A Lawsuit to Avoid Daily Lunch Break
Overlawyered, a blog dedicated to tracking cases and laws that the authors see as clogging up the legal system (often in the form of frivolous law suits), had an interesting article last week. The post, "Give me a break. Or not." describes a postal worker who is suing U.S. Postal Service under the ADA because his bosses are forcing him to take lunch breaks. The worker claims the lunch breaks aggravate his arthritis as they require him to stop moving around. I thought this case was interesting as it brought up a topic that none of us brought up or thought about in class today. Can an employer be sued for being too nice to an employee?
posted by stevie at
2:22 AM
5 Comments:
Although allowing Fox to work through lunch would seem to be a reasonable accommodation, I agree with the blog post in that he can just stay active on his own during his lunch break. Remember, the employer gets to choose the reasonable accommodation if there's an array to choose from.
To expand on Justin's comment, one can imagine a scenario where the appointed place that employees are required to take their lunch breaks is too cramped or crowded to accommodate the employee's need to remain active. In such a case, some sort of additional accommodation might be warranted (either allowing him to work through lunch or providing an alternate space, in which the freedom to remain active is provided, for him to take lunch, for instance).
On a different note, one of the issues I consistently have with the folks at Overlawyered and other commentators of their ilk is that this case is only at the stage of the complaint. Therefore, because federal civil procedure rules require only "notice pleading" (providing a short, clear statement of the claim being made, not detailed justification for the claim), we can't tell much about the facts of the case or the relative merits of it. This might be that scenario described above. On the other hand, it might not. It might be a wholly frivolous claim. But that's not necessarily a failing of the system or evidence of a poorly drafted law. If the claim is frivolous, the court can throw it out and sanction the party and/or the attorney for bringing it in the first place. Nieporent calls the ADA a "completely standardless law." Setting aside what a ridiculous overstatement that is, even a law with the clearest and most stringent standards can still be subject to frivolous suits.
This is a situation that the folks at Overlawyered should be patient enough to see how it works out. If the claim is truly ridiculous, it won't make it far. If it is literally frivolous, the court has the power to punish the party/attorney for bringing it. On the other hand, there may be facts -- not yet publicly available due to the early stage of the case -- that illuminate why the case involves a serious and contested issue under the statute.
I thought there was some regulation that a person after working so many hours have to take a lunch break. It appears that most major retailers have a policy of this nature and I always assumed there was a regulation for it. Does anybody know about this?
I would have to know more about the case to make a decision. If the employer gave the employee options, such as being able to move around without working, then I would think that would be an appropriate solution. If the employer simply made the employee take a physical break then I would feel the company would be in violation of the ADA... but to me it doesn't seem very probable that an employer would force you to take a physical break if you didn't want to.
a f, I looked this up because I also was wondering. On the Department of Labor website, it says that employers are not required to offer lunch or coffee breaks. It also says 5-20 minute breaks must be paid, but that if companies choose to offer longer breaks, those are unpaid. However, states might have different requirements. Check out http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/workhours/breaks.htm
for more.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home