Fired for Blogging

     Shea Allen, A Huntsville, AL reporter was fired Monday, July 29, 2013 for blogging about her job.  The reporter decided to write a "tell-all" blog about her job.  Ms. Allen states that she meant for the blog to be taken as a joke and as funny; however, her employer didn't see it that way.  Below is a list of some of the reporter's "confessions."

1. I've gone bra-less during a live broadcast and no one was the wiser.
2. My best sources are the ones who secretly have a crush on me.
3. I am better live when I have no script and no idea what I'm talking about.
4. I've mastered the ability to contort my body into a position that makes me appear much skinner in front of the camera than I actually am.
5. I hate the right side of my face.
6. I'm frightened of old people and I refuse to do stories involving them or the places they reside.
7. Happy, fluffy, rainbow stories about good things make me depressed.
8. I've taken naps in the news car.
9. If you ramble and I deem you unnecessary for my story, I'll stop recording but let you think otherwise.
10. I've stolen mail and then put it back. (maybe)

Upon seeing the post, her bosses immediately asked her to take it down.  Ms. Allen obliged, but then re-posted the blog a few hours later adding the headline, "No Apologies." 

This post was taken down because I was momentarily misguided about who I am and what I stand for. To clarify, I make no apologies for the following re-post. It’s funny, satirical and will likely offend some of the more conservative folks. But it isn’t fake and its a genuine look into my slightly twisted psyche.

Here’s the thing, I’ve vowed to always fight for the right of free expression. It’s allowed, no matter what the profession. I pride myself in having earned the respect of many because I make no apologies for the truth and hold nothing back. I don’t fight for things because they serve me, I fight for them because they are right. Sources trust me because I am an unadulterated version of the truth. I won’t ever bend just because its popular to do so and I’m not bending now.

On Monday, Ms. Allen reported that she was terminated without cause.

If you have a question about your employment rights, please contact Ambuter Law for your free case evaluation.

"Pay or Play" Deadline Extended until 2015

     Earlier this month, the Obama Administration announced a delay in applications of penalties associated with the employer shared responsibility under the Affordable Care Act.  As a result of the delay, the Department of the Treasury announced on its website that the administration will not be assessing penalties against large employers under the "pay or play" rules until 2015.  What this means is that employers with 50 or more employees will have additional time to consider  how the "pay or play" rules apply to their business model and more time to consider how to apply to those rules.

If you have a question regarding your employment rights, please contact Ambuter Law for a free case evaluation.

EEOC Sues Companies over Background Checks

     In recent weeks, the EEOC has filed suits against BMW and Dollar General over the companies' broad use of criminal background checks to illegally discriminate against minority groups.

     According to the EEOC, BMW fired dozens of African-American employees at one of its South Carolina plants during what was deemed "a transitional period" that required employees to reapply for their jobs.  A BMW contractor performed background checks on those who re-applied.  However, many of the African-American employees were not re-hired as they had criminal convictions.  The EEOC is alleging that BMW wrongfully considered these criminal convictions when determining to re-hire certain employees.  The EEOC's position is that the criminal backgrond check had a disparate impact on minorities who re-applied, and therefore this practice violated Title VII.

     In the case against Dollar General, the EEOC alleges that Dollar General withdrew employment offers from two (2) African-American women.  One of the offers withdrawn was from an African-American woman that had a drug conviction that was six (6) years old.  Dollar General's policy is that it disqualifies certain candidates for employment if they have a certain type of conviction within ten (10) years.  The other woman who was later disqualified reported that her criminal background check contained errors.  Even after Dollar General learned of the errors on her report, they would not employ her.

     In these cases, the EEOC's position is that these companies violated Title VII and that neither company will be able to show good cause for disqualifying minorities for positions. 

If you have a question regarding your employment rights, please contact Ambuter Law for a free case evaluation.

Who is a "Supervisor"

    In the recent Vance v. Ball State University decision, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a new definition of "Supervisor" under Title VII.  Now, an employee is a "supervisor" only if he/she is empowered by the employer to take "tangible employment actions" against the victim.  The Vance decision overrules lower court decisions and the EEOC, which had previously ruled that an individual is a "supervisor" if that individual merely directs the daily activities of another employee.

     Based on prior U.S. Supreme Court precedent, an employer was considered strictly liable if the supervisor's harassment culminated in "tangible employment actions."  Such actions included "a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits."  See Burlington Industries Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998).  If no tangible employment action is taken, the employer may escape liability if it can demonstrate two things:

1. it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any harassing behavior, and
2. the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of the preventive or corrective opportunities that the employer provided.

     This new ruling is very important.  For one, it is pro-employer.  The ruling limits the scope of an employer's liability for workplace harassment by limiting the definition of "supervisor."  Also, the new definition of "supervisor" is one that can now be readily applied by employers.

If you believe you were harassed or discriminated against in the workplace, please contact Ambuter Law for a free case evaluation.