Stop me if you’ve heard this one before…
Oh, it gets better..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…
* * *
Two quick updates for you today; one labor, one employment.
Word has trickled in that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held a conference call with lawyers from the National Labor Relations Board, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, and informed them that the Court would rule by May 15 on a pending challenge to the NLRB “quickie” election rule changes. You can view those rule changes in this post I did last week.
And in case you missed yesterday’s post on new federal legislation that would bar employer demands for online passwords, be sure to check it out. Late in the day, I scored a copy of the bill, known as Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOPA), and added a link. We know now that employers that violate the law will be subject to civil fines of up to $10K. The Secretary of Labor may also seek injunctive relief. However, the federal law does not mention a private cause of action for individuals.
“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)…
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…
The Employer Handbook Blog