Don’t Fire Your Employee for Taking Opioids so Fast – Lawsuit Alert

On August 5, 2020, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued guidance explaining exposure to a discrimination lawsuit for employers who fire their staff for taking opioids.

To avoid being sued, employers must take the following steps upon discovering that an employee is taking opioids:

1. Determine if the opioid use is legal or illegal.

• The ADA allows employers to terminate employees, or take other measures, based on the illegal use of opioids. However, legal or prescriptive opioid use cannot be a ground for automatic disqualification and employers must consider a way for the employee to do the job “safely and effectively” 
• Employees who test positive to a drug test must also be given an opportunity to provide information about their legal drug use that may cause a drug result to show opioid use. The employer can ask the employee before the test is done if he/she is taking any such medication or the employer can ask all employees who test positive for an explanation. Such should be established by protocol and implemented consistently. 

2. Provide Reasonable Accommodations.

• Employees who legally use opioids must be given a reasonable accommodation before getting fired or not considered for a position. This also applies to employees who have a history of opioid, or treatment for opioid addiction, which an employer thinks can interfere with safe and effective job performance.
• Employees may also request a reasonable accommodation from taking prescription opioids to treat pain or from having other medical conditions related to opioid addiction as long as the condition is a disability under the ADA.
• It is the employees’ responsibility to request a reasonable accommodation and employers cannot legally fire or refuse to hire or promote an employee for making the request. A request protocol should be established and applied consistently.
• Employers must provide the reasonable accommodation if it does not involve significant difficulty or expense.

3. If an employee cannot do the job safely and effectively even after being provided with a reasonable accommodation, document objective evidence that the employee poses a significant risk of substantial harm. An employee cannot be removed for remote or speculative risks.

4. It is recommended that employers engage in an interactive process, as required in NYC, prior to making any final determinations. Failing to sue interact can be, in itself, the basis of exposure. To understand further, see our blog, 5 Step Process For Employers/Landlords to Protect Against Disability Discrimination Lawsuits for Failure to Accommodate.

You can access EEOC’s guidance HERE and HERE.

Electronic Notarization Extended until September 4, 2020

On August 5, 2020, Governor Cuomo signed Executive Order 202.55, as amended by Executive Order 202.55.1, which extends previous executive orders related to the coronavirus pandemic. Remote notarization is extended to September 4, 2020. Notary Publics are reminded of the rules stated in Executive Order 202.7 which we wrote about HERE.

Mortgage Lender Warning - No Consideration Deed

The Appellate Division recently reminded us of the importance of investigating a no consideration deed prior to issuing a mortgage to the titleholder. 

In 2386 Hempstead, Inc. v. 182 St., Inc., the Appellate Division held that the no consideration deed constituted notice of a potential previous fraud in the title spurring a duty to make inquiry concerning the circumstances of the transaction at issue. 

By failing to make such inquiry, the lender lost its status as a bona fide encumbrancer for value and therefore, jeopardized its status as a prior lienholder, who gets paid first in a foreclosure action. 

Statute of Limitations Tolled until September 4, 2020

On August 5, 2020, Governor Cuomo signed Executive Order 202.55 which extends the tolling of statute of limitations to September 4, 2020. The tolling period was previously extended to August 5, 2020 by Executive Order 202.48. As a reminder, the Executive Orders do not toll all deadlines in pending and ongoing actions.

Title Litigation - Resolving a Boundary Line Dispute

The Appellate Division recently reminded us how the courts make a boundary line dispute determination in the case of Old Timers Rod & Gun Club, Inc. v. Wa-A-We Rod and gun Club, Inc. with the following quote:

Where such discrepancies exist in property descriptions, ‘the rules of construction require that resort be had first to natural objects, second to artificial objects, third to adjacent boundaries, fourth to courses and distances and last to quantity’

We are therefore reminded of the importance of locating monuments referenced in a deed rather than simply relying on compass bearings and distances when resolving boundary line disputes. 

Title Insurance - Read Your Policy Before You Sue Your Insurer to Take Action

I want it; I want it; I want it is not a good enough argument said the Appellate Division in Irma Straus Realty Corp. v. Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. 

Underlying the demand for action was a dispute between neighbors over use of a common stairwell. Plaintiff sued their insurer demanding that the title company pay attorneys' fees and costs to prosecute an ownership action against the neighbor. 

Plaintiff's suit was pursuant to section 5 (b) of its policy, which provides that the title insurer “shall have the right ... to institute and prosecute any action or proceeding or to do any other act that in its opinion may be necessary or desirable to establish the Title, as insured, or to prevent or reduce loss or damage to the Insured."

Clearly, as the court points out, Plaintiff didn't understand the difference between the terms "right," which the policy stated, and "obligation," which the policy didn't state.

That is to say, the Plaintiff lost the case. 

Clearly, words matter.