According to the Americans with Disabilities Act and M.G.L. ch. 151B, employees are entitled to protections associated with mental or physical impairments if they rise to the level of a “disability,” a question resolved by determining whether the condition substantially impairs one or major life activities.  If someone meets the statutory definition of “disabled,” they are entitled to important workplace protections, including those prohibiting harassment and discrimination, as well as those requiring employers to engage in an interactive process to determine if reasonable accommodations must be provided to the employee to mitigate the impacts the disability has on work performance.   In 2008, the Americans with Disabilities Act was amended in a number of important ways, including in ways that greatly expanded the definition of “disability.”  As a result, numerous conditions (cancer, diabetes, etc.) are clearly considered “disabilities.” 

The status of obesity as a “disability,” however, is not clear.   Some courts have said “maybe,” others have said “no,” and others have said “yes, but only if it results from an underlying physiological disorder.”  On September 21, 2016, the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination joined the debate, finding that an employee who suffered from morbid obesity was disabled and that the employer’s refusal to grant him a leave of absence violated its obligation to provide the employee a reasonable accommodation. 

Please feel free to contact us if you have questions about disability discrimination, the interactive process, or workplace accommodations.    

Beginning December 1, 2016, any employee paid less than $913.00 per week will not be capable of qualifying for the exemptions from overtime known as the “white collar exemptions.”  According to the Department of Labor, this change will result in an estimated 4.2 million additional employees becoming eligible for overtime.  You can read more about this change here. 

Not surprisingly, action is underway to stop the implementation, including a September 20th suit brought by 21 states against the federal government to block the new overtime rule and declare it unlawful.  According to these 21 states, the final rule threatens their budgets, represents an encroachment upon the rights of states, and violates the 10^th Amendment.  The 21 states named as plaintiffs in the suit are:  Nevada, Texas, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Iowa, Maine, New Mexico, Mississippi, and Michigan. 

Also, on September 28, the United States House of Representatives passed a measure that would delay implementation of the new rule by six months.   The following day, lawmakers introduced a bill that would phase implementation of the new rule across five years and would require an “independent government watchdog” to study the new rule after its first year of implementation.   

If you have any questions about this proposed law or any other employment issue, please feel free to contact us.  Click here to register for our Labor Law Seminar where we will be discussing the new DOL rule and strategies to minimize its impact.