January 20, 2014

Transferring Employees Just Got More Complicated

Last week in Deleon v. Kalamazoo County Road Commission, No. 12-2377, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the question of whether an “adverse” employment action exists if an employee is transferred to a position he applied and interviewed for.  In this case, Deleon, a fifty-three year old Hispanic male was employed by the Kalamazoo County Road Commission (“the Commission”) for twenty eight years and beginning in 1996 served as an “Area Superintendent.”  In 2008, a vacancy arose for the position of “Equipment and Facilities Superintendent.”

December 23, 2013

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals weighs in on position descriptions and the ADA

If you have been to one of Clemans Nelson’s seminars on the fundamentals of a sound H.R. system you have heard Brian Butcher or Michael Esposito say, “the two key parts of any sound H.R. system are (1) your job descriptions and (2) your policy manual.”  Without these documents the employer will inevitably find itself in an undesirable position.  “What exactly is an ‘undesirable position’?”, employers may ask. 

December 9, 2013

Unemployment Compensation and Probationary Employee Removals

Ohio is an at-will employment State.  This means, employees can be terminated for any reason or no reason at all.  There are three caveats to that rule.  First, employers can’t take adverse employment actions against their employees for discriminatory reasons (e.g. race, color, religion, national origin, age, gender, military status, etc.).  Second, if the employer is in the public sector, adverse employment actions are often restricted by statute.

July 5, 2013

Health Care Law’s Employer Mandate Delayed Until 2015

On July 2, 2013, Mark J. Mazur, the assistant secretary for tax policy at the U.S. Treasury Department, announced a one-year delay, until January 1, 2015, in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandate that employers with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees provide health care coverage to their full-time employees or pay steep penalities.

April 1, 2012

Jury grants EEOC award of $240 Million for disability discrimination.

Jury grants EEOC award of $240 Million for disability discrimination. In a particularly egregious set of facts, the jury determined that the Company had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by creating a hostile environment and imposing discriminatory conditions of employment, and acted with “malice or reckless indifference” to their civil rights.