Clark & Krevsky LLC
Toll Free: 888-593-6283
Local: 717-303-3764
Fighting for your Employment Right
With more than 50 years of combined experience, we’re here for you.

April 2016 Archives

Revealing details of ADA claim considered retaliation by EEOC

Employers may face severe penalties for violating the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and a 2015 lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission indicates that they could also face claims of retaliation if they reveal the details of a worker's condition or claim. The legal action in question was initiated by the EEOC against a Pennsylvania-based construction and engineering firm.

FMLA leave for spouses of gay federal employees

Gay federal employees in Pennsylvania can now officially take family medical leave to take care of their spouses when their spouses are ill. The change occurred on April 8 when the Office of Personnel Management published the final rule for the law, updating the definition of "spouse" to include those who are in same-sex marriages.

Conditions that are covered by the FMLA

The Family and Medical Leave Act generally requires companies in Pennsylvania and across the country with 50 or more employees to provide up to 12 weeks of job-protected time off each year to workers when they or a family member are diagnosed with a serious health condition. However, employers are sometimes uncertain as to what types of illnesses or injuries are considered serious enough to be covered by the 1993 law. For the terms of the FMLA to apply, a physical or mental condition, injury or incapacity must meet one or more of six criteria.

Woman terminated after FMLA leave, HR director may be liable

As long as certain conditions are met, Pennsylvania employees may take time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act to care for family members. In one case, a federal appeals court ruled that when a woman was terminated after taking FMLA leave, the human resources director could be directly liable as the employer although when the case went to appeal, the terminated employee said that she did not consider the director responsible.