Over the Summer, I reported here that about companion Pennsylvania bills introduced in the House and Senate that would outlaw both sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in the workplace.
Each bill had bipartisan support, but it was unclear how Governor Corbett (R) would act if a bill was placed on his desk for his signature.
* * *
Well, that certainly sucks. Even worse than the time I found out that Santa Claus MacGyver wasn’t a real person.
(My psychiatrist says that there’s a light at the end of the tunnel. I’m not so sure…)
But seriously, I thought that the purpose of a limited liability company was to insulate members from the debts of the company.
After the jump, see how that rule doesn’t necessarily apply when an LLC fails to pay minimum wage or overtime…
That’s right folks. It’s time for another edition of “Fact or Fiction” a/k/a “Quick Answers to Quick Questions” a/k/a QATQQ f/k/a “I don’t feel like writing a long blog post.”
Yesterday, I read this opinion about a white man who claimed that he lost out on a middle school boys basketball coaching job because the school didn’t like the fact that he was married to an Asian ethnic Chinese woman and they have seven mixed race children.
The plaintiff claimed that the school violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The school filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the man could not state a claim under Title VII. The school prevailed because, well, I’ll let the court tell you:
Earlier this year, the City of Philadelphia got this close to passing a bill requiring local employers to provide paid sick leave to employee.
PA Rep. Seth Grove (York County-R), wants to make sure there are no such close calls in the future.
Late last month, Rep. Grove introduced this bill in the PA House of Representatives, geared towards “providing statewide uniformity regarding vacation and other forms of leave mandated by political subdivisions.”
That’s right folks. It’s time for another edition of “Fact or Fiction” a/k/a “Quick Answers to Quick Questions” a/k/a QATQQ f/k/a “I don’t feel like writing a long blog post.”
If you operate a business in PA, NJ, DE or the USVI, then the answer is yes. This is true — even if the ban extends to alcohol consumption off the job.
So says the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in this opinion from earlier this week, where an alcoholic employee, who had previously checked himself in to rehab, had violated the terms of a subsequent return-to-work agreement with his employer never to consume alcohol again.
If only I had a hot tub time machine, I would have gone back a day and a half and scooped Phil Miles at Lawffice Space and posted “New Jersey Recognizes Same Sex Marriages – Why it Matters for Pennsylvania Employers” before he did.
Except I didn’t.
So read his post entitled “New Jersey Recognizes Same Sex Marriages – Why it Matters for Pennsylvania Employers.” It’s really good.
True story.
Back in 1999, when I was in law school in Washington DC, I went with my buddy to see The Matrix at the Uptown Theater in Cleveland Park. At the time, the Uptown was one of the best places around to watch an action flick. And what better movie to see than The Matrix — one of my top 10 movies of all time.
WTH does this have to do with the Fair Labor Standards Act?
Uh, duh…
[Humor me and click through, would ya?]
Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have laws banning workplace discrimination in the private sector on the basis of sexual orientation. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which currently bans discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression in public employment, may soon become the latest state to ban it in the private sector as well.
(The term “gender identity or expression” means actual or perceived gender identity, appearance, behavior, expression or physical characteristics whether or not associated with an individual’s assigned sex at birth).
A bill to amend the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act to add these workplace protections was introduced last week in the PA Senate with some bipartisan (but most Democratic) support. The same bill was introduced in the PA House the week before. Each measure would also carry the same restrictions in housing, credit and public accommodations.
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, an employer must make reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of an individual unless the employer can show that doing so how cause it undue hardship.
Generally, an employee will initiate the process by advising her employer that she is disabled and needs an accommodation to perform the essential functions of her job. What then ensues is an interactive dialogue in which both sides work together in good faith to decide on what that accommodation may be.
But here’s the rub:
[Click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click, click]
* * *
Dear Google User Who Got Five Words Into The Lede And Clicked:
The Employer Handbook Blog