Tag Archives: EEOC

Three Clues Your Employer Doesn’t Want You To Return To Work After An Injury

Posted on by

Apologists for Thought leaders in the workers compensation insurance industry like to tout how they want injured employees to “return to work.”  But insurance industry rhetoric about the importance of return to work is belied by at least three common scenarios involving employees with serious work injuries.

  1. Employer requires an employee to resign in order to receive a lump sum settlement for their workers compensation claim: Early on in my career a defense lawyer told me that his client “Didn’t want their employees driving to the plant in an Escalade (this was the mid-2000s) after they settled their workers compensation case.” Putting aside the absurdity of someone who earns wages that would make their kids eligible for free or reduced lunch buying a luxury SUV after they had been off of work for an extended length of time, this practice indicates that some employers really don’t want injured workers to return to work after an injury.A recent discussion over the WILG listserv indicated that resignation as a condition of a workers compensation case settlement was a common practice across the United States. An agreement to resign normally comes as a separate severance agreement. Those settlement agreements may not be binding if an employer doesn’t include the right language in the release which is why an injured worker would want to consult with an employment lawyer or have a lawyer familiar with employment law and workers compensation represent them in their work injury.

    Certain states, like Massachusetts, outlaw the practice of conditioning a settlement on resignation. Even in states where the practice is considered lawful lawyers may consider challenging such practices on the basis of anti-retaliation laws, unfair claims practice laws or causes of action that prevent interference with contractual relationships.

  2. Employer requires employee to return to work with “no restrictions”. 100 percent healed policies are considered to violate the Americans with Disabilities Act by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and by some intermediate level federal appellate courts. Regardless of whether the Supreme Court or Congress ultimately decide such policies are illegal, oftentimes a person with an injury that requires surgery and time off from work is going to have some permanent restrictions.Many times requests that an employee return to work without restrictions are sent after an employee exhausts their 12 weeks of FMLA. Oftentimes employers will extend a short amount of unpaid leave in addition to FMLA. When injured employees receive these letters many of them feel like their company is trying to push them out. This feeling can sometimes be correct. That’s why it is helpful to have an attorney who knows how workers compensation and employment laws intersect.
  3. Employer suggests that employee apply for private disability for a work injury: Private short-term (STD) and long-term disability (LTD) policies can be helpful to employees. Some policies even allow employees to collect both LTD and STD with workers compensation benefits.But some employers will push employee onto disability because it is cheaper than paying workers compensation benefits. Even more insidiously if an employee stays off work long enough that they are eligible for long term disability, some long-term disability policies require that employees apply for social security disability or SSDI in order to continue receiving LTD. Many of these policies hold if an employee receives SSDI they need to payback the LTD insurance company for the time that SSDI and LTD benefits overlapped.

    I ran into a policy like this representing a client in a disability discrimination case. Courts have questioned the legality of these policies as well. If you are stuck in a situation where you are applying for long term disability because of a work injury and being forced to apply for SSDI, you should consult with a lawyer who is familiar with workers compensation and SSDI.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in employment law and tagged , , , , , , , , , , .

Gorsuch, Chevron and Workplace Law

Posted on by
Judge Gorsuch

Judge Gorsuch

Employers and their attorneys are widely hailing President Trump’s nomination of 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court. Part of the reason that management-side lawyers are praising Gorsuch is his position on Chevron deference. Gorsuch’s views on Chevron could affect how workplace laws are interpreted and how they apply to workers.

Chevron deference is a legal rule that a court will give the benefit of the doubt about the interpretation of the law to how the executive agency charged with enforcing that law understands the law. Gorsuch has criticized Chevron on separation of powers basis, stating that Chevron deference gives too much power to the executive branch at the expense of the legislative and judiciary branches. Recently, government agencies have been interpreting employment laws in a way that is more favorable toward employees. Recent rules issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act are a prime example.

Many workers who get hurt on the job are told that they must come back to work with no restrictions. Chevron deference could be a powerful legal tool for workers faced with such policies. The new EEOC regulations on the ADA outlaw 100-percent-healed policies or policies that require plaintiffs to return to work without restrictions. In the EEOC guidance on the issue, the EEOC cites Kaufman v. Peterson Health Care VII, LLC 769 F. 3d 958 (7th Cir. 2014) as an example of policies that they believe to be unlawful under ADAAA. This case represents a subtle but real shift from current 8th Circuit law as stated in Fjellestad v. Pizza Hut of America, 188 F. 3d 949, 951-952 (8th Cir. 1999) where the 8th Circuit joined other federal circuits that held that failure to engage in an interactive process in accommodating a disability was not per se discrimination, and that there was no duty to engage in the interactive process. The EEOC’s interpretations of the new regulations still require that a plaintiff be able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation.

But as indicated by Kaufman, courts may be less likely to dismiss cases before trial, or in legal terminology, to grant summary judgment, on the issue of whether a plaintiff could perform the essential functions of the job with or without accommodation if the defendant does not engage in an interactive process or summarily decides that an employee should not be allowed to return without restrictions.

The fact that there is a split between regional appellate courts, a so-called circuit split, over “100 percent healed” policies increases the chances that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether 100-percent-healed policies violate the ADA. Another issue where there is a circuit split that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide is the legality of mandatory arbitration clauses in employment agreements.

Many workers unwittingly give up their rights to have employment-law disputes heard in court when they agree to mandatory arbitration clauses as a term of employment. In D.R. Horton Inc., 357 N.L.B. No 184 (2012) the National Labor Relations Board ruled that mandatory arbitration clauses prohibited Fair Labor Standards Act collective action cases because they interfered with protected concerted activity under 29 U.S.C. §157 and 29 U.S.C. § 158. In Lewis v. Epic Systems, 823 F. 3d 1147, 1154 (7th Cir. 2016), the 7th Circuit struck down a mandatory arbitration clause partly based on giving Chevron deference to the NLRB’s decision in D.R. Horton. The 9th Circuit agreed with the 7th Circuit in Morris v. Ernst and Young, LLP, No 13-16599 (Aug. 22, 2016). Unfortunately for plaintiffs, the 8th Circuit disagreed with the D.R. Horton decision in Owen v. Bristol Care, 702 F. 3d 1050 (8th Cir. 2013).

If confirmed, Gorsuch would be unlikely to give much weight to the opinions of the EEOC or NLRB in interpreting employment laws. Chevron deference is an unpopular concept with pro-business conservatives. Recently, the GOP-controlled House of Representatives passed legislation that, if enacted, would abolish Chevron deference.

Conversely, Chevron deference is a popular concept with progressive employee and civil-rights advocates, as it allowed the Obama administration to expand employee protections in the face of a hostile Congress. But with the advent of the Trump administration and his immigration policies, progressives have a newfound appreciation for separation of powers.

Also, employee advocates probably will not like many of the new rules and regulations issued by Trump appointees such as Labor Secretary nominee Larry Puzder. A prospective abolition of Chevron could be helpful to challenging rules made by a Trump administration. An example from the last Republican administration is instructive. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court in Long Island Care at Home Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158 (2007) gave Chevron deference to Bush administration rules to exclude home health aides from coverage under the FLSA. It was nine years later that the rule was overturned, giving Chevron deference to Obama administration rules regarding home health aides and the FLSA.

How Gays and Lesbians Can Protect Their Civil Rights in the Workplace, Part 1

Posted on by

The recent Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage marks a major expansion of civil rights in this country. The decision will also give some additional legal protections to gay, lesbian and transgender individuals in the workplace. In the wake of the decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that sexual orientation is covered by federal anti-discrimination laws. So what do these developments mean, and how can gay and lesbian individuals protect their newly won civil rights?

What does the EEOC ruling mean to gays and lesbians in the workplace?

The EEOC ruling means that the EEOC will investigate charges of sexual-orientation discrimination. This is important because filing a charge with the EEOC or a fair-employment agency is a requirement for filing a lawsuit. To file with the EEOC, an employee must file within 180 days of the last act of discrimination. They may have longer if a state or local law recognizes that type of discrimination and has a longer time for filing. In a state like Nebraska, where sexual orientation isn’t recognized by our anti-discrimination laws, it is a much safer route to file with the EEOC within 180 days. Check with your state or local equal-opportunity commission to see if they will also file your charge with the EEOC, even if they don’t recognize sexual orientation as a class. Again, beware of deadlines. Nebraska normally allows 300 days for a charge of discrimination, but it is safer to assume you only have 180 days to file a charge based on sexual orientation. Remember that filing a charge means that an investigator has written out your charge and that you have signed and notarized the charge. This takes time, so if you want to file a discrimination charge, you need to move quickly.

What does the same-sex marriage decision mean for gays and lesbians in the workplace?

The decision should grant anti-discrimination protections in the workplace to gays and lesbians in same-sex marriages based on the family status under Title VII and likely under similar state and local laws. The decision doesn’t change the fact that many federal courts hold that discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgender individuals is a form of unlawful sex discrimination. If your sexual-orientation discrimination decision involves your marital status, be sure to add that into your charge. If you are past the 180-day EEOC deadline, you may be able to still meet a longer state deadline. The same could also be said of filing a sexual-orientation discrimination complaint as a sex- or gender-discrimination complaint.

What the Supreme Court and EEOC decisions don’t mean

Ultimately gays, lesbians and transgender individuals will only get the full protections of anti-discrimination laws in the workplace when either courts and or legislative bodies explicitly expand those protections to them. The Obergefell decision didn’t do that. The EEOC doesn’t make law, and its interpretations of the law aren’t binding like those of a court decision. Furthermore, federal courts are giving increasingly less deference to the opinions of agencies like the EEOC and increasingly willing to second guess how the EEOC operates. Unless you live in the District of Columbia or one of the 22 states, such as Iowa, or a city such as Omaha that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace, then your road to the courthouse in a discrimination claim is unclear. However, in states like Nebraska that don’t explicitly ban sexual-orientation discrimination under state law, the road to workplace justice for gays and lesbians has gotten easier in the last few weeks.

In addition, the Equality Act was recently introduced in Congress. “The law, whose language was provided to the Advocate, would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act and other federal law to protect LGBT people from discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations and other arenas,” according to an article in Politico.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in employment law, United States Supreme Court and tagged , , , , .