Possibly.  Employers covered by Title VII are required to provide a reasonable accommodation for the religious beliefs or practices of an employee, unless doing so would create an undue hardship on the employer's business.  Depending on the facts, it may be reasonable to revise the schedule so that this employee is not required to work on Sundays.  Other reasonable methods of accommodating the employee's religious belief against working on Sundays could include permitting him to voluntarily swap shifts with other employees or permitting him to use paid or unpaid personal leave.  State and local laws should also be consulted as these may impose more stringent requirements than Title VII.

Not if other employees have complained about the proselytizing.  Title VII requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs or practices of an employee unless doing so would create an undue hardship.  Courts and the EEOC have recognized that workplace proselytizing can create an undue hardship if it interferes with another employee's work or if other workers find it harassing.

 

Possibly, depending on the reason your company requires workers to wear pants.  Employers covered by Title VII are required to provide a reasonable accommodation for the religious beliefs or practices of an employee, unless doing so would create an undue hardship on the employer's business.  If you require employees to wear pants because of a legitimate safety concern, such as a history of accidents that have occurred due to skirts getting caught in the plant's machinery, granting the request could create an undue hardship.  Whether you are required to grant this request depends, in large part, on the specific facts of the situation.  State and local laws may provide different or additional protections to employees. 

Federal law does not prohibit inquiries into an applicant's criminal background, although state laws may restrict such inquiries.  The EEOC has taken the position that the use of arrest and conviction records to make employment decisions may violate Title VII if such use has a disparate impact on minorities.

Federal law does not prohibit such inquiries; however, state law may.  For example, New Jersey law prohibits excluding individuals who are currently unemployed from consideration for employment. 

Federal law prohibits discrimination solely because an individual has filed bankruptcy; however, the Eleventh Circuit has held that private employers can consider such information when determining whether to offer a job to an applicant. See our discussion of this case in the July 2011 issue of Management Update, http://www.fordharrison.com/shownewsletter.aspx?Show=7459.

Generally, federal law does not require employers to provide preferential treatment to pregnant workers, although state laws may impose such requirements. However, complications arising from pregnancy may qualify as a disability under the ADA or state disability laws and, thus, employers may be required to provide accommodations for such conditions in some situations.

No.  Federal law requires prohibits employers from denying jobs to pregnant women because of hazards to the unborn child.

Possibly.  Changes made by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act require employers to provide breaks for women to express breast milk and to provide a place, other than a bathroom, for the employee to express breast milk.  Employers with fewer than 50 employees are not required to provide breaks if doing so would be an undue hardship.  This law does not preempt state laws that provide greater protections to employees.  For more information please see Ford & Harrison's White Paper Employment-Related Obligations Imposed by the Health Care Reform Law.

Possibly, although all questions of reasonable accommodation are fact specific.  If overtime work is an essential function of the employee's position, you are not required to waive that requirement.  Employers should engage in an interactive process with the employee that enables both parties to discuss the factors relevant to determining a reasonable accommodation, including the employee's abilities and restrictions, the essential functions of the job, barriers to job performance, the type of accommodation needed, and what alternatives are available that would enable the employee to remain employed, among other things. 

No.  EEOC guidance states that a test for illegal drugs is not considered a medical examination under the ADA.  The test must, however, be accurate and comply with any applicable federal, state or local laws or regulations pertaining to drug testing.  Additionally, employers must consider any requirements imposed by state laws when deciding whether to implement a pre-employment drug-testing program.    

Possibly.  The EEOC takes the position that no-fault attendance policies that do not take into account the need for paid or unpaid leave as a reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities violate the ADA.  Consider discussing your no-fault attendance policy with experienced employment counsel to determine whether it may subject you to liability under the ADA or other laws (such as the FMLA or state laws).

Yes. USERRA requires that employees returning from military leave receive all the rights and benefits of employment they would have obtained if they had been continuously employed (with some exceptions), including FMLA leave. In determining whether the employee meets FMLA's months-of-employment eligibility requirement, you should credit each month of active military service as a month of employment.  In determining whether the employee meets FMLA's hours-of-service requirements, you must credit the employee with the hours-of-service he would have worked but for the period of military service, based on the employee's pre-service work schedule. Add these hours to those actually worked by the employee to determine whether he worked the required 1,250 hours in the 12-month period immediately preceding the leave. (Airline flight attendants and flight crew members are subject to special eligibility requirements under the FMLA.)

No.  Although the FMLA defines spouse as a husband or wife as defined or recognized by state law, including common-law marriages, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) provides that for all purposes of federal law, spouse refers to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife.  Thus, DOMA limits the availability of FMLA leave to care for a spouse to heterosexual marriages.  State or local leave laws may permit employees to take leave to care for same-sex spouses or partners.

Probably. The Department of Labor takes the position that employees who have no legal or biological relationship with a child may nevertheless stand in loco parentis to the child and be entitled to FMLA leave. Generally, if an employee provides day-to-day care of or financial support to a child, the employee will be considered to stand in loco parentis and would be entitled to FMLA leave to care for the child. Since this is the child of your employee's same-sex partner, she likely provides day-to-day care for the child and is entitled to FMLA leave.