“While there are many reasons to file a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), those reasons must be valid when tested by the courts,” according to Timothy Coffey, a Chicago employment lawyer and principal attorney for The Coffey Law Office, P.C.. “If they are not, the plaintiff may lose his or her case, which is what happened in Samper v. Providence St. Vincent Med. Ctr., 9th Cir., 4/11/12.”

In Samper, the plaintiff neonatal intensive care nurse was a fibromyalgia sufferer, experiencing chronic pain and an inability to sleep soundly or restfully. Her unplanned absences from work were more than allowed, according to the terms of her job description. In working with the nurse to try and accommodate her medical issues, the hospital employer agreed to a very flexible schedule that would allow her to move her shift if she had a day where she was experiencing bad fibromyalgia symptoms.

Even with the new flexible shift arrangement, her rate of attendance in the workplace did not improve, and the hospital fired her. The nurse chose to sue the employer under the ADA, alleging they did not offer her reasonable accommodation, as outlined in the ADA. The hospital’s defense was that, while they did acknowledge she was disabled, they did not feel an open-ended pass to be absence for work was reasonable, especially when working in the neonatal intensive care unit where one’s physical presence is essential.

If the worker was not present at the hospital in the neonatal intensive care unit, then she could not perform her job, whether she had a flexible schedule or not. Since that was the case, and the nurse could not do her work at home, she could not be considered a qualified individual protected under the auspices of the ADA.

“When this case got to court, the legal question of the day was whether or not it was essential showing up for work on a predictable basis,” said Coffey. “The decision was that a nurse in the intensive care unit must be in attendance, not only because it was essential but because it was a matter of life or death. The defendant won the case.”

Not all cases that go to court win, and there is a valuable lesson inherent in this case. Showing up for work on a predictable basis is essential, or a job cannot be performed. Facts like this must be included in the job description, so employees understand exactly what is expected of them. Additionally, employers must make an effort to offer reasonable accommodations for all workers. The hospital made a significant accommodation for the nurse in this case, but she wanted that to exempt her from the very essential nature of the job: being in regular attendance. This means is was not afforded protection under the ADA.

Timothy J. Coffey is an employment lawyer and owner of The Coffey Law Office, P.C., a Chicago employment litigation firm. To learn more, visit http://www.employmentlawcounsel.com

In the state of Illinois, it is illegal to discriminate against anyone because of:
– Their race
– Color
– Religion
– Age 40 or over
– Military service
– Sexual orientation
– Sex
– National origin
– Citizenship status
– Physical handicap
– Mental handicap
– Ancestry
– Unfavorable military discharge

If you work in Illinois, you are protected from anyone discriminating against you, for any reason, and for all of the conditions of your employment. That would include, but may not be limited to:
– Transfer
– Pay
– Tenure
– Selection
– Harassment
– Promotion
– Demotion
– Performance assessment
– Employment conditions
– Seniority
– Union representation
– Hiring
– Firing
– Layoffs

Not sure how to figure out if there is discrimination in your workplace? Take a look around you and watch how people are treated. You can often figure out if someone is being discriminated against by how they are treated. For example, sexual discrimination often takes place in the form of unwelcome and unwanted sexual advances, asking for sexual favors, or if a superior suggests a person’s position at a company is dependent upon the person having sex with the supervisor/manager. That kind of conduct violates anti-discrimination laws if it gets in the way of job performance or creates a hostile, offensive or intimidating work environment.

There are other forms of discrimination, and one of them relates to an employer not providing a reasonable accommodation for a worker. This can include if someone needs a special monitor to do their job or a certain kind of desk with more space to perform their tasks. Interestingly, this reasonable accommodation provision is also applicable to a person’s religion. This is not to say that a company has to hire those not otherwise qualified for a job, but that they need to make reasonable accommodations whenever it would not cause undue hardship for the employer.

If you are an employer and not clear on what you need to do in the workplace with regard to discrimination, make it a point to contact an experienced Chicago employment lawyer. It is vital you get the right kind of information about discrimination and how to avoid running afoul of the law. Your Chicago employment lawyer has many years in the trenches handling cases dealing with discrimination. You could not ask for better legal counsel.
 
Timothy Coffey is a Chicago employment lawyer and principal attorney for The Coffey Law Office, P. C., an employment litigation firm dedicated to representing employees in the workplace. To learn more or to contact a Chicago employment attorney, visit Employmentlawcounsel.com.

The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that an employer is responsible for sexual harassment of an employee by a supervisor, even if that worker is not under his or her direct command. Or to put it another way, if a manager/supervisor makes advances toward any worker, not just one who works directly for them, it is still considered to be sexual harassment.

This is an important ruling and means that Illinois company owners must train their staff, including managers, on how to prevent sexual harassment in their workplace and how to avoid a hostile work environment as a result of the harassment. This ruling was handed down in Sangamon County Sheriff’s Department v. Illinois Human Rights Commission; a ruling that stated the employer is strictly liable for any manager’s or supervisor’s actions.

 Part of this significant case involved a close look at the federal law in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which indicates that a person is not a supervisor unless they have direct authority over a victim’s employment status. The Illinois Human Rights Act does have this restriction, and their stated position is that employers are liable for the actions and conduct of every supervisor towards all employees in the company.

In Sangamon, a female records clerk filed a sexual harassment and retaliation complaint against the sheriff’s department. She stated a sergeant in the department, not her direct supervisor, was harassing her. In this case, the initial lawsuit was filed against the supervisor and the sheriff’s department.

The accused male harasser opted to settle out of court, thus dismissing him from the case, and leaving the department on the hook. The courts found the employer strictly liable for the man’s behavior even though she did not work directly under his authority. This ruling is important, as it, in effect, stretches out or expands the meaning of strict liability under Illinois law.

It should be mentioned that strict liability in this case means that the sheriff’s department was liable for the sexual harassment even if they did not know about it, and this applies whether the harassment was a hostile work environment or unwanted and unwelcome sexual come-ons. The court awarded the victim $23,000; $13,000 in court fees and $10,000 in damages.

Every case in this area of the law is different, and for this reason, if you have been in a similar situation in your workplace, call an experienced Chicago employment lawyer for advice and legal counsel. If you want to know what your rights are in situations like this one, or similar scenarios, the call you make to a Chicago employment lawyer will give you enough information to decide what you would like to do with your potential case.
 
Timothy Coffey is a Chicago employment lawyer and principal attorney for The Coffey Law Office, P. C., an employment litigation firm dedicated to representing employees in the workplace. To learn more or to contact a Chicago employment attorney, visit Employmentlawcounsel.com.

The facts of this case are that in 1999 Feleccia filed a discrimination complaint with the Human Rights Commission stating that she had been sexually harassed as retaliatory punishment and harassed in a way that created a hostile work environment.

In 2000, the Commission filed a four count complaint against the Sheriff’s Department that stated, among other things, that Feleccia said no to a request by Yanor to have sex with him and that Yanor wrote a fictitious letter to her that indicated she may have come into contact with a sexually transmitted disease and that the Department harassed her in retaliation for saying no to unwanted sexual advances.

Further unwanted sexual behavior on Yanor’s part was outlined, and included kissing Feleccia and delivering a coffee cup with candy in it to her home. All these actions, in sum, created a hostile work environment and the count further alleged the Department was strictly liable for Yanor’s actions because he was a manager.

The Sheriff’s Department said they were not strictly liable and replied by saying that the woman had not used the complaint procedure in place, and that she had not reported any of the incidents that happened outside the workplace. Furthermore, the Department had taken disciplinary action against Yanor for writing the fictitious letter about sexually transmitted diseases. Yanor and the woman settled, but the case remained in place against the Sheriff’s Department.

There was a hearing in this case with an Administrative Law Judge, who issued a decision recommending that the sexual harassment and retaliation claims be dismissed with prejudice. He suggested that the woman had not been able to prove a prima facie case of sexual harassment, because she did not show the man’s conduct had the intent or effect of interfering with her work performance or creating a hostile work environment.

The judge further suggested that she had also not proven the retaliation claim, as the record did not show any protests relating to sexual harassment. He also pointed out that the man did not have supervisory duties over the woman, and that the 180-day timeframe for reporting sexual harassment claims was not met. The Human Rights Commission disagreed with the decision made by the administrative law judge.

In fact, the Commission said the incidents cited by the woman were sexual harassment by a supervisor with a physical threat of force and a forcible request for sex in a motel. They found that Yanor’s conduct and the forged letter relating to sexually transmitted diseases did interfere with the woman’s work and created a hostile workplace. In short, they found there was sexual harassment and that the Sheriff’s Department was strictly liable for the man’s behavior because he had the authority to affect the woman’s work conditions due to his position. The Commission could not conclude the harassment was retaliatory.

Again, this is a very complex case dealing with allegations of sexual harassment in the workplace. It also points out quite clearly that if there is a procedure in place for someone alleging harassment, workers need to follow the procedure and report any unwanted behavior. In this instance, the case was proven indirectly, but there was the real possibility that it could have gone either way.

If you think you are being sexually harassed at work, if the environment there is hostile and another’s behavior is offensive, do not waste any time wondering what to do about it. Call an experienced Chicago employment lawyer. A qualified attorney will have decades of practice and will know precisely what to do in situations that indeed may be classified as sexual harassment. Without a seasoned Chicago employment attorney to protect your rights, you may find the battle for workplace equity lost.
 
Timothy Coffey is a Chicago employment lawyer and principal attorney for The Coffey Law Office, P. C., an employment litigation firm dedicated to representing employees in the workplace. To learn more or to contact a Chicago employment attorney, visit Employmentlawcounsel.com.

This is an interesting case and serves as a tool to show that when filing a complaint through the Human Rights Commission, the wording and content of the complaint are very important. The case is Blount v. Stroud et al. 904 N.E.2d 1 (2009) 232 Ill. 2d 302 No. 10557, appealed to the Supreme Court of Illinois.

In this instance, the plaintiff, Jerri Blount, appealed a judgment by a lower court reversing a multimillion dollar jury award relating to her federal and state retaliation claims against the defendants Stroud and Jovon Broadcasting. The core issue was whether or not Blount’s only source of redress was via the administrative procedures laid out in the Illinois Human Rights Act (775 ILCS 5/1-101 (West 2000)).

In 2001, the plaintiff filed several complaints against the defendants. At issue in the Illinois Supreme Court were counts three and five. In count three, the plaintiff stated the defendants wrongfully dismissed her, violating the federal Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2000)). It appeared the issue was that defendant Stroud retaliated against plaintiff Blount because she stood up for a coworker in a federal discrimination suit against Jovon Broadcasting. Both plaintiff and defendants were African-American and the coworker was Caucasian.

It appeared that Blount was a witness to some behavior the coworker was subjected to and that Blount said her complaints had merit. Blount also told her boss, Stroud, she would testify for the coworker. However her boss said to stay out of the situation and be quiet. Blount thought that was the wrong thing to do and testified for her coworker. She was threatened, intimidated, suspended and fired in October 2000.

In relation to count five, which was tied directly to count three, it was indicated in court that witnesses must testify truthfully and that perjury is a criminal offense. Because the plaintiff refused to tell a lie in court about her coworker, the management fired her.

At trial, defendants stated the lower circuit court did not have jurisdiction to judge the plaintiff’s retaliation claims, saying the claim fell under the prohibitions in the Act (see 775 ILCS 5/6-101(A) (West 2000)), and that she had to seek a resolution through the Act’s administrative procedures.

Further, defense counsel said the plaintiff’s claims were linked to a civil rights violation and therefore the Act preempted the claims. The court rejected those arguments and focused on complaint five. On the retaliation claim, the jury found for the plaintiff back pay in the amount of $257,350, a pain and suffering award of $25,000 and punitive damages for $2.8 million. After the trial it was argued, among other things, the circuit court did not have jurisdiction. The appellate court reversed.

When this case reached the Illinois Supreme Court, the court reversed the judgment of the appellate court. In other words, they held that the circuit court did have jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claim and they reversed the judgment of the appellate court and remanded the matter back to that court.

It is quite evident that retaliation claims and wrongful dismissal issues can be incredibly complex. Consequently, how they are filed is of vital importance, and this is something that a Chicago employment lawyer will attend to when filing such a complaint. If you are not sure whether or not you may have a case, make a call to an experienced Chicago employment attorney and discuss your situation.
 
Timothy Coffey is a Chicago employment lawyer and principal attorney for The Coffey Law Office, P. C., an employment litigation firm dedicated to representing employees in the workplace. To learn more or to contact a Chicago employment attorney, visit Employmentlawcounsel.com.

In a rather unusual case reported in the media, a relationship counselor was dismissed when he said he would not provide sex therapy for a homosexual couple. The counselor felt that the Bible’s point of view about homosexuality made it impossible for him to give the two advice. His co-workers deemed that unacceptable and he was fired.

The man took his case to court and stated he was a victim of religious discrimination and had been fired for refusing to act against his beliefs. His claim was not successful and the courts referred to it as irrational and capricious. Pundits watching this case feel that situations like this have the potential to create an imbalance in laws set up to protect the rights of minorities with the end result that those with religious beliefs are discriminated against.

Some regard this ruling as a bellwether signaling the death of religious literacy, because instead of protecting minorities from genuine discrimination, the courts may have created an imbalance in favor of minorities. In this particular case, many feel that the courts are not particularly cognizant of how vital and important religious teachings and convictions are to some individuals, despite the common mores of the rest of society.

Where will this rather new development lead? It is an interesting question and one whose answers likely lies in what society versus the courts feel is relevant and represents reality. The reality of today is that most people accept the fact that gay couples are a part of society. For those that do not accept this precept, their journey is a different one with no clear destination in mind. Reverse discrimination is an issue just beginning to poke its head up in various court cases. How the courts deal with it will be another question.

If you feel you have been a victim of religious discrimination in a similar matter or another form, do not hesitate to contact an experienced Chicago employment lawyer. Discrimination is a very difficult and diverse area of the law and you need to know if your particular situation may be handled in court or through negotiations. Without the assistance of a skilled Chicago employment lawyer, cases like this are difficult to resolve.

Timothy Coffey is a Chicago employment lawyer and principal attorney for The Coffey Law Office, P. C., an employment litigation firm dedicated to representing employees in the workplace. To learn more or to contact a Chicago employment attorney, visit Employmentlawcounsel.com.

In a recent move to even greater equity in the workplace, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is warning companies that they may not use credit history information as criteria for hiring or firing. This comes about as a result of the EEOC suing Kaplan Higher Education Corp. for doing precisely that – using credit history information that had a major “disparate impact on black job applicants.”

Another of the EEOCs lawsuits is against Freeman Cos., sued for using criminal records and credit checks to screen applicants for their national events and exhibition marketing company. The EEOC is bound and determined to erase racism and “colorism” from the workplace. And if the statistics are any indication, they have their work cut out for them, as the number of workplace discrimination suits shot up to 99,922 in 2010.

These particular lawsuits are the tip of the iceberg in an initiative to dissolve what is referred to as arbitrary barriers for minorities to find work. Is this controversial? Yes, because the lack definition of what has an adverse effect on blacks and other minorities has always been a hot button and the focal point of disputes. It is one facet of discrimination law that troubles many Chicago employment lawyers and the courts.

The EEOC indicates that things such as background checks may wrongly exclude a large majority of minority job applicants. On the other side of the fence, many employment lawyers feel that if the criteria for hiring is not racially motivated and it is used for everyone who applies for a job, then it is not racially discriminatory. Put another way, it is not anyone else’s business (i.e. the government) to try and second-guess hiring practices unless the job applicants are being treated differently because of their race.

Of interest is that the Supreme Court has not viewed the “disparate impact” with any degree of favor over the years. In fact, two years ago, they ruled that the City of New Haven had discriminated against white firefighters who had high scores when it chucked out a promotion test because it had an adverse impact on black firefighters. Unfortunately, the court did not see fit at the time to clarify the issue any further.

Such hiring practices are not inherently illegal even if they do happen to have a negative impact on minorities. But, having said that, the employer must be able to demonstrate that the hiring criteria is necessary for the job being applied for in the first place; something that is not always easy to do.

If you happen to be facing a situation that you feel is adversely affecting your ability to get a job, then you need to speak to a highly qualified Chicago employment lawyer. You need to find out your rights, how the law as it exists applies to your case and what your options are in dealing with your situation.

Timothy Coffey is a Chicago employment lawyer and principal attorney for The Coffey Law Office, P. C., an employment litigation firm dedicated to representing employees in the workplace. To learn more or to contact a Chicago employment attorney, visit Employmentlawcounsel.com.

A recent federal court decision will significantly impact on companies that have an employee head count policy or paid sick leave policies that demand workers justify their absences with doctor’s notes if a worker is already on intermittent leave under the FMLA.

The decision centered on the finding that the defendant company’s attendance policy illegally obstructed the plaintiff’s use of FMLA leave, by mandating that a doctor’s note must be turned in after every absence, despite the fact that the doctor had already sent in a certification stating the need for sporadic leave for up to a year.

The court indicated the company demanding a doctor’s note every time the worker was not there ultimately discouraged the plaintiff, and other workers, from taking intermittent leave. In addition, it found that the FMLA’s recertification regulations already protect the company from an employee’s abuse of leave.

While the defendant argued that they were just enforcing their attendance policy, which also acted to discourage leave abuse, the court held that the note requirement unjustly interfered with FMLA leave because it was burdensome and may compel the worker to submit notes on a weekly or more recurrent basis. The judge further held that recertification is the preferred way to verify a worker’s time off is related to the FMLA and is so stated in the regulations.

If you find yourself in a similar situation, this is something that really needs to be discussed with a Chicago employment lawyer who stands up for worker’s rights. You will need to know precisely what those rights are, what may be done about the situation, what will happen should you go to court and what you may expect as an outcome to your case.

Timothy Coffey is a Chicago employment lawyer and principal attorney for The Coffey Law Office, P. C., an employment litigation firm dedicated to representing employees in the workplace. To learn more or to contact a Chicago employment attorney, visit employmentlawcounsel.com.

In a nutshell, if you do report something that you believe may be illegal happening in your workplace, you are protected by law from your employer taking action against you. If they do take action, this may be  illegal retaliation. Taking a step forward like this is something that a good, responsible worker would do; speak out to report a wrong that they believe is violating the law.

If you are acting in good faith, are being honest and reasonable and trying to rectify what you view as an illegal action, you are backed up by the whistle-blower retaliation statute(s). These statutes, usually found in a state’s Labor Code, but also on the federal level, are becoming a rapidly developing area of law that targets the rights of workers against retaliation or any other damaging actions that an employer may choose to take against an employee who has blown the whistle on them.

Typically speaking, it is your right to speak out and complain about dishonesty and illegal actions in a workplace. You may choose to report the matter to the employer or to a government agency. Most people prefer to report what they suspect is illegal activity to a government agency, to provide themselves with an arm length protective barrier against their employer.

Situations where someone is reporting a company for a violation of the law are tricky. Although the worker may take a stand to stop it, most are not comfortable with reporting something they view as illegal to the person they feel is responsible for the activity.

Most commonly, many of the violations reported deal with safety problems or hazards and/or harassment and discrimination against other workers. Often there may also be reports of unfair business practices that may involve defrauding the federal government or other falsifications. Speaking up means the person is swimming upstream in a virtual holding pattern, as many of the other workers around them want to maintain the status quo for the sake of conformity; they wish not to rock the boat and change things.

It is no small matter for someone to risk their career, paycheck and financial security to speak out against a wrongdoing. Many spend hours agonizing over whether what they are planning to do will make a difference, what will happen when they speak out and wondering if they are even right about the illegality of certain actions on the part of the employer.

You are not required to be 100 percent certain that what you are speaking out about is not legal. This is something for your Chicago employment lawyer to sort out and you definitely need an experienced employment litigation attorney on your side. The sooner the better, as actions like this are complicated and you need to have your rights protected.

While it may feel like a real risk to stand up, be counted and speak your truth, you have that right and you are protected if you do so. If you are the victim of unlawful retaliation, speak to a seasoned Chicago employee litigation attorney to have action initiated on your behalf and specifically customized to your situation.

Timothy Coffey is a Workers Protected by Law for Reporting Unlawful Actions to Employer or Government first appeared on SEONewsWire.net.]]>
Deprecated: Directive 'allow_url_include' is deprecated in Unknown on line 0