As of yesterday, July 1, 2012, covered employers in Philadelphia are now required to afford sick leave to certain employees. Here is a copy of the new law. You’ll also need to read this bill to have any chance at making heads or tails of the new sick-leave requirements.
But, I’ll give you a brief summary of the new law after the jump…
* * *
That according to a a new survey from The National Partnership for Women & Families.
The survey compared how state-based rights and protections compare to the 12 weeks of leave for new and expecting parents provided by the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the protections provided by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), and the right to express breast milk at work provided to some nursing mothers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The report card covers all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia. No state earned an A. Only 1/3 scored a C- or higher, while more than 1/3 flat-out failed. The highest grades went to California and Connecticut, each earning an A-. Locally, New Jersey ranked near the top with a B+, while Pennsylvania scraped by with a D.
If an employee complains that her supervisor is sexting her, making unwelcome physical contact, and telling her that she can get a better work schedule in exchange for “small favors,” you better damn well investigate that!
Ignore it and you risk losing a valuable defense to sexual harassment claim. This is because, generally, to avoid liability for sexual harassment, an employer must demonstrate that it undertook reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct harassment.
But the failure to investigate could cost an employer even more. Like a dead-to-rights retaliation claim too.
Really? Retaliation too? Yes. I’ll explain after the jump…
“An employee who emails pictures of Trayvon Martin‘s head cropped onto the body of a dead police officer is a thought-leading change agent.”
— Absolutely nobody in HR
No, he gets fired.
According to a federal appellate court from California, a state that has embraced marijuana as an effective treatment for individuals who face debilitating pain, an employer may discriminate against an employee because of the employee’s use of marijuana. This holds true whether the marijuana use is recreational or medicinal, because the Americans with Disabilities Act does not protect illegal drug use.
However, there are instances in which the ADA does protect medical-marijuana users. For example, an employee who uses medical marijuana to treat glaucoma may be discriminated against because of the employee’s marijuana use, but not the glaucoma. Assuming that: (a) the glaucoma is a disability; (b) the employee can perform essential job functions with or without a reasonable accommodation; and (c) and the employer takes an adverse employment action against the employee because of the glaucoma, the employer has violated the ADA.
For more on the CA case, check out Robin Shea’s post at the Employment and Labor Insider. For more on the interplay between medical-marijuana use and state disability-discrimination laws, check out this post I did last year.
As evidenced by the nature of this blog post and the picture on the right, it’s best not to leave me in the office alone, unsupervised, with an iPhone, and App Store credits, as I punch this out at 10:52 at night on a Thursday. (And yet, somehow, the Wall Street Journal deems me quotable).
Rest assured, everything I do, I do it for you. And, best of all, it’s all employment-law related. Love my job!
(My wife has to be cool with me using our wedding song for this blog post, right? Love ya, baby! “Take me as I am….”)
Today we have a guest blogger at The Employer Handbook. It’s Audrey Porterman. Audrey is the main researcher and writer for doctoralprograms.org. Her most recent accomplishment includes graduating from Ohio State, with a degree in business management. Her current focus for the site involves an online phd program and english doctoral programs.
If you have comments on this blog post, you can email them directly to Audrey. And if you want to guest blog at The Employer Handbook, then email me.
* * *
On Employment Legislation:
Just when you thought you had the employment law landscape figured out, along comes pending legislation that could change everything. From age discrimination claims to workplace flexibility to unionization and labor organizing, new bills in the House and Senate may change the way you run your business. Here I am discussing all that jazz with Stephanie Thomas at the Proactive Employer.
On Social Media:
It was just last month that I blogged about arbitration agreement tips for PA employers from the 3rd Circuit. I hate to leave NJ employers out of the loop, so today’s post is for you.
Last week, the NJ Superior Court, Appellate Division, in Cole v. Jersey City Medical Center denied a company’s attempt to enforce an arbitration provision in its employee contract because it waited too long to do so after being sued:
Below are summaries of four pieces of legislation of which employers should take note:
- Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act. Senator Tom Harkin (IA-D) introduced this bill last week. It would overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. and lower the burden of proof for employees to prove age discrimination claims.
- National Right to Work Act. Senator Jim DeMint (SC-R) has introduced this bill to “preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such activities.”
The Employer Handbook Blog