As we navigate a new year and a new administration, we are all grappling with an unprecedented wave of executive orders and memoranda from the Trump administration that are reshaping the workplace.
From dramatic shake-ups in the EEOC and NLRB to increased scrutiny of DEI practices, employers are facing yet another season of uncertainty.
Continue Reading Register Now | Responding to Policy Shifts Under the Trump Administration
Along with my colleagues Anna Grizzle, Lisa Rivera and Elizabeth Warren, I provide guidance and best practices on effectively responding to a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raid.Continue Reading Webinar | ICE Workplace Raids: Best Practices and Preparation for Employers
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has dropped its appeal of a Texas federal judge’s order striking down its new, expansive joint employer rule. As readers may recall, late last year the NLRB issued a rule broadening the definition of joint employer, which would have significantly increased the number of entities that may be deemed joint employers and thus share responsibility for complying with the National Labor Relations Act. Continue Reading NLRB Withdraws Appeal of Joint Employer Rule
On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the landmark Chevron decision, which had required courts to uphold a federal agency’s interpretation of a statute as long as it was reasonable. Now, courts are required to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous. Continue Reading Supreme Court Overturns Landmark Chevron Decision: Expect Impact on Employment Decisions
In a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a lateral job transfer can – in certain circumstances – be an illegal adverse action and support a claim for a lawsuit for unlawful discrimination. This decision will increase the type of job actions for which employers can be sued and will lead to greater risk for employers in making challenging employment decisions.Continue Reading Supreme Court Holds That Employees Need Not Show “Significant” Harm to Support a Title VII Discrimination Claim Based on a Job Transfer
The Supreme Court recently ruled that the burden an employer must meet in denying a requested religious accommodation is “substantial” and not merely “de minimis.” Employers will now have a harder time denying religious accommodations. Continue Reading Supreme Court Increases Employer’s Obligation in Religious Accommodation Requests
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provides a process by which an employee or a small group of employees can sue for unpaid wages, often in the form of overtime, and can also claim to be representing all others “similarly situated.” Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Adopts New Certification Procedure Under the FLSA
Can an employer be held liable for sexual misconduct at a private party that takes place after an employer-sponsored holiday party? A recent Tennessee Court of Appeals case appears to say “yes” and thereby presents a new concern for employers considering employer-sponsored events.
In Phelps v. State, an employee sued her employer, the State of Tennessee, for sexual harassment and retaliation claims under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). The instances of alleged sexual harassment included serious sexual misconduct (including a sexual assault) at an after-party following a State-sponsored Halloween party. The court ruled that the State could be liable for these “after-party” events, even though they took place after hours and away from the place of employment.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision on Monday, June 15, in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, ruling that the prohibitions against discrimination “because of sex” contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) extend to protect gay and transgender employees against workplace discrimination. Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court with Justices Alito and Kavanaugh each issuing dissenting opinions. In each of the three consolidated cases upon which this opinion was rendered, an employee had been terminated from employment for being gay or transgender.
The three employees brought suit in three different jurisdictions. In one case, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Title VII’s protections did not prohibit employers from firing employees for being gay, and dismissed the lawsuit. In the other two cases, the Second Circuit and Sixth Circuit ruled that Title VII did provide the alleged protections and had permitted the cases involving those two employees to proceed. These inconsistent rulings, therefore, set the following question before the Court:
Is it legally permissible under Title VII’s language prohibiting discrimination “because of sex” for an employer to take an adverse action against an employee merely because the employee is gay or transgender? Continue Reading Supreme Court Rules that Title VII Protects LGBTQ Employees
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued new guidance regarding an employer’s obligation to record all COVID-19 illnesses among workers if the illness is “work-related.” This new obligation went into effect on May 26, 2020, and supersedes guidance issued in April.
Recordkeeping Obligations
Employers are responsible for recording cases of COVID-19 if all of the following requirements are met:
When is a COVID-19 Illness Work-Related?Continue Reading Employer’s Obligation on Reporting COVID-19 as a Work-Related Illness – Updated OSHA Guidance