An employee was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. He was required to take several insulin shots daily, use other medication and strictly regulate his diet.

He could still perform most of his duties. However, his job required him to be called on as a “borrowed hand” when field crews needed extra assistance. That involved working long shifts outside and traveling to other locations, often overnight.

The employee’s doctor told him he could no longer perform field work, because it would make it difficult to treat his condition.

In 23 years of employment before his diagnosis, the employee had been used as a borrowed hand about a dozen times. He told his boss about the new restriction and asked to be exempt from those duties.

The company’s response: He could either apply for a new job within the company or take early retirement.

He did neither — instead, he sued, claiming he was disabled and the company should have changed his job duties to accommodate him.

The company’s defense was twofold: First, the employee’s diabetes wasn’t a serious-enough condition to be considered a disability. And second, field work was an essential function of his job that couldn’t be eliminated.

Could the employer get the case thrown out?

No. The court disagreed with the company on both counts. The judge ruled that his strict diet and medical regimen were significant enough to “substantially limit” several major life activities, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Also, the court decided field work was not an essential function of the employee’s job. He’d only been called on to perform those duties an average of once every two years. And the work was not highly specialized — it would have been reasonable for the company to find someone else who could do it when the need arose.

Cite: Rohr v. Salt River Project

Though it was only signed a few weeks ago, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act has already caused big legal problems for some companies.

Signed by President Obama on January 29, the Ledbetter Act gives employees more time to sue when they believe they’re victims of pay discrimination. The Supreme Court had previously ruled pay bias suits had to be filed within 180 days of the discriminatory decision.

But the new law gives employees a new 180-day window to sue every time they receive a paycheck in which they claim they are discriminated against.

The act was effective immediately — and applies retroactively to lawsuits still pending as of May 28, 2007, the day before the Supreme Court’s decision.

It’s already made it tougher to prevent discrimination suits:

In one case, three women sued their employer, claiming they were unfairly demoted because of their gender.

The demotions occurred in 1990 — so the company argued the employees missed out on the statute of limitations.

But the court issued a ruling on February 2 — four days after the Ledbetter Act was signed. And, since the demotions resulted in a loss of pay that continued to the present day, the court ruled the new law applied to their lawsuit.

The judge noted that just a week earlier, the case would have been tossed on those grounds. But not anymore.

Eventually, the case was thrown out because the company proved the demotions were based on non-biased factors (Cite: Bush v. Orange Counry Corrections Dept.).

In another recent case, an employee believed he was being paid less than his colleagues based on his race and gender. He sued.

The company tried to have the case dismissed because his pay was set several years before — well outside the statute of limitations. But the judge let the case go forward, applying the Ledbetter Act to his claims (Cite: Rehman v. State University of New York at Stony Brook).

What can HR do now?

Given the law’s immediate impact, what steps can HR take now to prevent lawsuits based on decisions that occurred far in the past?

Some experts recommend conducting a self-audit to uncover anything that could look like pay discrimination.

First, examine company policies on starting salaries and raises. Many companies don’t have a formal policy, giving individual managers wide discretion in pay decisions — which could turn out to be a liability under the new law.

Next, consider analyzing pay data to make sure no employees have been harmed by unfair decisions that violated your policy. Then, your company can remedy the situation without having to go to court.

The company tracked absences by dividing the hours employees missed by the hours they were scheduled to work. Employees were disciplined if they’d been absent for more than 4% of their scheduled hours.

Under the policy, time off for FMLA leave was not counted as an absence and not included in employees’ scheduled hours.

An employee was disciplined and later fired for repeatedly violating that attendance policy. However, she sued, claiming she’d have been compliant with the rule if it weren’t for a period of FMLA leave she had taken.

By the company’s calculation, her absence rate was more than 7%. But if those hours she would have worked if she didn’t take FMLA were counted, she would’ve been below 4%.

In other words, she claimed, she was being penalized for taking FMLA.

The company argued the policy was not biased against employees on medical leave, because FMLA was not factored into either part of the equation. But the court didn’t buy it.

The way the policy was set up, employees who took FMLA weren’t allowed as many non-FMLA absences as other employees. Therefore, the policy had a negative impact on employees who took leave.

Cite: Dickinson v. St. Cloud Hospital

The facts:

An employee, driving his own car, struck another vehicle and injured its driver. It turned out the employee was driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.24% — over the legal limit. He was also carrying a company-issued cell phone and pager, because he was on call at the time.

The injured driver sued the employer, claiming it was liable for the accident since the employee was working at the time.

The employer said:

There was no evidence that the employee was responding to a call or doing anything other than personal business at the time of the accident. Since he wasn’t engaged in company business, the company couldn’t be liable.

Who won the case?

Answer: The accident victim.

Why: A jury decided the man was acting in the scope of his employment –  mainly because he was carrying the cell phone and pager. Also, the accident occurred near one of the locations the employee supervised, which was enough evidence for the jury that he was on his way to perform work for the company.

The final verdict: The company had to pay the victim $300,000 in damages.

The lesson: Many companies have gotten in trouble after employees cause accidents while operating company-owned equipment, including cars and cell phones. That’s one reason why establishing and enforcing a safe driving policy is a must for some employers.

Cite: de Jesus Uribe v. Aviles

That’s what almost happened to 10 nurses who simultaneously resigned from their employer, a nursing home on Long Island.

The nurses claimed that several promises made when they were hired were not upheld, including their rate of pay. So they all quit on the same day, at the end of their respective shifts — without providing notice.

What happened to them? They were charged by the district attorney with the crime of “endangering the welfare of a physically disabled person,” since their immediate resignations left the home understaffed.

The case was tossed, though. The court ruled that prosecuting employees for quitting their jobs is a violation of the 13th amendment — that’s right, the one that abolished slavery.

Cite: Vinluan v. Doyle

In one recent case, an employee took FMLA to give birth. Originally, she was scheduled to take six weeks of leave, but she needed surgery that required another seven weeks off — putting her over the 12 weeks she was guaranteed under the law.

She called her supervisor and told him about the extra leave she needed, and he said that was fine.

However, he never told HR about the conversation. So when 12 weeks was up and the woman didn’t show, she was fired.

She sued, claiming she wasn’t aware she was out of leave — if she knew she’d have to come back earlier to save her job, she would have.

The court agreed. Since the manager basically added to the time the employee could take under FMLA, the company couldn’t fire her when she didn’t come back after 12 weeks.

Other cases like this have had similar outcomes. That’s why it’s key for managers to know the rights and responsibilities employees have under the law — and to get HR involved whenever necessary.

Cite: Cutting v. Ferrous Processing and Trading Co.

Here’s what happened in one recent case:

While at work, an employee developed a respiratory condition. Her symptoms included trouble breathing, a bad cough, migraines and nausea.

The cause: perfume worn by a co-worker who sat nearby. The employee suffered from a “sensitivity to perfumes, chemicals and other scented objects.”

She told her manager about the problem and asked that something be done so she could continue working. One of her suggestions was relocating either her or the co-worker to another part of the building. She also provided an example of a policy banning strong perfumes in the workplace.

The manager’s response: “If you’re allergic to perfumes, it’s your problem, not the company’s.”

No action was taken, and the employee sued, claiming the company failed to accommodate her disability.

The court ruled in her favor. First, the judge ruled the woman’s sensitivity substantially limited her major life activities, and was therefore a disability under the ADA.

And, the court decided, several reasonable accommodations were available, including relocation and the policy suggested by the employee. By not using one of those suggestions, or even searching for another option, the company failed to meet its legal obligations.

Cite: McBride v. The City of Detroit

A new Supreme Court ruling sends managers a message about conducting complaint investigations: Watch how employees serving as witnesses are treated — or the company could be hit with a retaliation claim.

The background of the case:

Vicky Crawford worked for the Metropolitan School District in Nashville, TN. One of her co-workers filed a sexual harassment complaint against their supervisor.

As part of the ensuing investigation, Crawford was asked if she’d ever witnessed any harassment. She said, yes, she’d seen the supervisor harass other employees — and was harassed herself on several occasions. She provided a list of inappropriate sexual comments the supervisor had said to her during her tenure.

Despite that testimony, the alleged harasser was never fired or disciplined. Shortly after the investigation, Crawford was fired — the school district claimed she’d been embezzling.

She sued, claiming the embezzlement allegations against her were false and she was really fired in retaliation for her comments during the investigation.

Protection for witnesses?

Two lower courts ruled against Crawford, stating that Title VII’s anti-retaliation provisions only apply to employees who file their own discrimination claims or participate in formal investigations by the EEOC.

But the Supreme Court disagreed. Employees are protected from retaliation whenever they “oppose” an employer’s unlawful actions — and, according to the Court, that includes an employee who participates in an internal investigation.

The lesson for managers: Be cautious when dealing with any employees involved in a complaint investigation. Employees who confirm allegations of harassment or discrimination can’t be treated differently than those who don’t.

And, of course, it’s key to document all performance or behavioral issues regarding those employees in case the company has to fight future retaliation claims.

Cite: Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee

Three women claimed their company’s operations manager constantly subjected them to graphic language and requests for sexual favors.

The kicker: They alleged that the company’s HR manager witnessed the behavior and failed to take any action. Also, the women claimed, they were retaliated against after filing a complaint.

The end result: The company settled with the women for a total of $485,000.

Lesson: It’s important for everyone in the company to be aware of their responsibilities when they witness prohibited behavior.

Cite: EEOC, et al. v. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc.

A 53-year-old woman applied for a job at a Starbucks store. During her interview, the hiring manager mentioned a concern with the availability listed on her application. The applicant then explained she would be flexible and could be available more frequently than the hours she listed.

Still, the woman wasn’t hired, because of the availability listed on the application, as well as “disrespectful body language” during the interview and her conduct afterward.

The applicant called the manager and visited the store to ask why she wasn’t hired. Each time, the manager gave the same answer — the availability listed on her application — without mentioning the other factors. She sued, claiming her age was the real reason.

Starbucks tried to get the case thrown out, but the judge wouldn’t buy it. Why not?

The main factor was the inconsistency in the manager’s explanations. She said one thing in court, and another to the applicant — which, according to the woman, shouldn’t have been a valid reason after she explained her flexibility in the interview.

Also, the court examined the store’s recent hiring records. Of the 19 employees hired by the manager, none were older than 30.

That gave the judge enough suspicion to send the case to a jury trial.

Cite: Boyajian v. Starbucks