In this recent case, a bank teller failed two polygraph tests administered by the local police and FBI after an attempted robbery of the branch. Managers at the bank learned the employee had failed the exams, although no further specifics were given by the police. Shortly after, the employee was let go.

Days later, he sued the bank, claiming his rights under the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) were violated. A court agreed, noting although the bank couldn’t be sued for “passive acceptance” of the lie detector results — i.e., knowing the results of the exam — it could be prosecuted for improperly using those results.

Even if the test results weren’t the sole reason the employee was terminated, all he needed to do was show the bank “used” or “referred to” the polygraphs to sue under the EPPA.

Cite: Worden v. Sun Trust Banks, U.S. Crt. of Appeals, No. 07-1354.

Deborah Smith, former night manager of the SkyWater restaurant in the posh Hilton Minneapolis, claims she was retaliated against after she witnessed hotel executives having an orgy in a banquet hall. Following the event, Smith said the hotel’s personnel department offered no help.

After that, “a campaign of harassment and retaliation ensued,” claims Smith. A veteran employee of the hotel, Smith was often praised for her job performance and received several raises. She was also a go-to trainer for many of the establishment’s new employees.

But after seeing executives and other managers performing the act on company grounds, a fellow manager said she would be fired, and that he “would be sure of it.”

Smith, along with a cocktail server and bartender, is suing for sexual discrimination and harassment, as well as for retaliation against her complaints. Her suit hasn’t set a dollar figure yet, but Smith claims she was damaged in excess of $50,000.

Air India, employer of the nine flight attendants, insists it has the right to fire cabin staff it considers physically unfit. Although details were not given about the specific weight of the employees, all were described as “significantly overweight,” based on height, age and gender.

The company has fought for years for the right to terminate its unfit workforce. In 2006, it warned 1,600 cabin crew employees that they’d need to get in better shape within two months — or risk being placed in lesser-paying ground duties.

Last year, an Indian court found in favor of the airline, which lead to the firings earlier this week.

Air India claims fitness and efficiency are the reasons for its weight standards, and that although all nine of the cabin crew terminated were women, there is no gender bias.

Peru’s Constitutional Tribunal decided that a janitor who was terminated for being drunk on the job was given a “disproportionate” punishment. Pablo Cayo, janitor for the municipality of Chorrillos,  a suburb of Lima, was ordered back to his post.

Judge Fernando Calle said the firing was excessive because Cayo did not offend or hurt anybody while he was on the job. Since the janitor wasn’t “a manager or a judge,” and he wasn’t “going to cause a car accident or kill anyone,” the termination was abusive, said Calle.

Peru’s Labor Minister Jorge Villasante opposes the ruling, claiming “it’s not a good idea to relax rules at workplaces.” Although government employers largely oppose the decision, the court has refused to revise its ruling.

If your company every comes across Jarek Molski, you might want to speak to a lawyer, pronto. Injured in a motorcycle accident nearly two decades ago, Molski has figured out the best way to take advantage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). According to California legal records, he’s filed 400 suits against businesses that don’t follow disability-access rules to the letter.

Because he’s confined to a wheelchair, Molski sues — and usually collects from — business that aren’t up to code. The fines for violating the ADA can run nearly $4,000 a day, and business owners can choose to pay the fines, pay for renovations to get their establishments up to code or settle out of court with Molski.

A federal judge has banned Molski from filing any lawsuits in the Central District of California, but that doesn’t mean his spree is over — he’s free to press his luck anywhere else in the U.S.

Resumes are supposed to reveal a lot about a candidate, but this employee claims she was fired for not mentioning she worked at a restaurant featuring skimpy uniforms.

Heather Kearney, a former criminal intelligence analyst at Iowa’s Department of Public Safety, says she was terminated for falsification of her job application. Kearney had worked for several years at Hooters, a restaurant chain where servers wear tight t-shirts and revealing shorts.

When she applied for her analysts position at DPS, Kearney said she omitted her position at Hooters on her resume because her experience there wasn’t relevant to the new job. However, she did mention her job as a server during her job interview.

Kearney has filed a lawsuit against the department claiming gender discrimination. Two men with less education were hired at the same time as Kearney, yet she’d been passed up several times for promotion. (Kearney has a bachelor’s degree in public administration, a master’s degree in international relations and 12 years of military experience under her belt.)

In court, the trial will come down to whether Kearney’s omission is the same thing as falsification. What do you think? Is leaving a position off of a resume the same thing as lying about it, or should Kearney have included the position on her resume? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.

If you found out one of your employees or co-workers had a former career in adult-oriented cinema, would you expect her to be terminated?

Louisa Tuck, a playground and cafeteria aide at an elementary school in Vineland, NJ, has caused some major controversy in the school district.

Tuck, who also works as a supervisor for children’s programs at the local YMCA, starred in adult movies, performances and photo shoots under the name “Crystal Gunns.” Frank Giordano, the Board of Education’s president, wanted to terminate Tuck, but she and her lawyers claimed her past work in the adult entertainment industry had no bearing on her ability to perform her most recent job.

Although it’s been more than five years since Tuck was involved in the adult industry, her films and other photographs were easily accessed until recently. Once news of her past came to light, administrators of a site featuring her work made the Web page password-protected.

Some of Tuck’s co-workers claimed she’s “an excellent role model with good values,” and that they’d “trust her with children at any time.”

But Giordano and several parents still pushed for Tuck’s termination. Giordano said she “could be one of the best aides we have,” but that her involvement in adult entertainment makes him question how good of a role model she can be.

The complaints eventually wore Tuck down: She issued a one-sentence letter of resignation to the school district, claiming that she was “resigning in good standing.” Although her letter has been turned in, her resignation won’t be official until the school board approves it at its next meeting, scheduled for mid-January.

What would you do? Did Tuck’s past work have an impact on her former position as a school aide? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.

After an employee was murdered on the job, an insurance firm is denying workers’ comp because the killing was supposedly race-related, but not work-related.

Taneka Talley, an African-American employee at a Dollar Tree store in Fairfield, CA, was murdered in March 2006. Because prosecutors say her killer’s only motive was that she was African-American, Specialty Risk Services is refusing to pay $250,000 in death benefits to Talley’s son.

The insurance company’s lawyers claimed that because Talley’s murder by Tommy Joe Thompson was entirely personal, it shouldn’t be considered an on-the-job injury. Compensation law doesn’t consider an injury to be work-related if motives were personal — for example, if an ex-lover or spouse comes to the workplace and attacks an employee because of a personal grudge. Even though Thompson did not know Talley before he murdered her (he walked into the store and attacked the first African-American he saw), the fact that it was race-related made it “personal.”

But Moira Stagliano, the Talleys’ lawyer, said Taneka’s murder was entirely work-related. She “was at work, doing her job, when she was killed,” said Stagliano. “If she had not been in that store, she would not have been available to the killer, and she would still be alive.”

After word of Specialty’s treatment of the case was publicized, the company decided to abandon its position and has now given Talley’s mother and son the full amount allowed under California compensation law.

A statement issued by Dollar Tree and Specialty claims the companies felt it was “the right thing to do.” Stagliano’s claim: “I think they wanted this to be done with. The media helped settle this claim.”

U.K.’s Bournemouth Borough Council has placed a ban on 19 Latin terms and phrases it no longer considers acceptable for use. Among the words banned:

• Ad lib
• Bona fide
• Etc., or et cetera
• Per
• Vice versa, and
• Via.

Linguistic and cultural professionals liken the move to ethnic cleansing, but other factions support the ban.

The Plain English Campaign congratulated the council for the move, saying it’s a tremendous service for those who speak English as a second language. “They might mistake ‘eg’ for ‘egg’ and little things like that can confuse people,” said the foundation’s spokesperson.

Dr. Peter Jones, co-founder of the Friends of Classics charity, argues the opposite, claiming “the great strength of English is that it has a massive infusion of Latin.”

Bournemouth’s Council should have a hard time arguing against that logic — its motto still remains “Pulchritudo et Salubritas,” or “beauty and health.”

When Chicago officials signed a policy which outlawed driving while gabbing on cell phones, it seemed like a good way to improve vehicle safety and reduce accidents city-wide. Any motorists caught violating the law have their licenses confiscated.

But when city Alderman Tom Tunney was pulled over last year for violating the law he helped put into effect, he pulled a power card. After returning to his office — sans-license — Tunney called Town Hall District Commander Gary Yamashiroya and asked why officers in “an understaffed police district were assigned to pull people over solely for cell phone violations.”

Yamashiroya quickly ordered an officer to return the confiscated license to the alderman’s office.

After an in-depth investigation by Chicago P.D.’s Internal Affairs Division, both Yamashiroya and Tunney were cleared of any wrong-doing. Soon after, Mayor Richard Daley introduced a new ordinance that altered the cell phone rule. Distracted motorists would still receive a ticket for the violation, but they’d be able to hang onto their licenses and contest the tickets by mail or an administrative hearing.