On February 22, 2019, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to update and amend procedural regulations to fully digitize the EEOC’s charge processing and records systems, clarify the meaning and significance of a “no cause” determination, and delegate the issuance of dismissals to lower-level EEOC employees.
The acronym SLAPP stands for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” A SLAPP lawsuit seeks to chill, dissuade, or punish a party’s exercise of constitutional rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
The hiring process can be one of the most stressful steps of any employment relationship. As the employer, you are opening your doors to somebody who is hopefully going to contribute to your company’s success. Moreover, hiring is a process that requires both time and money. Thus, employers often want to expedite the hiring process.
Super Bowl Sunday might feel familiar this year with New England making its third consecutive appearance. However, this year’s big game is anything but ordinary as it is the first Super Bowl where sports betting is legal in the United States outside of Nevada.
New York State and New York City passed sweeping laws aimed at combating sexual harassment in the workplace last year. While many requirements of these laws already went into effect in 2018, the annual anti–sexual harassment training requirement under the Stop Sexual Harassment in New York City Act goes into effect on April 1, 2019.
On January 8, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas issued an opinion and order granting summary judgment to an employer, finding the employer did not violate the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by discontinuing an employee’s shift differential due to absences necessitated by FMLA leave.
In 2011, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam signed the Tennessee Civil Justice Act, a tort reform measure limiting monetary damages. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-39-104. This law places a cap on punitive damages of two times the compensatory damages or $500,000, whichever is greater.
The midterm elections that took place in November 2018 have the employer community wondering what to expect in 2019.
Employers frequently use written warnings as part of their formal progressive discipline policies. How and when to use these warnings can sometimes be tricky.
How long has it been since your organization updated its employee handbook? It’s time to brush off any layers of dust that have accumulated over the years and make it a priority to conduct a review prior to the year’s end.
The United States is certainly as divided as ever along partisan lines leading up to the November 6, 2018 midterm elections. Many employers across the country are uneasy about managing heated political discussions in their workplaces without running afoul of employment laws.
On November 6, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) applies to all states and political subdivisions—regardless of their size.
On Sunday, November 4, 2018, at 2:00 a.m., daylight saving time will end. This World War I–era practice of turning back the clock one hour in the fall became a federal law in the United States when President Lyndon Johnson signed the Uniform Time Act in 1966. The jury is still out on whether “falling back” is beneficial. Claims that it helps to conserve energy are dubious. Most people probably don’t get an extra hour of sleep that night. And, the time change doesn’t actually increase the number of hours of sunlight per day. However, it does present a good opportunity for employers to examine their timekeeping practices with regard to nonexempt employees.
This is the season of pumpkin spice, crisp air, falling leaves, and costume parties. But as much as we love autumn, it brings its own set of workplace complexities—especially when celebrating Halloween.
As employers attempt to keep their businesses running and give their employees the time necessary to deal with the devastating impact of Hurricane Michael, employers should not disregard the significant employment laws that apply following a natural disaster or the opportunities provided by the federal government to assist workers to return to employment.
One year ago today, 10 days after the Harvey Weinstein story broke, Alyssa Milano tweeted: “If you’ve been sexually harassed or assaulted write ‘me too’ as a reply to this tweet.”
An estimated 9 million adults in the United States are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. Eighty-seven percent of U.S. residents report knowing someone who is lesbian or gay, and half report having a close lesbian or gay friend.
As residents and employers on the East Coast are aware, Hurricane Florence is expected to make landfall shortly. This type of disaster can take a toll on businesses in the affected areas, from property damage to employee safety complications. Employers in the restaurant industry face a unique set of potential issues before, during, and after a disaster like a hurricane.
The National Hurricane Center has stated that Hurricane Florence, which is classified as a Category 4 storm, may hit the East Coast as early as Thursday, September 13. As a result, residents of North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and the surrounding areas are preparing for 130 mph winds, floods, and heavy rains (and in some cases, evacuating the affected areas). Businesses with operations or employees in those areas could also be affected by power interruptions, disrupted communications, and transportation difficulties—in addition to concerns over their employees’ safety.
On September 4, 2018, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division released a new set of Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) notices and certification forms.
When employees leave a company—whether it is due to a voluntary or involuntary separation—their former employers may worry about the security of the company’s confidential information and trade secrets.
Courts have ruled that sweeping and overbroad employer-initiated disqualification policies must be struck absent business justification. But where is the line on what constitutes an overbroad and impermissible policy when applicant and employee disqualification is mandated by federal law?
Courts have ruled that employees who work with clients with diminished capacity present different challenges when establishing whether the nonemployee’s alleged harassment affected the terms and conditions of the employee’s employment. But where is the line on what can constitute actionable harassment when the alleged harasser is a nonemployee with diminished capacity?
In 2013, the American Medical Association adopted a policy against sedentary behavior and encouraged employers to offer their employees fitness balls and standing workstations in order to promote a healthier work environment. Many employers across the country embraced this trend and allowed employees to alter their workstations by using standing or sit-stand desks. According to a 2017 survey by the Society of Human Resource Management, standing desks are the fastest-growing benefits trend.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) recognizes that an employee or applicant who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs (prescription or otherwise) is not a “qualified individual” with a disability. Individuals, however, are protected by the ADA from discrimination on the basis of past drug addiction.
As of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, state laws requiring public sector collective bargaining agreements to contain agency shop clauses that compel the discharge of employees for refusing to provide financial support to unions are deemed to violate the First Amendment.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion in Minarsky v. Susquehanna County, No. 17-2646 (July 3, 2018). The decision, which vacated the entry of summary judgment in favor of an employer that had asserted the Faragher-Ellerth defense to a sexual harassment claim based upon a hostile work environment, provides some important lessons for employers.
On July 9, 2018, President Trump announced his nominee to be the next justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, replacing Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who, on the last day of the October 2017 term, announced that he would retire from the Court.
Chevron deference is increasingly coming under fire from the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. That came through loud and clear in Pereira v. Sessions, issued on June 21, 2018. Not only did the approach of the majority opinion appear to be at odds with the Court’s past approach to Chevron deference, but Justice Kennedy stated in a concurring opinion that “it seems necessary and appropriate to reconsider . . . the premises that underlie Chevron and how courts have implemented that decision.” Justice Alito asserted in dissent that “the Court, for whatever reason, is simply ignoring Chevron.”
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) focus on challenging pre-employment testing highlights the importance of carefully validating such tests before implementing them and reexamining existing pre-employment tests to ensure they will withstand legal scrutiny.
