Are my days of free WiFi and creating deposition outlines from the McDonald’s Playplace ball pit, while munching on a McRib — ok, I two-fist McRibs — over?
If so, I’m moving to Canada.
I’m mailing this one in, folks. I mean, did the two of you who actually clicked on today’s post read the title first?!? (I practically fell asleep at “bipartisan”)
And, if you need to catch up on your zzzz’s, you can read a copy of “Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016” here. The workplace implications are simple: Companies can now sue employees in state or (for the first time) federal court for trade secret misappropriation.
Now, to actually make this post worth your while, I’m going to remind you that there’s still time to enter my contest. One lucky reader will get my official copy of O’Connor’s Federal Employment Codes Plus 2015-2016 edition. And I will inscribe a personalized message in said book. In blue highlighter.
Yesterday, I blogged here about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s conditional veto of a bill which was intended to level the wage gap between men and women performing substantially similar jobs in the Garden State.
Last night, I came across this survey from CareerBuilder, which examined the pay disparity between male and female sole breadwinners.
There’s an equal-pay-for-women movement going on nationwide. Maybe you’ve heard of it. The most-commonly cited statistic is that full-time American female employees are paid only 79 cents for every dollar paid to men.
Locally, here in New Jersey (technically, I’m typing this post in Cherry Hill, NJ
in a diner located between two jughandles), the battle has waged on for some time. On Monday, on Governor Chris Christie’s desk sat a bill, which purported to foster equal pay for men and women.
He vetoed it.
Around this time last year, I blogged here about Guide to Restroom Access for Transgender Workers. According to OSHA, “all employees should be permitted to use the facilities that correspond to their gender identity.” And, it’s up to the employee to determine for him- or herself “the most appropriate and safest option.”
It should come as no shock that the federal administrative agency tasked with enforcing anti-discrimination law has released a fact sheet, which reaches the same conclusions.
Last Summer, I blogged here about how requiring an employee with a disability to stay out of work until 100% cured (i.e., a no-restrictions policy) automatically violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. As courts have described it, the policy does not allow a case-by-case assessment of an individual’s ability to perform essential functions of the individual’s job, with or without accommodation.
But, what about having a 100%-cured policy for an employee taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act?