The EEOC says no. In a recent case, the EEOC filed suit against a paper company in Michigan over this issue. The employee had a seizure at work and was diagnosed with epilepsy. After a period of leave, the employee was released to return to work by his physician. Continue Reading Can Employer Require Impaired Employee to Take Medication?

Bass, Berry & Sims attorneys Tim Garrett and Dustin Carlton authored an article outlining the actions employers should take to avoid violating the Dodd-Frank Act relating to confidentiality agreements. Rule 21F-17 was adopted by the SEC to prevent employers from taking any action that would prevent an employee from “directly communicating with the Commission staff about a possible securities law violation.” To highlight the risk, Tim and Dustin provided details related to the SEC’s first enforcement action under Rule 21F-17 that was brought against a company for language found in the company’s confidentiality agreement. As pointed out in the article, “employers should review confidentiality provisions in employee handbooks/codes of conduct, severance agreements, and practices for internal investigations” for any language that conflicts with Rule 21F-17.

The full article, “Hidden Risks in Confidentiality Requirements” was published in the August/September 2015 issue of Today’s General Counsel and is available online.

In a ruling on August 17, 2015, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decided that it should not exercise jurisdiction over the unionization attempts by Northwestern football players.  The NLRB “punted” the issue and declined to decide whether the football players were employees permitted to unionize under the National Labor Relations Act. Continue Reading Northwestern Football Players’ Unionization Drive Halted

Wise employers know that a single severe act can be enough to satisfy the standard of “severe or pervasive” and be sexual harassment.  But how severe does the act have to be?

A recent 6th Circuit ruling gives some assistance.  In Ault v. Oberlin College, the Court discussed why a single physical incident was sufficiently severe.  The ruling is likewise informative because it also discusses why several infrequent but boorish comments were not sufficiently severe or pervasive. Continue Reading Single Severe Act Can Be Sexual Harassment – But How “Severe”?

Yesterday, I presented an hour-long webinar discussing how to prepare for and navigate the “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” proposed rule and accompanying guidance.

On May 28, 2015, the Obama Administration published the much anticipated proposed DOL guidance and accompanying Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) proposed rule implementing EO 13673, Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces (July 31, 2014). In the webinar we highlighted key elements of both publications and their impact on government contractors, including:

  • The new “labor law violation” disclosure requirements and resulting contracting officer responsibility determinations
  • Unique role of “Labor Compliance Advisors”
  • Paycheck transparency and independent contractor notice requirements
  • Limitation on companywide arbitration plans

Feel free to listen to the webinar below or download the slides.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYplJCj37-U

Can employers enter into pacts not to “poach” each other’s employees? That is the question at the center of a recent case claiming that two universities conspired to depress compensation for faculty members in violation of federal antitrust law. A radiologist at Duke University School of Medicine filed the suit after applying and being rejected as an applicant at the University of North Carolina. The applicant was told the universities had agreed to block lateral moves of faculty between the universities. What are the legal concerns regarding employee poaching behavior?

My colleagues, Dale Grimes and Gingie Yetter, analyzed the case in a recent client alert, “Academic Medical Centers Target of Latest Employee Anti-Poaching Antitrust Claim,” that is available online.

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals logoThe Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) recently granted a claim sponsored by the prime contractor for its subcontractor’s employee severance costs under a fixed-price contract. Appeal of Government Contracting Resources, Inc., ASBCA No. 59162 (March 12, 2015).

Government Contracting Resources, Inc. (GCR), sought additional compensation for severance costs it incurred, along with its subcontractor, upon expiration of its service contract with NASA for the distribution of mail at the Kennedy Space Center. A collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between GCR subcontractor Creative Management Technology Inc. (CMT) and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) granted severance pay to CMT bargaining unit employees who were not rehired by a successor company at the end of the service contract. The provisions of the CBA had been incorporated, through a modification, into GCR’s service contract with NASA.

Continue Reading Sponsored Claim for Subcontractor Severance Pay Granted under Fixed-Price Service Contract

A Maryland-based construction company required to pay “prevailing wages” under a Federal government contract recently settled for $400,000 claims that it had violated the False Claims Act (“FCA”) by failing to properly supervise lower-level contractors in the payment of prevailing wages to their workers. The case serves as a reminder that government contractors who fail to ensure compliance with wage requirements – whether under the Davis-Bacon Act (“DBA”), Service Contract Act (“SCA”), or Walsh-Healy Public Contracts Act (“PCA”) – can face significant liability. It also highlights the ongoing expansion of the federal government’s battle against procurement fraud. Continue Reading The Growing Risks of Non-Compliance with Wage Rate Determinations

Is the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, here, a limited ruling, applicable only in the context of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA)? Or, does the decision ring in a whole new (and less employer-friendly) era in discrimination case law? It is too early to tell. Allow this explanation for why.

The Supreme Court ruled that UPS may have violated the PDA by not providing a temporary light duty assignment to a pregnant driver who was on temporary, pregnancy-related restrictions. But the Court found that neither party was entitled to their desired interpretation of the PDA. Continue Reading Supreme Court Revives Pregnancy Discrimination Case

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Tim Garrett wrote an article summarizing the SEC’s April  1 announcement that it had settled an enforcement action over an employer’s use of a restrictive confidentiality agreement.

Tim made the point that the SEC’s action was consistent with similar efforts by the National Labor Relations Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “These agencies have been reviewing critically the confidentiality provisions of severance agreements and documents used as part of internal investigations,” he wrote. “This announcement from the SEC is a further reminder that employers should have such confidentiality provisions reviewed by counsel or risk similar consequences.”

The full article, “SEC Settles Enforcement Action for Overly Restrictive Confidentiality Agreement” was published by Employee Benefit Adviser on April 2.

From the Bass, Berry & Sims Blog Network
From the Bass, Berry & Sims Blog Network

Thought Leadership by our Attorneys.