted to clock in and out with his supervisor.

Are Forum Selection Clauses Enforceable?

Our office has received a number of calls from employees of Colorado companies who are currently working overseas. Their employment, and litigating legal issues arising in their employment, raises interesting questions of venue, jurisdiction, and conflict of law. For example, an employee may live in New Jersey and work in Afghanistan for a company based in Colorado. These cases present a conflict of laws question because it is unclear which state, or even which countries', laws should apply to the employment dispute. Similarly, some employment agreements contain a forum selection clause that requires the employee to bring a lawsuit in a different state or even a different country than where the individual resides.

Are Public Employees Who Are Accused of Sexual Harassment Entitled to a Hearing?

In 2011, Denver's newly elected Mayor, Michael Hancock, asked Mr. McDonald to work for the City of Denver. Mayor Hancock orally promised Mr. McDonald employment for the duration of his term or terms of office. Mr. McDonald accepted and began working for the City on July 18, 2011, as Executive Advisor to the Mayor, Special Projects Manager. On March 8, 2012, Mr. McDonald was reassigned to work in the Department of Excise and Licenses as Executive Advisor to the Mayor, Manager of External Affairs. Ms. Wise was employed by the City of Denver as a police officer. Shortly after Mayor Hancock was elected, Ms. Wise began to serve on his security detail. Mr. McDonald interacted with Ms. Wise when he traveled with Mayor Hancock around Denver. Between September 2011 and March 2012, Ms. Wise telephoned Mr. McDonald on his personal cell phone at least forty-one (41) times, before and after work hours and occasionally recorded their calls. The pair exchanged Christmas gifts, attended church together, and Ms. Wise met Mr. McDonald's family. The last time they spoke was on March 14, 2012. On May 18, 2012, Mr. McDonald was informed that Ms. Wise had filed sexual harassment charges against him. On May 21, 2012, Mr. McDonald was informed that he could either resign or be fired due to Ms. Wise's allegations. Mr. McDonald requested an investigation and opportunity to defend himself against the accusations. Mr. McDonald's request was denied; he was not provided a hearing and the City fired him on the spot.

Can Employer Sponsored Wellness Programs Require Medical Testing

Nearly two-thirds of smaller companies, with 199 workers or less, and a vast majority with companies of 200 or more workers have employee workplace "wellness programs." As part of that benefit, employees may earn a discount on gym memberships; have access to weight loss or smoking cessation programs or other informational and healthy lifestyle resources. The mission of these programs is certainly worthwhile; but there are some aspects that may be illegal. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") has filed lawsuits against two (2) companies in late 2014, claiming some wellness programs, which included non-voluntary medical exams and non-job-related lifestyle inquiries, may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

Can an Employer Refuse to Hire the Unemployed?

I recently had a consultation with an executive recruiter who stated that he recommended a specific worker to one of his corporate clients. However, after numerous interviews, the company decided not to hire this particular worker, simply because she was unemployed. Discrimination against the unemployed is rampant. Certain employers will not consider applicants who have been unemployed for more than six (6) months; while other jobs ads explicitly require applicants to be "currently employed," at the time of application. As of today, only Washington D.C. has a law making it illegal to discriminate against the unemployed. Oregon and New Jersey currently ban discriminatory language in job listings but not the practice of excluding unemployed applicants. Several other states are considering legislation on similar measures; including allowing unsuccessful applicants to sue under the same discrimination laws that apply to race or gender bias. However, it is unclear whether state laws would have much impact. New Jersey's law has been in place since 2011, and to date only one company has been cited for violations. As part of the ill-fated American Jobs Act in 2011, President Obama proposed banning job ads that discourage the unemployed and giving spurned job-seekers a way to file claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The Bill, however, did not make it through Congress. In Colorado, a House Bill forbidding employers from stating in job postings that unemployed candidates would not be considered was struck down in 2012.

What is the Family Care Act and How Does it Work with FMLA?

While civil unions and domestic partnerships are not federally recognized, new Colorado legislation expands the available types of leave for those employees in a civil union or unmarried relationship. In March 2013, Colorado passed the Colorado Civil Union Act, which authorizes any two unmarried adults, regardless of gender, to enter into a civil union. A "civil union" means a relationship established by two eligible persons that entitles them to receive the benefits and protections and be subject to the responsibilities of "spouses." As it relates to employment, these "benefits and protections" generally include worker's compensation survivor benefits, protection from discrimination based on marital status and unemployment benefits. The federal laws do not provide protections or benefits to domestic partnerships or civil unions, and couples who have entered into a civil union in Colorado are not eligible for federal spousal benefits like those arising under the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") or Employment Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA.")

Is an Employer Required to Allow Lactation Breaks?

In Colorado, the Workplace Accommodations for Nursing Mothers Act of 2008 ("Colorado Nursing Mothers Act") requires public and private employers who have one or more employees to provide reasonable, unpaid break time or permit an employee to use paid break time, meal time, or both, each day to allow the employee to express breast milk for her nursing child for up to two (2) years after the child's birth. An employer shall make reasonable efforts to provide a room or other location in close proximity to the work area, other than a toilet seat, where an employee can express breast milk in privacy. Reasonable efforts mean any effort that would not impose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer's business. Undue hardship means any action that requires significant difficulty or expense when considered in relation to factors such as the size of the business, the financial resources of the business, or the nature and structure of its operation, including consideration of the special circumstances of public safety. Before an employee may seek litigation for a violation of this section, there shall be nonbinding mediation between the employer and the employee.