Employment Law Observer

It just got harder to get out of working on the Sabbath on the basis of religion. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued its opinion in Groff v. Dejoy, rejecting a mail carrier's repeated attempts to avoid working on Sundays due to his religious beliefs. The Court's opinion centered on the reasonableness of accommodations that would adjust an employee's work schedule for religious reasons and ultimately concluded that granting Groff's request for a blanket exemption from Sunday work would have placed an undue hardship on the United States Postal Service.

A District Court Judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently ruled that the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) preempted a plaintiff’s attempt to add state common law counts for breach of contract and unjust enrichment onto his statutory wage and hour claims. Formica v. US Environmental, Inc., (No. 18-459; July 11, 2018).  The plaintiff alleged FLSA, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law claims. 

Many times, employers evaluate disability claims by simply checking the boxes. It’s easy to develop tunnel vision, especially when the employer feels the issue is narrowly defined by an existing law or policy, e.g., a law or employer policy requiring that certain employees be vaccinated. However, this narrow frame of mind may cause employers to miss the complete picture. A recent 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals (DE, NJ, PA) decision illustrates the consequences of missing the big picture. In Ruggiero v. Mount Nittany Medical Center, the court addressed the interplay between a hospital’s vaccination policy and the ADA, holding held an employee’s ADA claim could proceed because the hospital failed to engage in the interactive process. The Court held the hospital had a duty to engage in the process once aware of her disability and request for accommodation, regardless of its policy requiring that all employees be vaccinated.

In an ongoing and continuing discussion and battle concerning President Obama’s recess appointment of Craig Becker as a member of the National Labor Relations Board back in 2010, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has weighed in, holding that the appointment was invalid, and that the board panel which included Becker therefore lacked a valid quorum. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals considered this issue because the Board issued a bargaining order to a nursing facility, which the facility claimed was invalid due to lack of quorum. 

A hospital-employer hired the employee as a security guard. On his post-offer medical questionnaire, the employee affirmatively stated that he had never suffered from drug or alcohol addiction in the past nor participated in a drug and alcohol treatment program.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Genesis Healthcare Corp et al v. Symczyk, No. 11-1059 (U.S. Supreme Court, April 16, 2013) , holding that the employee could not maintain a collective action once her individual claims were rendered moot. 

A hospital-employer hired the employee as a security guard. On his post-offer medical questionnaire, the employee affirmatively stated that he had never suffered from drug or alcohol addiction in the past nor participated in a drug and alcohol treatment program. Thereafter, the employee suffered an injury at work and reported to the hospital’s emergency department. When discussing his treatment with the physician, the employee indicated that he was a recovering drug addict. The employee’s medical information was then transferred to the hospital’s employee services division. Upon learning that the employee had suffered from past drug addiction, the hospital terminated the employee for dishonestly on his post-offer medical questionnaire.

Last month we reported to you the case of a public school principal whose First Amendment and retaliation claims were stricken by the Court due to the fact that she was not speaking as a private citizen, and thus, her speech was not protected. On the other side of the coin, here, the Third Circuit finds that a triable claim exists where a public employee articulates complaints of sex discrimination in the police force, because such speech implicates matters of public concern.