Employer Questions As Invasion Of Privacy

A woman brought action against her employer for wrongful discharge and invasion of privacy after the chairman of the defendant's Board of Directors asked her if she planned to have children. The court found that the question was an invasion of privacy and awarded the woman $5,000 plus interest and costs.

Why This Is Important . . . Employers must be careful not to ask questions of employees that can be considered a violation of the employee's privacy.

Director Liable For Corporation's Employment Taxes

A director ended up personally liable for a corporation's employment taxes as a "responsible person" under the Internal Revenue Code. The director had held his position since the inception of the company, was a signatory on all the company's bank accounts, had authority to sign tax returns and issued checks to pay creditors. The director was liable because he had willfully preferred other creditors to the IRS.

Why This Is Important . . . Corporate directors can be liable for taxes owed by the corporation where they participate in activities designed to avoid paying the taxes.

Drunken Employee Sues Under ADA

The Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") says employers can hold employees who drink to the same standards as other employees. An employee came to work drunk and was fired. He had a prior history of alcoholism and treatment for it. He sued under the ADA. The employer argued the employee was not covered by the ADA since he was drunk. The employee argued that he was covered because the employer did not fire every employee who came in drunk. The court ruled that the employee could maintain the lawsuit.

Why This Is Important . . . This court found that the drunken employee was still covered by the ADA because the employer did not consistently fire every employee who came in drunk on the first occasion they did so. This decision makes it clear that employers have to be consistent about the application of their policies or run the risk of ADA lawsuits.

No Charitable Immunity Cap For Discrimination

After an employee was fired from the MSPCA, she sued for discrimination. The Massachusetts charitable immunity statute sets a $20,000 limit on the amount of tort damages that can be recovered against charities such as the MSPCA. The United States District Court held that statute did not apply because, under a prior Massachusetts Appeals Court case, damages awarded for discrimination are not "tort" damages.

Why This Is Important . . . The case opens wider liability for charitable organizations in Massachusetts.