The EEOC sued on behalf of both employees for sexual harassment. The court found in favor of the first because the store manager's failure to address the complaint sealed the liability for a "constructive discharge." But the second employee's case was dismissed because the company did take prompt corrective action and fired the supervisor. The supervisor himself could also be personally criminally liable for his overt sexual actions under state law. EEOC vs. Dillards Inc. (M.D. Fla., 2009).

An employer's anti-harassment policy, training and prompt corrective action wins case. Two Chili's restaurant employees, a waitress and a cook, had an on-and-off romance. When the romance ended, the cook continued to pursue the waitress and retaliate when she rejected his advances. He called her profane sexual names and sprayed her with hot water in the restaurant kitchen. Management disciplined the cook and then discharged him when the behavior continued. The waitress sued for sexual harassment under Title VII, but the court found for Chili's. The company had a clear anti-harassment policy signed by all employees, trained managers on harassment, and the store manager took prompt corrective action and discipline and then discharged the cook to solve the problem. Forrest vs. Brinker International Payroll Co. (1st Cir., 2009).

Police officers in uniform must "maintain a neutral appearance." A Muslim police officer was denied her request to wear a headscarf on duty as a religious accommodation. She wore it anyway, received a disciplinary suspension and sued. The court ruled in favor of the police department because a uniformed officer is different from a civilian-clothed job. There's a valid reason to not create an appearance of crossing the Constitution's Establishment Clause line in an official government uniform by allowing individual officers to add religious symbols. Webb vs. Philadelphia (3rd Cir., 2009). Note: The courts have ruled differently regarding religious pins and dress on civilian-clothed detectives and other government employees who are not in uniform.

The ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act] requires good-faith consideration and reasonable implementation of accommodation requests, not immediate solutions. In Stofsky vs. Pawling Central School District (S.D., NY, 2009), an employee with bronchitis, asthma and multiple allergies requested modifications to her office because of temperature and dampness. She sued under the ADA when the changes were not promptly made. The court found in favor of the school district because there was no refusal to make the changes and no evidence that the modifications could have been made more quickly.

Employer could not justify no-work-from-home policy. An employee requested to work from home two days a week because of her disability restrictions. Management refused on the grounds that removing the documents she worked with created a security risk. But at trial, the employee's supervisor testified that her daily presence in the office was not necessary as long as she had documents to work on. What's more, the papers at issue were low level, had no security designation and were not covered by any department security or safekeeping practices. The court found the employer's reason for denial of work from home was without foundation. Freeman vs. Department of Homeland Security (D. NJ, 2009).

Holding a job open indefinitely is not a reasonable accommodation. In Peyton vs. Fred's Stores of Arkansas Inc. (8th Cir., 2009), an employee's cancer treatments and recuperation rendered her unable to work. She and her doctors "had no idea when, if ever," she would be able to return. Her manager called her in the hospital during treatment and told her the employment was terminated. Although it could have been handled better, the court ruled that the discharge was legal. Reasonable accommodation for a disability includes a "reasonable leave of absence" for treatment or recuperation.

Disability created by an employee's own negligence does not give protection. A truck driver suffered a disabling injury when a load shifted and caused an accident. He admitted that he used worn-out securing straps rather than take a little extra time to get new ones. He had previously been warned about properly securing cargo. He was fired for failing to avoid a preventable accident. He sued, claiming the ADA prevented discharge because he had a disability. The court dismissed the claim: Disability does not protect an employee from discharge for valid performance infractions. Copeland vs. Ryder Services Corp. (9th Cir., 2009).