Employment Law Strategist

A potentially dangerous situation employers struggle to understand arises when an employer neither knows nor recognizes an employee's mental disability, and has cause to terminate that employee, but, prior to termination, discovers the disability. This article discusses the pitfalls and solutions.

In order to discourage and, possibly, sanction an employee for bringing a suit, even where he or she has signed a release, employers have historically added to the release agreement a covenant not to sue. That covenant usually includes a promise that the employee will not sue, and that, if the employee does file suit, he or she must pay the employer's defense costs in addition to his or her own attorneys' fees and costs. Recent cases have called into question the viability, utility, and even the lawfulness of covenants not to sue, such that employers may well decide to forego them when drafting releases of age discrimination claims.

In two recent decisions, the District of Columbia United States Court of Appeals has ruled overbroad workplace policies unlawful, even when those policies did not expressly prohibit protected workplace discussions about terms and conditions of employment, and even when there was no evidence that the policies had been enforced to punish protected workplace discussions. This article discusses these decisions, and their implications for employers that have adopted, or are contemplating adoption of, workplace policies that might be deemed overbroad.

Last month, we discussed voluntary and incentive-based wellness programs, which are usually offered to employees on a voluntary basis, with various incentives often added to foster continued participation. We went on to discuss mandatory programs, which a minority of employers provide to encourage employees to get healthier by providing extensive health care services ' but that also require certain conduct, such as giving up alcohol and tobacco. This month, we continue with an in-depth discussion of the risks associated with mandatory programs.

A hearing on whether to continue the temporary injunction of the Department of Homeland Security's new regulation regarding Social Security No-Match letters took place on Monday, Oct. 1, 2007 in San Francisco federal court. Judge Charles R. Breyer made his final ruling and issued a preliminary injunction preventing the government from enforcing the No-Match regulation. Following is an update.

Recent court decisions highlight the importance of continuing to be vigilant in monitoring and preventing harassment in the workplace. For example, most employers and labor and employment lawyers are aware that harassing conduct by supervisors will result in strict liability being attached to the employer. It appears clear, however, that courts are increasingly willing to impose strict liability for harassing conduct carried out not only by the highest supervisors, but by lower-level managers as well.

Part one of this article explained the terminology and discussed some of the challenges employers face in treating transgender employees in a nondiscriminatory manner. Part Two continues the discussion.

With the understanding that preventable illnesses means preventable costs, many employers have instituted programs aimed at improving employees' overall physical and mental health. These strategies are commonly referred to as 'wellness programs.' This article examines the types of wellness programs that have been used with increasing frequency, as well as the benefits and risks associated with those programs.