Skip to main content

"Stuff Our Attorneys Make Us Write"

Came across the following for a job opening for a bartender (I won't disclose the name of the company):

STUFF OUR ATTORNEYS MAKE US WRITE:

The physical demands described here are representative of those that must be met by a Team member to successfully perform the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. While performing the duties of this position, the Team member will regularly be required to:

Work days, nights, and/or weekends as required.

Work in environments with both hot and cold temperatures such as freezers and around cooking equipment.

Work in noisy, fast paced environment with distracting conditions.

Read and write handwritten notes.

Lift and carry up to 30 pounds.

Move about facility and stand for long periods of time.

Walk or stand 100% of shift.

Reach, bend, stoop, mop, sweep and wipe frequently.

The above statements are intended to describe the general nature and level of work being performed by individuals assigned to this job. They are not intended to be an exhaustive list of all responsibilities, duties and skills required of personnel so classified in this position.
You should be thanking those attorneys for protecting you in case of a lawsuit.

This language was included in the ad as proof (1) that the employer complies with certain laws and (2) as notice to applicants of what is required to do the job.

Those "certain laws" would be the federal Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL or HRL), which is interpreted by courts more or less in line with the federal ADA. Both the federal and the state laws are meant to protect "qualified individuals with a disability" from being discriminated against--being fired, having their pay/hours cut, being demoted, etc.--because of a disability.

But to be in the "class" of those who are protected by the ADA or HRL, an individual has to fall within a narrow window--you have a qualifying disability (not everything that seems like a disability is recognized by courts or Congress or New York State as a qualifying disability) yet you can still perform the "essential functions of the job" with or without a reasonable accommodation. And that is why the ad went into so much detail about the "essential functions of the job" of a bartender--this is what we expect of our bartenders.

Thus, for instance, an employee can be so disabled (say he/she can't lift 30 pounds, or can't be on their feet during the whole shift, or has to take extended leaves of absence from work) that he/she cannot perform the "essential functions of the job" even with a "reasonable accommodation". In that case, he/she could not successfully sue the employer for discrimination if they got fired because they are not a "qualified individual with a disability". That person would fall outside the protections of the ADA or HRL.

Also, by including this language in the ad, a bartender who is later terminated for, say, not being able to stand on their feet for the whole shift, cannot say, "No one ever told me I'd have to stand on my feet for hours at a time! I can't, I'm disabled." The employer can point to the ad and say, no, we said that was an "essential function of the job" in the ad.

Sounds confusing? That's why employers need us. Of course, as always, this post only scratches the surface of this topic. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Being Fired for Things an Employee Did On Their Own Time, Outside of Work: Legal or Not?

New York is an "at will" employment state, meaning that, in the absence of a contract, you can be fired at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all, unless the reason is based on something like age, race, religion, disability, etc. (just a handful of categories). (Government employees have more protections than private-sector employees, such as First Amendment protections.) One of the few exceptions to the at-will employment rule is New York Labor Law §201-d. The statute is lengthy and has lots of caveats and qualifiers and defenses (for the employer). But the gist of § 201-d is that an employee can't be disciplined or fired (or not hired) for something they do on their own time, away from work, that is legal, and that is not against the employer's interests.  The statute and the reported cases mostly deal with "recreational" and "political" activities, and the cases can turn on whether something was a "recreational activity...
Post a Comment
Read more

Insurance Companies Trying to Gag Superstorm Sandy Victims?

As reported in several news articles ( this one  is free), in the aftermath of superstorm Sandy, engineering firms were hired by insurance companies to inspect the homes of people making claims for flood damage.  There have been allegations that two of the engineering firms, U.S. Forensic out of Louisiana, and GEB HiRise out of Uniondale, forged property damage reports in order to deny claims. The NY State Attorney General is investigating those allegations and wants to talk to the homeowners.  At the same time, there are about 1,800 lawsuits in federal court involving the insurance coverage claims. A three-judge panel is trying to expedite resolution of the cases.  Last week it was revealed that one of the insurance companies, The Standard Fire Insurance Company, which is a subsidiary of Travelers Insurance, drafted language in a settlement document saying that any homeowner who accepts a payout of their claims cannot cooperate with the criminal invest...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Court Finds Breach of Contract of Oral Agreement/Loan

In November, 2014, plaintiff and defendant agreed that the plaintiff would loan the defendant $200,000, and the defendant would pay him back in 4 installments of $50,000 over the next year. The defendant made the first 3 payments (totaling $150,000), but not the last payment. The plaintiff then sued for breach of contract for the remaining $50,000. There was nothing in writing, just an oral agreement. It appears that as soon as the defendant served his "Answer" to the "Complaint", the plaintiff moved for summary judgment (a kind of mini-trial on paper). The evidence included the cancelled check for $200,000 and the records of payments totaling $150,000. The appeals court held that, although there was nothing in writing, the oral agreement was enforceable as a contract and held that the plaintiff had proven his breach of contract claim.  The defendant had argued it was too early in the case to decide such a motion, that more evidence needed to be gathered (called...
Post a Comment
Read more