Posts Tagged ‘workplace’

“Barminess” of UK employment tribunals

According to London Mayor Boris Johnson, writing in the Telegraph, the recent case of a man who is charging a 68-year-old female colleague with unconsented rump-slapping shows that Britain’s employment tribunal system leaves much to be desired:

This could turn out to be a ground-breaking case in the advancement of workers’ rights against the unfeeling boss class. But I sincerely doubt it. It sounds to me like a perfect indication of the levels of barminess now being attained by our system of employment tribunals. The hearing continues, it says at the bottom of the reports, and my first thought is how mad, how incredible it is that this poor man’s grievance – whatever it really is – has come to court.

The hearing continues, while across the country thousands of similar hearings drag their weary length before the matchstick-eyelid tribunals of Britain. Millions of man-hours are wasted, as business people are obliged to give evidence rather than getting on with their jobs. Huge fees are racked up by lawyers and “expert witnesses”, who are called on to pronounce on the exact meaning of an insult, and on all the unverifiable aches and pains and stresses that may constitute a disability.

The total cost of the system has been put at £1 billion for British business, and it is rising the whole time. …

Last month Prime Minister David Cameron proposed relaxing — though only slightly — the tribunals’ grip over firing, hiring, claims of harassment and other workplace matters.

“If I notice an employee becoming increasingly unstable, what can I do about it?”

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to accommodate mentally disabled employees, but makes an exception for those who pose a “direct threat” to co-workers or others. Trouble is, to invoke the narrow “direct threat” exception, an employer may need to be prepared to prove that it has based its decision either on “a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge” or “on the best available objective evidence” — a much tougher evidentiary standard than is required for the making of many other workplace, governmental and medical decisions. [Jon Hyman, Ohio Employer’s Law Blog]

December 31 roundup

  • “No refusal” DUI checkpoints spread and can result in mandatory blood tests for drivers; MADD cheers infringement of liberty [WTSP]
  • Teleworking regulations: a new way to sue your (federal) boss? [welcome Mickey Kaus/Newsweek readers]
  • “The federal government has been in the business of micro-managing our kids’ lunches for 30 years” [David Gratzer/Examiner] St. Paul, Minn. schools ban sweets, even when brought from home [Star-Tribune] Michelle Obama, Sarah Palin, and the Happy Meal lawsuit [John Steele Gordon, Commentary]
  • Top ten insurance law decisions of 2010 [Randy Maniloff, Insurance Journal; also congrats on his new book (with Jeffrey Stempel)]
  • “Mitch Daniels and Criminal Sentencing Reform in Indiana” [Orin Kerr] Daniels isn’t backing down from call for truce on social issues [GOP12]
  • Happy 100th birthday, Ronald Coase [Gillespie, Reason]
  • Damage to Gulf from spill now looks much less than feared [Robert Nelson, Weekly Standard]
  • Saudi court decides that text message is valid method of divorce [Emirates 24/7]

Employers and the newly expanded ADA

In the ADA Amendments Act, signed by then-President George W. Bush in 2008 and taking effect the next year, Congress drastically expanded the scope of disabled-rights law, to cover, for example, persons “regarded as” disabled, as well as other formerly uncovered categories. According to one attorney advisor, employers from here out should basically assume everyone in their workforce is going to qualify as “disabled” if push comes to shove: “Challenging the employee’s ‘disability’ status is a waste of time with the new expanded definition of ‘disability’.” [Robin Shea, Employment and Labor Insider]

New York regulates household employment

Beginning November 29, those who employ nannies, housekeepers and similar workers in New York will be exposed to broad new legal liabilities. If the experience of other employers proves an example, some will get sued for years’ worth of back pay, front pay and other damages over alleged discrimination in hiring, promotion, or firing, or for permitting to develop in their home what an employee experiences as a “hostile work environment.” [Empire Justice Center]