• A federal jury awarded a former sales manager of AutoZone nearly $425,000 in damages, lost wages, and litigation costs after finding that the company violated federal law by failing to accommodate his disability. Even though the sales manager is disabled with permanent back and neck impairments, the EEOC presented evidence that the employer required the manager to  perform cleaning tasks that violated his medical restrictions, which ultimately resulted in an injury. For more information, click here: http://1.usa.gov/uxr4CM.

• The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) ordered UPS to pay more than $96,000 in damages for terminating a disabled employee even though she was able to perform the essential functions of her job. The company also had a 12 month limit on the length of time it would accommodate employees, even though this is illegal under California law. For more details, click here: http://bit.ly/sIRFqU.

•The Continuing Education of the Bar (CEB) recently published a book entitled, Drafting Employment Documents for California Employers, which includes a chapter on the interactive process and the reasonable accommodation analysis authored by Patti Perez.  The chapter includes numerous forms, checklists, and templates for everyday practical use. For more information, follow this link: http://bit.ly/przFkF.

• Patti Perez, Vice Chair of the Fair Employment and Housing Commission (FEHC) and Ann M. Noel, Executive and Legal Affairs Secretary for the FEHC, recently co-authored an article entitled, “Navigating California Disability Law: Lessons for the Business Savvy”, for the California Business Law Practitioner.  The article discusses the legal background and practical takeaways of disability discrimination law in California. For the complete article, click here: http://bit.ly/p6MJ8y.

 • The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing ordered Air Canada to pay $325,000 and provide training to managers for failing to accommodate a customer service representative’s disability. The company fired this employee because she was unable to lift cargo (an unessential job duty) because of her disability. This serves as a reminder to employers to engage in the interactive accommodation process with disabled employees and to carefully analyze which job functions are essential. For more information, read the DFEH’s press release here: http://bit.ly/rBR9s6.

• The Fair Employment and Housing Commission recently ordered a Wisconsin-based company to pay $846,000 to a terminated sales employee, the largest payment ordered in a discrimination case. The FEHC found the company discriminated against the employee based on his disability (the employee had been receiving cancer treatments which limited his ability to travel) and failed to respond to his requests for accommodation. The case serves as a reminder to all employers that they should respond interactively to all requests for accommodation. For more information, click here: http://bit.ly/niPA1T.

• In a recent edition of the California Labor & Employment Law Review, Patti Perez discusses disability accommodations and the interactive process, including practical real-world problems facing both employers and employees.  Read her article here: http://bit.ly/983gnX.

• A recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court (Staub v. Proctor Hospital) held that an employer could be liable for actions taken by an unbiased decisionmaker if a non-decisionmaker influenced those actions with his own discriminatory bias.

In this case, the Vice President of HR terminated an employee for violating a corrective action plan issued by the employee's supervisor.  Upon termination, the employee alleged the initial corrective action by his supervisor was issued because of the supervisor's hostility towards his military obligations.  The Vice President failed to investigate these allegations.  The Court found that the employee presented evidence of the supervisor's bias, which illustrates the importance of investigating any and all allegations of discrimination, harassment and other egregious behavior.  For an additional discussion regarding this court decision, click here: http://bit.ly/fBitE1.

• The number of charges filed with the EEOC hit a new record high during fiscal year 2011. In addition, the EEOC delivered a historic amount of monetary relief (more than $364.6 million) for complainants. For additional details, click here: http://1.usa.gov/uE1UPT.

• Howard McNally, former COO for AT&T, recently reflected on his management style in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. In addition to generally advising the respectful treatment of others, McNally talks about the importance of providing honest and direct feedback to subordinates not only for the potential benefits to the business but also to give employees a fair chance to improve any performance deficiencies. For the complete interview, click here: http://on.wsj.com/qyaYZF.

• A recent ruling by an administrative law judge of the National Labor Relations Board should remind all employers, including non-unionized employers, that disciplining employees for criticizing workplace conditions on social media sites like Facebook might run afoul of the National Labor Relations Act. Employers should review all social media and related policies to ensure such activity is not prohibited. Though an employee’s online venting may be protected, we advise employees and employers to create policies and workplace culture in which concerns can be discussed openly and directly with each other. For more information, click here: http://onforb.es/nE5UDn.

• In the recently released book, “Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President,”  author Ron Suskind documents complaints made by female aides in the Obama White House that men enjoy greater access to the President and more influence in policy decisions. Anita Dunn, former White House communications director, even described the White House as a “hostile workplace.” These allegations serve as reminder to all employers to create a working environment where everyone feels able to share their ideas and confident that the best ideas will be validated and implemented. For more details, click here: http://wapo.st/qdg9mj.

• Though only one state has passed legislation protecting employment status and federal legislation remains pending, employers should be mindful of policies that eliminate potential applicants solely on the basis of their unemployment status. Not only can this possibly lead to disparate impact claims on the basis of other protected characteristics, but employers may possibly overlook qualified candidates for their open positions. For an additional discussion on this topic, click here: http://bit.ly/rt64qs.

• With increasing economic gloom, any indication of possible layoffs is detrimental to employee morale. Employers should continue to keep lines of communications open even in shaky economic times to help reduce this anxiety and other related concerns. For more information, click here for a recent Wall Street Journal article on this topic: http://on.wsj.com/r7FY3Y.

• Though there are many arguments for and against annual performance evaluations, all managers should provide regular and frequent performance feedback to their subordinates. Not only are younger millennials more accustomed to frequent feedback, but all employees benefit from this to develop their strengths and correct their weaknesses as soon as possible. For a more detailed discussion including novel ideas for providing more regular feedback, click here: http://on.wsj.com/qpnwxe.