Close X
Attorney Spotlight

What colorful method does Claire Miley use to keep up with the latest healthcare regulations as they relate to proposed transactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

On December 1, 2016, Parker Hannifin Corporation and CLARCOR Inc. announced that the companies have entered into a definitive agreement under which Parker will acquire CLARCOR for approximately $4.3 billion in cash, including the assumption of net debt. The transaction has been unanimously approved by the board of directors of each company. Upon closing of the transaction, expected to be completed by or during the first quarter of Parker’s fiscal year 2018, CLARCOR will be combined with Parker’s Filtration Group to form a leading and diverse global filtration business. Bass, Berry & Sims has served CLARCOR as primary corporate and securities counsel for 10 years and served as lead counsel on this transaction. Read more here.

CLARCOR
Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Securities Law Exchange BlogSecurities Law Exchange blog offers insight on the latest legal and regulatory developments affecting publicly traded companies. It focuses on a wide variety of topics including regulation and reporting updates, public company advisory topics, IPO readiness and exchange updates including IPO announcements, M&A trends and deal news.

Read More >

Labor Talk Blog: EEOC Continues Aggressive Look at Employer Leave Policies

Publications

January 3, 2013

The EEOC recently announced two multi-million dollar settlements relating to the targeted employers leave of absence practices. In November, the EEOC announced a $4.5M settlement with Interstate Distributor Company, based on claims that the trucking company did not provide reasonable accommodation to scores of employees who were terminated upon exhausting available leave time. The EEOC claimed that the company's practice of automatically terminating employees after exhausting a set amount of leave without any interactive discussions with the employee, along with an alleged "no restrictions" policy violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Similarly, on December 18 (the same day that the EEOC announced its strategic plan), the EEOC announced a $2M settlement with Dillard's Inc. based on similar allegations. There, Dillard's was accused not only of having a practice of terminating employees after a specific period of leave but also of having a practice of seeking specific medical information from an employee seeking sick leave. According to the EEOC, these practices violated the ADA.

Again, as many savvy employers who have read similar posts before, employers should:

  • Eliminate any "automatic termination" language – and eliminate any such practice of automatically terminating – any employee based on the exhaustion a set amount of leave.
    • An employer must conduct a "case-by-case" analysis of the specifics of each employee's circumstances and must invite the employee into that process as part of an "interactive" discussion
    • Suggested language – "If at the end of the leave period the employee remains unable to return to his/her regular job even with reasonable accommodation, the employee and the employer will discuss what options may be available based on the employee's circumstances and the employer's operational needs."
  • Consider at least one "extension" of another period of leave

Note, however, that granting job-protected leave, under the FMLA or if required in your jurisdiction, under the ADA, that does not mean that the employer must "hold the job open." Rather, it means that whoever is hired to do the job (if a temporary employee or a contract worker), that person is in that role temporarily for a time, given that someone is on leave.


Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.