I’ve got some
apples reverse sex discrimination on the menu today.
How you like dem apples?
More after the jump…
* * *
(Indeed, today, I’m so damn lazy, that I’m republishing a post from last year)
One of your employees is currently using FMLA leave. Today, due to the winter storm, you’ve decided to close the office.
Do you still count today’s snow-induced office closure towards the 12 workweeks of FMLA to which your employee is entitled?
Answer: It depends.
- If the employee would have otherwise taken the entire week off on FMLA leave, then today can be charged as an FMLA day just the same.
- If, however, you employee is using FMLA leave in increments of less than one week, the snow day will not count against the employee’s FMLA entitlement, unless you expect that employee to come to work.
And, after you finishing shoveling today, dig this: Daniel Schwartz breaks down the wage-and-hour implications of today’s big snow. Plus, Christine Stoneburner on why today is not the day to use paid sick leave.
Yep. No employee of the State of South Carolina will be allowed to use social media on the job, “unless specifically required by the agency to perform a job function.”
More on this law, and reaction from a leading blogger (not me), after the jump…
* * *
I had every intention of watching the President address the Nation last night. I really did.
But, then I got sucked into the Director’s Cut of The Harlem Globetrotters on Gilligan’s Island, the one where the Washington Generals show up first and replace all the confetti with lice. Then poor Lovie Howell takes some shrapnel and, frankly, I didn’t realize that Thurston could order a hit squad so quickly to a remote Island.
By the time I remembered the SOTU, the Harlem Globetrotters were busting out a ladder — sorry, Krusty — and que sera.
Fortunately for me, and, by extension, you, the White House printed a copy of the SOTU, which I could
cut and paste expertly analyze for you after the jump…
Oh, if I had a nickel for every time I got this question from an employer, “Hey Eric. We have this pregnant employee and she is very close to term. We’re concerned that if she continues working all the way up to childbirth, she may harm herself or the fetus. Can we require her to stay home?”
Eek! Check out this recent press release from the EEOC in which the agency announced that it is suing an employer, which allegedly required a pregnant employee to take unpaid leave until she was cleared by a doctor indicating that she could work despite her pregnancy. The EEOC further alleges, when the employee failed to provide a release, and after she and her mother disputed the legality of the requirement, the employee was fired in retaliation.
So, under federal anti-discrimination law, the answer to today’s QATQQ is, generally, fiction.
Note: A United States Supreme Court majority opinion predicted that Title VII, which contains the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, would preempt state law, thereby absolving employers that complied with Title VII from liability for any fetal injury. (Although the concurrence was more skeptical). Further, that same case recognized a narrow safety exception that would allow an employer to remove a pregnant employee from the workplace; namely, in instances in which pregnancy actually interferes with the employee’s ability to perform the job.
The New Joisy Supreme Court just fashioned a test to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor for purposes of resolving a wage-payment or wage-and-hour claim. And, shockingly, it doesn’t involve jughandles, diners, or Taylor Ham.
(I live in NJ now, so I can say that stuff and get away with it).
I’ve got all the details after the jump…
In an announcement made late in the day yesterday on LinkedIn, Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor to President Barack Obama, posted that President Obama will call upon Congress today to pass the Healthy Families Act.
More on this push from the President and what it will mean for American business, after the jump…