Dressing and undressing considered "work"

Putting on and taking off work-related clothing may constitute "work" under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, according to a federal appeals court.

Poultry workers sued their employer claiming the law required they be paid for time spent "donning and doffing" safety and sanitary clothing, as well as the time spent washing work gear. The activity took between six minutes and 10 minutes and occurred six times per day for each employee. The gear included smocks, hairnets, gloves, ear plugs and safety glasses.

A jury had ruled in favor of the employer. But the federal appeals court covering New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania reversed the verdict and ruled in favor of the employees.

The court said activities performed before and after work must be compensated – as long as they are an integral and indispensable part of the principle activities of the work itself.

The court noted that the federal law doesn"t require workers to prove that

the safety gear was cumbersome, heavy or required concentration to put on and take off. What"s relevant, the court said, is if an employer requires employees to undertake an activity for the benefit of the employer.

Employee injured in fight with boss can get workers" compensation

An employee injured in an altercation with his employer is entitled to workers" compensation – even though the injury didn"t directly result from a work-related activity, according to a recent court ruling.

A stir-fry cook at P.F. Chang"s, a Chinese bistro, injured his shoulder and pelvis when his supervisor pushed him down by the shoulders. At the time of the incident, he was the only Chinese employee and spoke little English.

He alleged he was constantly belittled and mocked over a two-month period by his supervisor.

The Arizona Court of Appeals said the man was entitled to workers" compensation benefits. The work environment brought the man and his supervisor together, creating the relations and conditions that resulted in the dispute and the man"s injuries, the court said.

Injury on break is employee"s fault

Although an employer"s advertisement was displayed on the vehicle an employee was driving, the employer wasn"t responsible for injuries the employee caused in an accident while running an errand on his own time.

The accident victim, who filed suit, claimed the employer was responsible. The employer said it required employees

to remove the magnetic advertisements placed on employees" personal vehicles while they were not working. The employee who caused the accident didn"t do that.

The Illinois Appellate Court ruled the advertisement wasn"t important enough to make the employer responsible for the accident victim"s injuries.

Notice of discrimination timely despite error

Preserving rights under federal employment laws requires workers to meet certain filing deadlines with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Failure to comply with the deadlines will torpedo a claim.

A recent case shows that a claim filed with the EEOC will be considered timely even if it contains errors.

In the case, a female city transit worker in Washington, D.C. alleged a co-worker sexually assaulted her. She immediately reported the incident to her supervisor. Her employer concluded, however, that she didn"t have enough evidence to support her claim.

She completed an EEOC questionnaire, but wrote the wrong date for the

incident. She later sued for gender discrimination under Title VII.

The employer said the inaccurate questionnaire made her claim untimely.

The federal appeals court for the District of Columbia rejected the employer"s argument, saying the employer knew about the woman"s claim shortly after the alleged sexual harassment occurred.

The court said it was mindful of Congress"s "careful calibration of Title VII"s procedures." But the employee satisfied the timely filing requirement by promptly pursuing her claim. Also, the employer didn"t dispute the date the incident occurred, the court noted.

Employee required to work on Sabbath can"t sue for religion bias

A full-time U.S. Postal Service letter carrier was permitted time off on Saturdays to accommodate his Jewish faith, which observes the Sabbath on Saturdays.

This arrangement worked for 10 years. But when budget constraints prompted the U.S. Postal service branch in Ohio where the man worked to reduce staffing levels and require more carriers to work additional hours on Saturdays, other employees became unhappy with the man"s arrangement.

The accommodation was eliminated after union members voted to recommend its termination. The postmaster suggested to the man that he reserve some of his vacation time for Saturday absences. The man was also allowed

to use leave time and exchange days with other carriers.

The man sued, alleging that ending his Saturday accommodation violated his rights under federal law. He claimed that being forced to take days off from work without pay in order to avoid Saturday work reduced his pay and eventual pension.

But the federal appeals court covering Ohio ruled against the man, saying he had not been discharged or otherwise disciplined.

The court said more than loss of pay must occur before federal law can cover a claim of religious discrimination. The court noted the employer did not intend the Saturday work requirement to force the man to quit.

Asthmatic wins $1.5M in disability discrimination case

A Texas woman fired after her company refused to accommodate her violent asthma attacks by removing office air fresheners recently won $1.5 million in a disability discrimination suit against her former employers.

Linette Weller worked at Rogelio Sanchez State Prison in El Paso as a senior chemical dependency counselor. In 1999, her employer began to dole out hand-held aerosol air fresheners for use in the office.

Over the next two weeks, Weller"s asthma symptoms got progressively worse, culminating in a trip to the emergency room when the aerosol caused her bronchial tubes to swell and chest to close, making it nearly impossible for her to breathe.

After that attack, Weller"s employer accommodated her and removed the air fresheners from the work area. But less

than two years later, the company installed automatic air fresheners that were attached to the wall and timed to periodically release a puff of scented air.

Weller"s symptoms again took a turn for the worse and she suffered another attack less than a month after the air fresheners were installed.

She took a leave from her job until she was cleared to return by her doctors. However, her employer would not let her return without a signed assurance from her doctors that she would no longer be affected by the air fresheners. She was later fired.

After a three-day trial, the jury found that that the employer failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for Weller"s disability, causing her unnecessary hardship and failing to deal with her in good faith. The jury awarded her $1.5 million damages.