U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Narrow Reading in Favor of "Fair" Reading of FLSA Exemptions

April 9, 2018 by Linda K. Horras

The US Supreme Court recently issued a five-four decision addressing whether service advisers of a car dealership fell within the automobile sales exemption. While the opinion may not seem particularly helpful for businesses that do not sell cars, a deeper reading reveals that it is a positive case for employers. More ›

Temporary Schedule Changes Now Mandatory for New York City Employers

April 1, 2018 by Concepcion A. Montoya

The New York City Council further solidified its commitment to advancing the work-life balance of New Yorkers by requiring employers to allow employees to take two temporary schedule changes per calendar year. Effective July 18, 2018, New York City employees may request a temporary change to their schedule, up to two times per year, for a “personal event” defined as the need to provide care to a minor child or care recipient; the need to attend a legal proceeding or hearing for subsistence benefits; or any circumstances that would be a basis for permissible use of safe time or sick time as defined by the NYC Earned Sick Time Act. The new law amends New York City’s Fair Workweek Law, which was enacted in November 2017, to require employers to grant a request for a temporary change in work schedule. More ›

Being Called a Racist Is Not Unlawful Harassment If Comments Are Not Racially Motivated

March 27, 2018 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Employers are equipped and know how to handle complaints of racial discrimination and harassment—or at least should be so prepared. However, facts have a funny way of developing into novel situations. What happens, for instance, if an employee is being called a racist by other employees? More ›

California Employer Win – Multiple Month Leave Without Finite Return Date Is Not a Reasonable Accommodation

March 27, 2018 by Mellissa A. Schafer

A recent Southern District of California court decision provides California employers with additional guidance on what constitutes a reasonable accommodation. More ›

Massachusetts Attorney General Provides Guidance On Equal Pay Law

March 23, 2018 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Recently, the Massachusetts Attorney General, Maura Healey, issued guidance to assist employers in complying with the state’s Equal Pay Act (“MEPA”), which goes into effect on July 1, 2018. The 30-page guidance is comprehensive, offering an overview of the law, responses to frequently asked questions, a self-evaluation for employers, and a sample checklist of policies and practices. Due to its length and breadth, the guidance should be reviewed by employers in full. However, we note the following important aspects: More ›

In Florida, One-Event Sexual Advance at a Non-Work Sponsored Party Can Support Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Claims

March 20, 2018 by Andrew M. Gordon

Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently decided two questions of first impression under Florida law: (1) whether a one-event sexual advance at a private, non-work sponsored party may support sexual harassment and retaliation claims, and (2) whether rejecting a supervisor’s sexual advance is protected “opposition.” The court answered both questions “yes.” More ›

EEOC Lawsuit Reminds Employers to Accommodate Pregnant Workers As It Does Other Employees

March 15, 2018 by Concepcion A. Montoya

Reminding employers of their obligation to accommodate pregnant employees in the same manner as non-pregnant employees, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently filed a sex discrimination lawsuit against a North Carolina nursing center. The complaint alleges the center violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (PDA) when it terminated two nursing assistants because of their pregnancy-related restrictions. In one case, the center placed the nursing assistant on unpaid leave when she asked the center to accommodate a pulling, lifting, and pushing restriction placed on her by her physician, then terminated her employment. The center terminated the second employee for similar reasons. The EEOC alleges the nursing center had the ability to accommodate such restrictions because they accommodated similar restrictions for non-pregnant employees who suffered work injuries.The EEOC is seeking declaratory and compensatory relief, as well as other monetary relief, for the terminated employees. More ›

6th Circuit First Appellate Court to Declare Transgender or Transitioning Status Discrimination is Sex Discrimination Under Title VII

March 11, 2018 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

In a milestone decision, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held discrimination based on an employee’s transgender or transitioning status violates Title VII. In addition, the court held as a matter of law that a religious employer “cannot rely on customers’ presumed biases to establish a substantial burden” under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Thus, the employer’s sincerely held religious beliefs did not free it from the proscriptions of Title VII. More ›

Second Circuit Declares Sexual Orientation Discrimination is Sex Discrimination under Title VII

February 27, 2018 by Concepcion A. Montoya

Acknowledging the “changing legal landscape” surrounding Title VII protections against discrimination, the Second Circuit overturned prior precedent and held sexual orientation is discrimination because of sex. The Second Circuit, sitting en banc in Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., examined the issue “from the perspective of sex stereotyping,” and unequivocally concluded that “sexual orientation discrimination is predicated on assumptions about how persons of a certain sex can or should be,” which is “an impermissible basis for adverse employment actions.” In Zarda, a deceased skydiving instructor was allegedly fired for disclosing his sexual orientation to a client and not conforming to the “straight male macho stereotype.” More ›

Wisconsin Employers: Do Your Job Postings Run Afoul of the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act’s Prohibition Against Conviction Record Discrimination?

February 23, 2018 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Believe it or not, individuals with criminal convictions can make a business out of trolling online job boards for job postings that express an intent to discriminate against applicants with conviction records—think job postings with “no felonies” as a qualification. Postings of this type run afoul of the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act, which prohibits employers (1) from circulating job ads and applications that express an intent to discriminate against applicants with conviction records and (2) from refusing to hire applicants because of their arrest or conviction record (among other types of discrimination directed at individuals with arrest and conviction records). Postings that violate this prohibition can cost your company a whole lot of headache and money. Penalties range from a cease and desist order to job instatement and backpay if the applicant can show he or she would have been hired but for her conviction. More ›

Search

Subscribe via Email

RSSSubscribe via RSS
TwitterFollow us on Twitter/X

Blog Editors

Blog Contributors

Archives