California Business Litigation Blog

This month the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released a comprehensive document designed to reduce confusion related to the performance and conduct of employees protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Employers will be pleased to see that this document clearly answers many ADA related performance and conduct questions. The document includes 30 questions with answers using 48 examples of actual cases, documented by 90 footnotes.

For your convenience, you will find the Table of Contents below, including direct links to each section. You will find the entire document HERE. As always, if you have questions related to employment lawsuits, feel free to contact me.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction

II. Basic Legal Requirements

III. Application of ADA Legal Requirements to Performance and Conduct Standards

A. Performance standards

B. Conduct standards

C. Questions pertaining to both performance and conduct issues

D. Seeking medical information when there are performance or conduct problems

E. Attendance issues

F. Dress codes

G. Alcoholism and illegal use of drugs

H. Confidentiality issues arising from granting reasonable accommodation....

I. Legal enforcement

In case you missed the latest EEOC religious discrimination guidelines, you can read about them HERE.

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation , Employment Law

Bookmark:

After being terminated by Sun Constructors (Sun) in 2006, Juan Morales filed a wrongful termination lawsuit. Sun claimed that Morales was bound by an arbitration clause in the employment agreement signed upon his employment. Morales claimed that since the agreement was in English, he did not understand its terms when he signed it, thus he could not be bound by it since he does not speak or understand English. The District Court agreed with Morales. Sun appealed.

According to the opinion written by Judge Michael A. Chagares of the US Court of Appeals Third Circuit, when Morales was hired in 2004 he passed a written exam in English and attended a 2 ½ hour orientation which explained the employment agreement. Sun provided a bilingual employee to translate for Morales during the orientation. The bilingual employee testified that he did not specifically explain the arbitration clause to Morales.

Judge Chagares ruled in favor of Sun, and remanded the case back to District Court with instructions to enter a stay pending arbitration. In his opinion, Judge Chagares cited an 1875 US Supreme Court decision, Upton v. Tribilcock that said: "It will not do for a man to enter into a contract, and, when called upon to respond to its obligations, to say that he did not read it when he signed it, or did not know what it contained."

Judge Chagares continued “Morales, in essence, requests that this Court create an exception to the objective theory of contract formation where a party is ignorant of the language in which a contract is written. We decline to do so. In the absence of fraud, the fact that an offeree cannot read, write, speak, or understand the English language is immaterial to whether an English-language agreement the offeree executes is enforceable.”

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation , Employment Law

Bookmark: