The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled that the USPS didn’t violate the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) after terminating Antoinette Pirant, a former worker.

To be eligible for those benefits, an employee must have been employed by a company for at least 12 months and must have worked at least 1,250 hours in the 12-month period before making the request. After Pirant left for FMLA leave, USPS looked through their payroll records and discovered she didn’t meet the criteria.

Pirant had only logged in 1248.8 hours in the 12 months preceding her absence. As a result, USPS was forced to terminate her.

Pirant did not challenge the accuracy of USPS’ payroll records — instead, she claimed she was wrongly suspended for two hours at the end of one of her shifts, and those missed hours would have been enough to put her over the 1,250-hour threshold.

But a court ruled in favor of USPS, noting that Pirant could have challenged her suspension when it was placed into effect to have her lost hours restored. Because she didn’t file a grievance until long after the deadline had passed, there was no way for her to gain the lost hours — or her job back.

Cite: Pirant v. U.S. Postal Svc., 7th CA, No. 542-F3D-202

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.

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.

That’s what managers at the Spotless Commercial Cleaning company in Glasgow had to deal with. After scheduling an interview with Darren Mirren, the 16-year-old son of another employee, the teenager failed to turn up. When they hadn’t heard from him, hiring managers contacted Mirren, who explained he didn’t know how to get to the office from his house.

The company gave Mirren detailed instructions and offered him another interview, but Mirren turned it down. He then brought a discrimination suit against Spotless, claiming he wasn’t given the job because of his age. Regardless of the fact that he failed to come in for two interview requests, Mirren still claimed he was in the right.

“It wasn’t my fault. I was unable to get there because they didn’t give me any directions. I felt it was discrimination because of my age,” said Mirren.

Thankfully, a court tribunal ruled in favor of the company, saying the teenager wasn’t offered a job because he never interviewed. A spokesperson for the company noted a 16-year-old usually wouldn’t have been considered for the position, but that his mother would have been able to supervise him on the job.

The spokesperson also said the company was amazed the case made it as far as it did: “We didn’t even meet him. He didn’t turn up for two interview requests and it ended up at a tribunal.”

A group of Santa Fe residents is taking the city to court over its WiFi Internet systems installed in public buildings.

The residents claim they’re “allergic” to the wireless signal and that the city’s violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by effectively limiting their access to those Internet-laced buildings.

Don’t get us wrong — ADA cases involving sensitivity to perfume, air fresheners and other chemicals have made it to court with varying results. But so far, no court has ever ruled on whether so-called “electro-sensitivity” can be considered a disability under the law.

Experts say it’s unlikely for companies to be sued over this issue, but stranger things have certainly happened. If electro-sensitivity ever gets legal protection, employers would be in big trouble, since many companies run their own WiFi networks.

A California woman is suing Victoria’s Secret over a pair of underwear she claims permanently damaged her cornea.

Macrida Patterson was trying on the “sexy low-rise v-string” at a retail store when a decorative metallic object dislodged itself from the material and flew into her eye.

The injury forced Patterson to miss multiple days of work (we would’ve loved to be a fly on the wall during that conversation with her boss).

Patterson claims there was a design flaw in the item that caused the injury, but when Victoria’s Secret asked to examine Patterson’s panties and the defective metallic object, she refused. She’s suing for an undisclosed amount and wants to raise awareness of the important issue to thong-wearers worldwide.