GroupImage
Snider & Fischer, LLC
104 Church Lane, Suite 201, Baltimore, MD 21208
(410) 653-9060 or 1-800-DISCRIMINATION
info@sniderlaw.com
www.sniderlaw.com


Employee Background Checks Becoming More Common


Companies are increasingly using background checks in place of traditional references as part of the hiring process. In fact, about 80 percent of employers are performing some type of screening – from simple credit checks to detailed investigations performed by a third party.

Companies like background checks because they help them avoid liability for hiring a bad apple. If an employee engages in sexual harassment, workplace violence or reckless misconduct on the job, the company can defend itself by saying it did everything it could to make sure the employee was okay.

Companies often look for information related to criminal records, motor vehicle information, drug and alcohol use and sex offender registry information.

Employers must comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, even if a background check is not related to credit. Job applicants have to consent to a background check, usually by signing an authorization form as part of an employment application.

If a company turns someone down for a job on the basis of a consumer report, the company must tell the person and give them a copy of the report along with a statement of their rights under the Act. Job applicants denied a job opening have the right under the Credit Reporting Act to challenge the accuracy of a screening report. In that case, the third party

 

agency has to conduct another investigation within 30 days.

Other employment laws relate to job screening. For example, reliance on arrest records may disproportionately affect minorities, according to the federal government. This could support a lawsuit based on an argument that the screening impacted minorities unfairly.

And employers need to stay away from asking about a person’s age, religion or race. Companies are on safer ground when seeking information related to a specific position. For example, a detailed credit check is appropriate for someone seeking an accounting position.

State laws vary as to what information can be reported, such as criminal histories, and what steps employers have to take when conducting a background check.


Line


Company Might Have to Allow Employee to Work at Home


An employee can ask to work at home part-time to accommodate her medical condition, an appeals court ruled recently.

The company argued that allowing employees to work at home was not required under the law.

But the court disagreed, saying the woman – diagnosed with a polio-like condition – should be allowed to complete some of her work as a manager at home.

The woman asked to work from her home because overuse of her arms from driving to work risked wear and tear that would diminish her ability to perform daily functions and live independently. Her employer refused to set up a home

 

office, requiring her to buy her own office equipment. She also claimed that her supervisor left her notes on her desk at work, requiring her to make numerous trips to the office.

A jury awarded the woman $200,000 for emotional distress.

The court said the employee was capable of performing her job despite deteriorating health and that a daily presence in the office was not essential to her work.

Also important to the court was the fact that the company apparently allowed other employees to work at home.


Line


Companies Cracking Down on Technology Misuse by Workers


A growing number of employers around the country are cracking down on workers that misuse the Internet and e-mail, according to a recent study.

Many companies are keeping close tabs on Internet use by tracking content, keystrokes and time spent at the keyboard. Some companies also store and review computer files.

Employers are concerned that electronic records can often trip them up in litigation. They also want to monitor productivity.

 

Most companies notify their workers when they are being watched, according to the study conducted by the American Management Association and The ePolicy Institute.

Many companies have created policies on computer and telephone use as a way to help control the risk of litigation, security breaches and other electronic disasters.


Line


Employer Can’t Rely on E-Mail to Enforce Arbitration Clause


Employers often like to resolve employment disputes in arbitration rather than in court.

But according to a recent federal court ruling, a company can’t rely on an e-mail sent to its workers announcing mandatory arbitration as the new format for resolving all claims.

In that case, a man was fired due to alleged absenteeism and tardiness. The man sued, saying he was terminated because of a medical condition and the employer violated federal law protecting disabled workers.

 

The court denied the company’s request that the man’s claim be handled in arbitration. The company failed to tell its workers how the new arbitration policy would affect their right to sue in court. It also didn’t tell workers that continued employment meant acceptance of the new policy’s terms.

The company also blundered, according to the court, by failing to require workers to acknowledge receipt of the e-mail announcing the new policy, or to indicate that they had read and understood it.


Line


Family Leave Act Regs in Flux


The federal government is considering a major overhaul of rules related to taking time off due to family and medical circumstances.

The Department of Labor is considering requests from companies that it tighten regulations allowing employees to take time off from work in short increments of time. Companies say some workers abuse the law by taking time off for reasons other than serious medical conditions, such as to cover chronic tardiness.

The federal law allows workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave due to medical reasons, including taking time off to care for immediate family members with serious medical conditions. The law generally applies to companies with 50 or more employees.

Two main areas under consideration relate to what is considered a “serious medical condition” and what increments of time employees should be allowed for leave.

 

Currently, federal regulations allow leave for a “serious health condition,” which is an illness of three days or more. Employers are asking that the time be extended to 10 days. They’re also asking that the government clarify the types of illnesses that are “serious.”

As for the increments of time, under the current rules workers can take leave under the law in the smallest periods their company uses to keep employee time.

Companies say this is difficult to track administratively and are asking the government to raise the minimum amount of time to a half day. They also complain that the short leave option allows employees to falsely claim they are consistently late for a medical reason.

Employee groups, however, say short leave protects workers with chronic medical conditions needing necessary treatments lasting only for short periods of time.


Line


Company Can’t Enforce Employee Waiver of Medical Leave Claim


Although a woman signed an agreement waiving all legal claims related to her job dismissal, she can still sue her former employer for violating her right to take leave for medical problems.

A federal appeals court recently ruled that such a waiver is barred by federal regulations associated with the Family and Medical Leave Act.

The employee was fired after missing a number of workdays due to medical testing and treatments. Her company denied her request for medical leave,

 

and told her she was eligible for benefits under the company’s transition plan and would get additional payments if she signed a general release waiving her rights under federal, state or local law.

The woman eventually sued under the Family and Medical Leave Act despite signing the release. The court said her lawsuit was valid because a waiver or settlement of medical leave rights requires the approval of a court or the Department of Labor.


Line


Worker Entitled to Accommodation Even if She’s Merely ‘Perceived’ as Disabled


Workers are entitled to a “reasonable accommodation” on the job even if they are not really disabled, as long as they are “perceived” as disabled, according to a recent federal court ruling.

In that case, a worker was hospitalized with an embolism. She then wanted to return to work with a supplemental oxygen device, but the employer refused and eventually replaced the woman.

The worker sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act and won a $50,000 jury verdict.

The company tried to get the verdict

 

reversed on the basis that she had not proven that she was in fact disabled. But the court said the federal law protecting disabled workers does not distinguish between those workers who are in reality disabled, and those who are merely regarded as disabled.

As a result, it’s not unreasonable to accommodate someone perceived as disabled, the court said.

Federal appeals courts around the country disagree on this point of law. The U.S. Supreme Court may need to eventually resolve the question.



This newsletter is designed to keep you up-to-date with changes in the law. For help with these or any other legal issues, please call our firm today.

The information in this newsletter is intended solely for your information. It does not constitute legal advice, and it should not be relied on without a discussion of your specific situation with an attorney.

64.240.207.107/5.93