“Blueprint”? Word. But, do you know how tough it is to find a blog-appropriate Jay-Z hit? Hmmm…let’s try this one.
On Tuesday, the National Labor Relations Board’s “quickie” election rules survived a Senate challenge. Next week, April 30 to be exact, they go into effect. Hey! Isn’t that when the poster rules go into effect, too? Psyche!
In anticipation of April 30, employers will want to familiarize themselves with this memo from NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon — we are presenting at the same event today — discussing the new representation case procedures. The guidance covers the entire representation case process from beginning to end, incorporating to the extent necessary the new rules and the procedures that remain unchanged.
Yesterday, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued updated Enforcement Guidance on employer use of arrest and conviction records in employment decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Title VII is the federal statute that prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin). You can read a full press release on the updated Enforcement Guidance here.
The press release includes a link to questions and answers about the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance. However, I will summarize the most important points for employers after the jump…
Last week was not so good for the National Labor Relations Board. The DC Circuit iced a Board rule that would have required most private-sector employers to post a notice in the workplace informing employees of their right to form a union.
Yesterday, however, the pendulum swung the other way and employers may soon be feeling the heat as we are now that much closer to expedited union elections.
Feel the heat? Iced a Board rule? Am I firing up a cool tune from Foreigner or Katy Perry after the jump? Guilty as charged. Plus, click through for details on how faster union elections may soon be coming to your workplace, and possibly another unwelcome surprise (hint: four letters,
sounds like EFCA)…
Similarly, workplace retaliation was likely the last thing on the mind of the defendant-employer, in Thompson v. Morris Heights Health Center, when it sent out a late COBRA notice to the plaintiff, a former employee that had filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC. The court held that an employer is not liable for retaliation where the employee: (1) received the opportunity to enroll retroactive to the date the employee’s health insurance ends, (2) turned down COBRA in favor of Social Security Disability benefits, and (3) did not seek subsequent employment.
And now that we have that clear…
A short lesson from a recent federal-court decision and a few tips after the jump…
The Americans with Disabilities Act explicitly forbids discrimination against those who are actually disabled or “regarded as” disabled. As a NJ court once recognized, “Distinguishing between actual handicaps and perceived handicaps makes no sense.” Indeed, “prejudice in the sense of a judgment or opinion formed before the facts are known is the fountainhead of discrimination engulfing medical disabilities which prove on examination to be . . . non-existent.”
Does the same maxim apply to workplace discrimination — a barrage of anti-semitic comments — directed at employee whom the harassers believe is Jewish, but really isn’t?
Is that unlawful?
The answer from a NJ court after the jump…
A maintenance mechanic in Illinois received 28 disciplinary-action forms from his supervisor. Ultimately, he was offered two choices: (1) accept a demotion to a non-mechanic position and take a significant pay cut; or (2) keep the position, fight the discipline, but face potential termination.
On the advice of his union representative, the mechanic took the demotion. He later sued for retaliation, claiming that the demotion, which he voluntarily accepted, was a direct response to a charge of discrimination he previously filed with the EEOC.
Is this retaliation? A federal circuit court gave us the answer yesterday. And I have it for you after the jump…
Remember my post from Monday? The one where I told you that two federal courts were at loggerheads over whether the NLRB could force private employers to post this notice in the workplace.
Well, about that. Eyes on me.
Two other men in black (and one woman in black) have officially changed the game. Dramatically. Click through for the details…
Smells like patchouli. Or is that teen spirit?
Hey, it’s been a long day.
Can an employer insist on regular attendance without violating the ADA? Maybe. says Robin Shea at the Employment and Labor Insider. And forget about indefinite leave as a reasonable accommodation under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination says the NJ Superior Court Appellate Division. That won’t fly under the Americans with Disabilities Act either says the United States District Court of the Western District of Virginia, Danville Division. But, you knew that already. Still, if you need information on Practices and Policies Related to Recruiting and Hiring Employees With Disabilities, SHRM has a new survey. Check it out.