New Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Bias

Amid controversy, and with a pending United States Supreme Court decision lurking in the background - the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued updated guidance on discrimination, harassment and bias under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

A fact sheet created by the EEOC for small businesses addressing the new guidancecan be accessed here. 

Under the PDA, employers are required to treat women affected by pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions in the same manner as other employees (or applicants for employment) with respect to leave time, attendance issues and other work-related restrictions. Employers cannot discriminate against employees because of their pregnancy, pregnancy related medical conditions, childbirth or past pregnancy, or because of an employer's intention, desire or potential to become pregnant. Such prohibition also includes discrimination on the basis of lactation or breastfeeding. The PDA also prohibits harassment because of pregnancy or pregnancy-related conditions.

The new guidance issued by the EEOC clarifies that employers must provide the same benefits of employment to women affected by pregnancy as they do to other employees who are restricted similarly in their ability to perform work. This includes, light duty in certain situations, alternative assignment or job duties, leave or other accommodations. Significantly, the new guidance makes clear that employers must allow women with physical limitations resulting from pregnancy or childbirth to take leave under the same conditions that other leave is generally available, and that pregnant workers may have impairments related to their pregnancy that qualify as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which can entitle such employees to additional accommodations.

For additional details regarding the updated guidance, you can review the Q&A issued by the EEOC here and read the complete guidance here.  You can also review our prior blog entry on pregnancy and family responsibility discrimination.

One of the main areas of controversy with the new guidance - in addition to its timing - is that the the accommodation obligations under the PDA under the EEOC's new guidance do not require that an employee actually have a disability under the ADA to be accommodated. Rather, the new guidance requires accommodation for pregnancy (and pregnancy related conditions) in the same manner that employees accommodate other employees for injury related leave or disability leave.  The EEOC's new guidance suggests that the following types of accommodations may be appropriate, depending on the circumstances:

- elimination of non-essential job functions (e.g. lifting);

- modifying workplace policies;

- providing teleworking opportunities, where feasible; 

- granting additional leave time; and

- temporarily reassignment to different positions

Of course, for employers with more than 50 employees in a 75 mile radius, obligations under the FMLA will interact with both the ADA and these new enforcement requirements under the PDA. In addition, employers will need to reexamine the interaction between light duty for workers' compensation claims and the PDA's new accommodation requirements.

The extent to which these changes will create new obligations will in large part depend on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Young v. United Parcel Service. Young involves the issue of whether the  PDA's provision (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k)) that provides that “women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes * * * as other persons not so affected but similar in  their ability or inability to work" requires an employer that provides work accommodations to  non-pregnant employees with work limitations to provide work accommodations to pregnant employees who are “similar in their ability or inability to work.”  The Fourth Circuit held that PDA did not impose such an obligation and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review its decision.

For additional information regarding the PDA, ADA, FMLA or Workers Compensation, please contact one of the lawyers at Stavros Law P.C. at (801) 758-7604, or visit our website at www.stavroslaw.com.

Sexual Harassment Claims in Male Dominated Industries

In an article last week by USA Today, reporter Jessica Guynn details allegations relating to the purported sexism that is rampant in Silicon Valley's technology industry and the technology profession in general. It's a good read for employees and employers who operate in industries typically dominated by male employees, such as construction, firefighting, law enforcement, accounting/finance and politics.

Employers who operate businesses in such industries need to be extremely vigilant with implementing and enforcing sexual harassment policies and procedures. In addition, employers need to pay close attention to hiring, pay and promotion practices to avoid claims of gender discrimination in compensation, promotion and hiring decisions. Employees who work in such industries who suspect that they are being treated differently on the basis of gender should seek competent legal counsel who can assist employees with analyzing their situations and exploring possible legal remedies.  At Stavros Law, we have represented numerous employees and employers in gender discrimination and harassment claims, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Utah Anti-discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act.

Sexual harassment and gender discrimination claims are one of the most frequently litigated employment law claims, and there is no indication that these claims are likely to decrease in the future.  As such, it is critically important that employers understand sexual harassment, when they can be held liable for harassment and how to avoid harassment claims. Similarly, employees should be familiar with what types of conduct qualify as sexual harassment, as well as how to report harassment and respond to inappropriate behavior in the workplace.

Sexual harassment is not limited to the typical quid pro quo situation involving a male superior and female subordinate.  It can include a hostile work environment, same-sex harassment, harassment based upon gender stereotypes, and harassment by non-employees such as customers and clients or other third-parties with whom employees interact while working for their employer. And of course, these claims can be asserted by both men and women.

In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), held that sexual harassment was actionable under Title VII whether committed by an employer's supervisor or another employee, and set forth the standards for determining liability for harassment. Following Meritor, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two significant decisions in 1998 - Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775  and Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) which created the foundation for current sexual harassment law under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and which attempted to clarify the standards for harassment.  For harassment by supervisors, employers are generally strictly liable for harassment, and can only avail themselves of an affirmative defense where no tangible adverse employment action occurs as a result of the harassment. Where no tangible adverse employment action is taken, an employer may escape liability if it can prove  (1) that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any sexually harassing behavior; and (2) that employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of such preventive or corrective opportunities. For harassment by co-workers or third-parties, the employer is only liable if it knew or should have known about the conduct and failed to take actions to stop it.

Development and implementation of a robust sexual harassment policy and complaint procedure is critical to minimizing the likelihood of sexual harassment and eliminating legal claims for harassment. Employers should have a detailed harassment policy that includes a clear complaint procedure and it should train employees on its policies on an annual basis. In addition, supervisors should receive additional training on how to identify, report and respond to allegations of harassment in the workplace. The importance of responding to complaints, thoroughly investigating the complaints and implementing prompt remedial action cannot be overemphasized.  This is especially true in industries where the workplace may be dominated by one sex, where the likelihood of "locker room" behavior and other inappropriate behavior is greater.

For more information about sexual harassment and gender discrimination claims, contact Stavros Law at 801-758-7604 or visit our website at stavroslaw.com.

Tenth Circuit Affirms U.S. District of Utah Judge Robert J. Shelby's Decision Barring Utah's Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

Last week, in a divided decision issued by Judge Lucero, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Kitchen v. Herbert, Case. No. 13-4178, affirmed Judge Shelby's (U.S. District Court of Utah) decision holding that the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution protect those who wish to marry a person of the same sex in the same way they protect those who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and declared that Utah's Amendment 3 to its constitution banning same-sex marriage did not withstanding strict scrutiny because the right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.  In a 108 page opinion with included a lengthy dissent from Judge Kelly, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the State of Utah may not deny a citizen benefit of the right to marry based solely on the sex of the person the citizen chooses to marry.

For more information about the decision, and what Utah plans to do in response to the decision, you may want to read the Wall Street Journal's story or New York Times story on the decision.

Obviously, if the decision is affirmed or if the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to accept a petition for certiorari, there will be significant ramifications for Utah employers and employees in the areas of employment law. We will keep you updated and provide further guidance on the implications of this decision as the case moves forward.

If you have questions about employment or labor law issues, or want more details on this decision, please contact Stavros Law  at (801) 758-7604, or visit us at stavroslaw.com.

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Unanimous Opinion Protecting Government Employee's Free Speech Rights

In a unanimous decision issued by the United States Supreme Court and written by Justice Sotomayor, the U.S. Supreme Court re-emphasized the importance of protecting government employees free speech rights. The Court, in Lane v. Franks, reversed the Eleventh Circuit's decision upholding summary judgment against Mr. Lane and held that Lane's sworn testimony outside the scope of his ordinary job duties was entitled to First Amendment protection because it consisted of speech as a citizen of public concern and the government had no legitimate interest in treating Lane differently because of his speech, in accordance with the Court's decision in Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist., 391 U. S. 563.  Under Pickering, if speech is made in fulfilling an employee’s ordinary job duties, then the employee is not speaking as a citizen for First Amendment purposes. But if the “employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern,” the inquiry turns to whether the relevant governmental entity had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public.

The Court's decision emphasized that sworn testimony in judicial proceedings is a quintessential example of citizen speech for the simple reason that anyone who testifies in court bears an obligation to tell the truth. That obligation is distinct and independent from any separate obligations a testifying public employee might have to his employer. The Court emphasized that the critical question is whether the speech at issue is itself ordinarily within the scope of an employee’s duties, not whether it merely concerns those duties. 

Under the facts of the case, Mr. Lane was a Director of a youth program for underprivileged youth at an Alabama community college. He conducted an audit of the program's expenses and discovered that an Alabama legislator  had not been reporting for work. Lane then terminated the legislator's employment. Thereafter, Lane was terminated along with one other employee.  He filed First Amendment claims under Section 1983 against Mr. Franks, the President of the College, in his official and individual capacities for retaliation for exercising his free speech rights.  While the Court precluded the lawsuit against Frank on the grounds of qualified immunity, the case is important for its clarification of what is and is not protected speech for government employees, and when speech is ordinarily part of an employee's duties.

For more information about the case, please see the N.Y. Times article on the decision.

If you have questions about your rights as a government employee, please consult an experienced employment lawyer who can assist you and help explain your legal rights. The lawyers at Stavros Law have experience representing public employees in a variety of claims, including administrative proceedings, wrongful termination claims, discrimination claims and constitutional claims.

Pregnancy and Family Responsibility Discrimination under the ADA, FMLA and State and Local Laws

Today Forbes ran an article entitled "Proliferating State & Local Pregnancy Laws Make Modifying ADA/FMLA Procedures a Must for Most Employers"  which discusses the increasing trend among states and municipalities to enact pregnancy accommodation requirements with greater obligations for employers to accommodate employees who are pregnant than existing federal laws such as the Family & Medical Leave Act of 1993 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended by the ADAAA of 2008.

While Utah has not enacted specific protections for pregnancy related accommodations beyond those found in the ADA, FMLA and Utah Antidiscrimination Act,  there is an increasing amount of litigation in Utah and across the United States involving pregnancy-related claims and caregiver discrimination (i.e., family responsibilities discrimination) and related claims. These cases include cases alleging discrimination, retaliation and/or harassment for being a caregiver to children, spouses, parents or other close family members and are vary closely connected to pregnancy-related claims.

The complexity of the modern workforce, combined with the fact that most families across the United States include at least two wage earners who often must juggle workplace demands with life demands, has created an environment where caregiver claims are rising. These work-life demands create complex issues for both employees and employers.  As the Forbes article notes, employers and employees should anticipate additional changes to the current law governing pregnancy-related leave and disability, as well as family responsibility leave, and will need to re-evaluate policies and procedures to accommodate these changes.

In response to this growing trend, the EEOC issued guidance on disparate treatment of workers with care giving responsibilities. It has also issued a best practices guide for employers in dealing with workers who have caregiver responsibilities, as well as a Q&A on its enforcement guidance in this area. Of course, employers are well advised to re-evaluate policies on an annual basis, train their workforce and promptly respond to complaints of discrimination, harassment or retaliation relating to caregiver responsibilities and pregnancy. Employers should also consult experienced counsel for assistance with developing, implementing and enforcing workplace policies and procedures in this area.

Employees should also take steps to learn about their rights in this area of the law. If you have been denied leave or an accommodation because of you pregnancy or pregnancy-related condition, or because of other caregiver responsibilities you have, you should consult an experienced employment law attorney who can advise you on your employer's obligations and your rights under municipal, state and federal laws.

Often, short-term disability and long-term disability policies interact with employer leave policies, which creates an added layer of complexity. An experienced employment lawyer can assist you with sorting through this area of the law.  If you have questions, please feel free to contact one of our lawyers.

The Use of Non-Compete, Non-Solicitation and related Restrictive Covenants by Employers in Utah

A few days ago I ran across an article in the New York Times, "Noncompete Clauses Increasingly Pop Up In Array of Jobs", which talked about the proliferation of non-compete agreements in Massachusetts and the government's attempt to respond to this proliferation by proposing legislation that restricted the use of non-compete agreements. The article compares the experience of California's technology sector which has thrived despite California's general ban on the use of non-compete agreements in employment relationships, to what has happened in Massachusetts, which has largely enforced such agreements. It's a good read for both employers and employees about the impact and benefit (or lack thereof) of non-compete agreements.

I often discuss with my clients (both employers and employees) my general disdain for overreaching non-compete agreements intended solely to stifle competition or to prohibit employees from working. And, as with Massachusetts, we've seen an unacceptable proliferation of non-compete agreements in areas where no reasonable person could honestly suggest the agreements are needed. These agreements have been used to keep laborers and others engaged in common callings from working, such as hair stylists, machine operators, administrative assistants, Unix administrators, web designers, and other similar workers from earning a living.  These employees are always at-will employees who lack the financial resources to challenge unenforceable agreements.  And Utah law doesn't do much to help them.

Under Utah law, a non-compete agreement, although disfavored under the law, is generally enforceable if the agreement satisfies certain criteria.  Generally, non-compete agreements are only upheld "where they are necessary for the protection of the business for the benefit of which the covenant was made and no greater restraint is imposed than is reasonably necessary to secure such protection." Allen v. Rose Park Pharmacy, 237 P.2d 823, 826 (Utah 1951). To be enforceable the agreement  (1) must be supported by consideration; (2) not negotiated in bad faith; (3) must be necessary to protect the goodwill of the business; and (4) reasonable in its restrictions as to time and area. Id.

Utah courts have held that continued employment is sufficient consideration to support a non-compete agreement. In other words, if your employer tells you sign to sign the agreement or you will be fired, if you sign and you remain employed, that is sufficient "consideration" to support the agreement. In many other jurisdictions, that is not the case. Similarly, in many other jurisdictions, if you are terminated, there are limitations on the enforceability of the agreement. In Utah, it doesn't matter if you were laid off, fired because your employer thinks you're not a good worker (oh, the irony right?) or voluntarily quit. The agreement is still enforceable regardless of the reason for the separation.  

With respect to the second element, there is not significant case law in Utah on what constitutes bad faith. One example of bad faith, however, would be hiring an employee, requiring the employee to sign the agreement and then terminating the employee with the intent of only keeping the employee from working for a competitor (and not actually intending to employ the employee). There are a variety of other situations that could constitute bad faith, but Utah law is largely silent in this area. Utah law provides no guidance on this issue, and the Supreme Court has yet to have the opportunity to address the bad faith standard in detail.

The remaining two elements are where the case law gets murky in Utah. When is a non-compete agreement necessary to protect a legitimate interest of an employer (be it the employer's goodwill, an extraordinary investment in training, or trade secrets, or some other legitimate business interest), and when is the agreement reasonable in time (e.g., two years, three years) and area (e.g., Utah, the United States, the world)? One can easily image all the various arguments that can be made on these two elements. Additionally, the reasonableness of the restrictions and the necessity of the restriction is generally a fact question, which means it is often a question that must be decided by a jury or court.  

Because such determinations are fact questions, it makes it easy for employers to force employees to sign non-compete agreements, even where there is no risk that the employee's competition would damage the employer in any meaningful way. And that's what employers have done, aided by lawyers and law firms more interested in generating fees from such litigation than crafting real solutions to protect employers' legitimate interests. We've seen multiple large law firms more than willing to attempt to enforce covenants (or threaten to enforce covenants) no reasonable person would deem enforceable.

As any employee who has been involved in non-compete litigation can attest, it really doesn't matter whether or not the agreement the employee has signed is unenforceable under Utah law. An employer seeking to deter an employee from working for a competitor or starting a competing business can cause financial ruin to an employee simply by filing a lawsuit, seeking an injunction and pursuing litigation, whether or not the employer ultimately prevails. Even in the worst scenario, the employer can exact a transaction cost for an employee who dares work for a competitor. This creates a chilling effect on competition and, in reality, doesn't do anything to protect an employer's legitimate business interests.

The truth is that in many situations there is no need to have an employee sign a non-compete agreement. Yes, that's right. There is no need at all. Much less restrictive alternatives like non-solicitation clauses which prohibit the solicitation of former customers and non-disclosure provisions which prohibit the disclosure of proprietary information can provide more than adequate protection to employers. In addition, trade secrets and other proprietary information are already protected against use or disclosure, under other laws such as the Utah Uniform Trade Secret Act and common law remedies like breach of fiduciary duty, theft, etc.

So what should you do? 

Well, employees should always seek counsel before signing any non-compete agreement or other restrictive covenant. Don't be penny wise and pound foolish and think that there is no option other than to simply sign what is handed to you (you know, with all that other paperwork when you are hired). There are always options and a good lawyer can help you see those options and find a resolution to your problem.  And never - never - start a competing business or start working for a competitor prior to having a lawyer evaluate the agreement. Failure to do so can easily result in your own financial ruin, even if the agreement is not enforceable under Utah law. 

For employers, there's simply no need to pay for lawyers and legal fees to enforce agreements that aren't designed to protect legitimate business interests, and that do nothing to help you protect your proprietary information.  Despite what many lawyers and law firms want you to believe, you can implement agreements that are not designed in a manner to simply chill the free mobility of labor and to keep employees from working in their profession.  Failure to act reasonably can have significant costs beyond legal fees, including decreased employee morale, a loss of qualified talent and a general reputation of being a poor employer. Successful companies have found ways to protect proprietary information without stifling the free mobility of labor. All you need is good legal advice and a clear understanding about what is necessary to protect your business and its interests.

Protection of Proprietary, Confidential and Trade Secret Information

Protecting Your Utah Proprietary Information

In today’s competitive economic climate, protecting confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret information  is an essential part of successful business protocol. Proprietary information can be the lifeblood a business, but disclosure, misuse, theft or misappropriation of such information can ruin a thriving business. Because of this, it is important for business owners to properly identify such information and keep it out of the wrong hands.

However, it is just as important not to treat all aspects of your business as proprietary. For example, information that can be obtained easily through “public sources,” through a “basic
research task,” or through a “simple internet search” is not proprietary. See e.g., CDC Restoration & Constr., LC v. Tradesmen Contrs., LLC, 274 P.3d 317, 326 (Utah Ct. App. 2012). Such publicly available information is not entitled to trade secret protection and efforts to protect such information are largely useless.

 

What is proprietary information?

In order to be deemed “proprietary”, a business owner must derive economic value from keeping the information confidential. Utah law does not necessarily limit what can be considered proprietary. As such, financial projections, client lists, technical specifications, manufacturing processes, or any other information that makes a product (or process) unique based on its secrecy can be considered proprietary. Importantly, however, the information cannot be publicly available and must derive some independent economic value.

How can proprietary information be protected?

Business owners also have to take certain steps to ensure the integrity of their secrets.

First, a thorough risk assessment is helpful in identifying what must be protected and where potential leaks may exist. Understanding where vulnerabilities lie are essential in devising a protection plan and insuring that protocols are implemented and properly followed.

Second, legally binding documents can protect proprietary information. These include non-disclosure agreements, non-compete agreements and proprietary acknowledgment disclosures. Besides limiting the number of people who know the trade secrets, these documents create clear rules for how they may be used, disclosed and otherwise utilized

Further, companies may also use a variety of data security programs to protect information on company laptops, tablets and smart phones. This may include passwords that limit access to internal systems, firewalls that protect against external threats and programs that can protect (or wipe clean) sensitive information. This is especially important if a company device becomes lost or stolen.

Security protocols, whether through agreements or programs must be updated regularly, and employees who have access to such information must be reminded of their legal duty to maintain the company’s trade secrets.

Ultimately, understanding how Utah and federal law protects confidential, proprietary and trade secret information is essential. It is also essential for employees to understand these legal requirements. 

Employees who jump from employer to employer may be bound by non-disclosure agreements, fiduciary duties, contractual obligations and other duties not to use or disclose such information in future employment or otherwise.  Failure to abide by such restrictions can lead to time consuming and expensive litigation.

For example, while Utah Courts have held that "[g]eneral knowledge or expertise acquired through employment in a common calling cannot be appropriated as a trade secret" and "the efficiency

and skills which an employee develops through his work belong to him and not to his former employer," employees may still be bound by various agreements prohibiting the use of certain information, as well as obligations imposed by statutes, such as Utah’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”) which is codified in Utah Code Ann. §13-24-1 et seq.

Wrongful Termination in Retaliation for Filing Utah Workers' Compensation Claims

Following an on-the-job injury, many employees worry that reporting their injury and any subsequent workers’ compensation claim may affect their job security. Employers also must be cautious when making employment decisions after an employee suffers a workplace injury. In some cases, if a decision to fire a worker occurs after a workers’ compensation claim it could provide the basis for a wrongful termination claim.

When can an employer fire a worker who has filed for workers’ compensation? 

This can be a complicated question and a qualified employment law attorney, like the attorneys at Stavros Law P.C., can provide counsel based on the facts of an individual matter. 

This article will address some of the initial considerations in bring or defending against such claims.

Workers’ compensation is generally the only remedy for an employee injured at a Utah workplace (at least for non-intentional injuries). The safety net means the employer’s workers’ compensation insurer pays for medical treatment costs and a portion of the injured employee’s wages while recuperating. However, an employee may have a wrongful termination claim if an individual can prove he or she was fired in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim. To prove retaliation, the employee has the burden to prove the following:

·        A workers’ compensation claim was filed

·        The employer knew about the claim

·        The employer fired the employee

·        The workers’ compensation claim was the cause for the termination

It can become difficult for an employee to prove the causal link between the filing of a worker’s comp claim and being fired, or to show pretext for the employee's termination. However, a cautious employer also needs to think of the costs of potential litigation. Even an appearance of a link between the firing and a workers’ comp claim can result in costly wrongful termination claim defense. 

Utah law recognizes a claim for wrongful termination in violation of clear and substantial public policy. Touchard v. La-Z-Boy Inc., 2006 UT 71, ¶ 3.  In Touchard, the Utah Supreme Court held that a retaliatory discharge of an employee for filing a workers' compensation claim is a violation of public policy. Id. at ¶ 19.  And, just last year, in Stone v. M&M Welding & Constr., Inc., 2013 UT App. 233, the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the clear and substantial public policy set forth in Utah's Worker's Compensation Act, Utah Code Ann. §§ 34A-2-101 to -1005. A prima facie case of wrongful discharge requires that employee show that his employer 1) terminated him; 2) that a clear and substantial policy existed; 3) that the employee's conduct brought the policy into play; and 4) that the discharge and the conduct bringing the policy into play are causally connected.  Ryan v. Dan's Food Stores, Inc., 972 P.2d 395, 404 (Utah 1998). Once a prima facie case had been made, the burden shifts to the employer to "articulate a legitimate reason for the discharge. When faced with a legitimate reason for termination, the employee must then prove that engaging in the protected conduct was a 'substantial factor' in the employer's motivation to discharge the employee." Id. If the employer meets this burden, the employee then must show that the legitimate reason proffered by the employer is pretextual.

There are numerous ways in which an employee can show that the articulate legitimate reason for discharge is pretextual. Such evidence can include the falsity of the articulated reasons, the proximity of the termination to the exercise of workers' compensation rights, shifting explanations for the discharge and other factors.

Can an employer ever discharge or discipline a workers’ compensation claimant?

Employers may still be able to fire an employee or discipline an employee after that employee files for workers’ compensation. The firm must make sure to follow progressive discipline policies, and make sure that discipline is not related to the workers’ comp claim. In addition, employers are well advised to seek the advice of competent counsel to review the facts related to the decision prior to terminating an employee.

Sometimes an injury may mean that an employee cannot complete the required duties of the position. This may ultimately provide justification to terminate the employee. The questions becomes whether the reasons supporting the termination decision were credible or pretextual and in reality discriminatory.In addition, in some cases, issues concerning FMLA, accommodations for disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act and short-term and long-term disability plans need to be considered.

In employment situations that involve workers’ compensation claims and subsequent discipline or discharge, a consultation with an experienced employment lawyer is important. An employer may be able to avoid litigation by seeking experienced counsel. Likewise, an attorney can advise an employee of his or her legal rights and assist with a wrongful discharge claim, if a workers’ comp claim prompted discipline or termination.