It sucks. It feels like you couldn’t have possibly done something wrong if you weren’t even at work. I get it. People often feel that they are entitled to a face to face meeting before being fired or an explanation, and I understand that too. Unfortunately, if you don’t have a union contract, protections as a governmental employee, or some other specific rights that guarantee such a meeting, there’s no legal requirement for that.

And, there isn’t anything automatically illegal about firing someone on their day off, unless something else is going on.

I maintain a very busy and probably too loud presence on Twitter, found @erlichlawoffice, but this blog has gone long underserved and ignored.

I’m going to fix that with posts coming this week and more to come soon. Generally, I’ll write the posts, but some might come from other attorneys at the office.

In the lawsuit, EEOC alleges that the Diallo’s owner/manager informed the employee that he had heard she was HIV-positive from another individual. The owner/manager reportedly indicated that he found being HIV-positive to be a hazard and potentially harmful to the company’s business. Then, on two different occasions, he reportedly ordered her to produce documentation showing that she was not HIV-positive and, if she would not produce such documents, she would be fired. The employee allegedly did not provide any documentation and Diallo’s allegedly fired her.

Based on EEOC’s allegations regarding Diallo’s conduct towards this employee, EEOC charges that Diallo’s violated the ADA in two ways. First, the nightclub made a disability-related inquiry that was not related to the employee’s job requirements or business necessity, which is the requirement for a permissible inquiry. Second, the company terminated the employee on the basis of her disability because she failed to produce the documentation that the company had impermissibly requested.

The trainings are multi-faceted and include a variety of forms and venues of training. One training includes a full-sized video screen that provided a virtual reality environment in which officers approach an incident and must attempt to diffuse it while in possession of their full arsenal of nonlethal weapons, including a taser, and their pistols. Police officers are tasked with diffusing situations such as a belligerent man with a chainsaw and a particularly violent bar fight. Another training is a live simulation furnished like a two-bedroom apartment featuring a possibly suicidal man with a large knife. As the Washington Post recounted:

“We’re focusing on de-escalation,” said Officer Peter Davila, “the sanctity of life for everybody. We’re talking to them as human beings, not as a subject or a suspect.” As the trainer in the scenario, Davila said, “Sometimes there is too much individuality (among officers). What we’re saying is this is Fairfax County’s policy. Whatever bias you may have, every Fairfax County police officer is going to go through this.”

The bill itself, introduced by a Democrat and eighteen co-sponsors, prohibits employers from practices that have become common in many workplaces today, including forcing employees to provide social media login credentials to access employees’ accounts; accessing the account in the presence of the employer; and adding the employer to a list of contacts associated with a personal account. The bill does contain some exceptions, including those for law enforcement and for investigation of the unauthorized transfer of proprietary business information.

Should this bill pass, Hawaii will join several other states with similar laws, including Virginia. Virginia HB 2081, now codified as Va. Code § 40.1-28.7:5 Social media accounts of current and prospective employees, states:

On March 28, 2016, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal announced he will veto a “religious liberties” bill, House Bill 757, which would allow church officials and faith-based groups to deny services to LGBT people based on a “sincerely held religious belief.” This proposed bill would essentially legalize discrimination against members of the LGBT community in the name of religious liberty. Such laws have been passed around the country and have received heightened attention since the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges held that gay marriage is legal under the U.S. Constitution last summer. Small businesses at various locations around the country have claimed that Obergefell has caused or created a violation of their religious beliefs. One Kentucky County Clerk went so far as to refuse to sign off on same-sex marriages due to her religious beliefs, for which she was briefly held in contempt and made a face of the conservative fight against marriage equality.

Georgia, a popular destination for shooting television shows and films due to favorable tax laws, has been the target of heated backlash and threatened boycotts because of House Bill 757. Disney (including its Marvel subsidiary), Apple, Dell, Time Warner, AMC Networks (which films The Walking Dead in Georgia) and other companies all strongly urged Governor Deal to veto the measure. The Governor, in a press conference Monday, acceded to the encouragement of these businesses and many individuals to veto the bill.

The clock is always ticking if you’re an hourly employee

One of the most frequent stumbling blocks for clients is tardiness. Whether it’s coming to work on time or coming back from breaks in a timely fashion, we cannot stress this enough: you must be on time for work. Even if your boss says he doesn’t care. Even if you stay late to make up the time. Even if you work through lunch to make up the difference. You have got to be at work on time. If the schedule says 9 am, you need to clock in at 9 am.

Obviously, some of this varies from job to job. A lot of professional positions do not have a set schedule. Many accountants, lawyers, and executives are not expected to be at work at any given time. The same is true for many people who telecommute. For those individuals who have a traditional, scheduled time of arrival, however, being on time to work is critical.

D.C. District Court Judge Richard L. Leon struck down provisions of the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) new regulation that would have removed the minimum wage and overtime exemptions for home-care workers who are employed by third-party businesses, which, but for Judge Leon’s order, otherwise have made those individuals eligible for minimum wage and overtime. The Home Care Association of America and two other organizations brought suit against the DOL, claiming that the DOL violated administrative procedure in issuing this new regulation; Judge Leon agreed.

Although the D.C. District Court invalidate those provisions of the DOL’s new regulation, others remained intact. One provision that was not struck down narrows the types of duties for which home-care workers are exempt from minimum wage and overtime for “companionship services.” These services now include “only social, physical and mental ‘fellowship’ activities and ‘protection’ services, such as being present when a client is inside the home to monitor the person’s safety,” according to Bloomberg BNA. In short, this means that the number of activities for which a home-care worker will not receive minimum wage and overtime is smaller, thus making it easier for these workers to obtain these wage protections.

The Devalued American Worker

From the Washington Post:

The complaint alleges that Congressman Farenthold created an “uncomfortable work environment,” according to the Washington Post, when he told another office worker that he had “sexual fantasies” and “wet dreams” about Ms. Greene. The complaint further alleges that the Congressman, on more than one occasion, made comments to Ms. Greene about her appearance and then said “he hoped his comment wouldn’t be taken for sexual harassment.” He told another office worker that Ms. Greene “could show her nipples whenever she wanted to” during a discussion of Ms. Greene’s attire.

The complaint goes on to allege that Acting Chief-of-Staff Bob Haueter treated Ms. Greene in a way that “was intended to, and did, belittle and humiliate Plaintiff” based on her gender. When Ms. Greene told Congressman Farenthold about her concerns, the Congressman said that Mr. Haueter “was known to be condescending toward women on the staff, then paid empty, lip service encouragement for [Ms. Greene] to stand up for herself.”