Earlier this week, Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Jackie Speier (D-CA) and Susan Davis (D-CA), introduced the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
What’s in the bill and how will it affect employers? Find out after the jump…
Maryland has a new law forbidding employers from demanding that job applicants and employees divulge online passwords. Two weeks ago, the federal government proposed similar legislation. And, last week, news surfaced that Delaware may be placing the same restrictions on employers.
But who needs to demand online passwords, when, according to this report from Consumer Reports, your employees are sharing way more information on Facebook than they realize.
Some of the highlights from the report and a few related tips for employers follow after the jump…
* * *
A recent survey by Workplace Options, shows that most Generation-Y employees believe that an office romance will have a positive influence on performance and overall workplace morale.
Sounds like a Cialis commercial.
Who says I need to wait for Valentine’s Day for this post? Losers, that’s who. Lock the broom closets and click through for more on this survey and ways to address the office romance…
* * *
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…
Workplace retaliation was the last thing on the mind of Cobra Kai Sensei John Kreese when he told Johnny to sweep the leg.
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…
Do you know what to do if an employee comes into your office asking for a shift change or some other workplace accommodation because of a sincerely-held religious belief?
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…
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.
Remember back in July 2011 when I told you that a miniature horse might be reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act?
Giddy-up! I whinny!
Ok, I’ll quit horsing around.
(I mare or may not be referring to a printed-out list of horse puns as I type this…)
More on this hare-raising story — rabbit puns too? Really, Eric? — after the jump…
The Employer Handbook Blog