In a decision impacting all employers covered by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), a federal court upended some of the employer-friendly limitations set forth in the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) implementing regulations (i.e. the “Final Rule”): (1) the work-availability requirement, (2) the broad exemption for health care providers, (3) the employer approval of intermittent leave, and (4) the documentation requirement. Below, we first summarize the Court’s decision and then discuss the practical effect of this decision on employers.
In light of the global racial justice movement, I know that all major (and most not-so-major) corporations are thinking about diversity, equity and inclusion right now. They are promoting DE&I initiatives in the workplace, and proudly trumpeting their activities to their workforce and the public. And that’s good, because this is an important issue. But what’s not good is when companies rush in blindly, because those anti-discrimination initiatives can (ironically) end up violating the anti-discrimination laws!
On July 21, 2020, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) issued what it described as “a long overdue” decision eliminating unwarranted protection for employees who engage in obscene, racist, and sexually harassing behavior under the guise of protected concerted activity.
On July 20, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor issued additional Q&A resources to provide guidance to employers on COVID-19-related issues under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). While much of the guidance reiterates general principles under each of these laws, they offer some interesting insights on a few issues specific to COVID-19.
I was distracted from all things COVID by a judge in New York who defended his use of the “C” word to describe a female attorney with the explanation that he meant it as a compliment! Let’s pause for a moment, shall we? That level of twisted logic defies all rational thought. Particularly from a judge – someone we generally (and reasonably) expect to exhibit and promote appropriate behaviors (which includes not being sexist. Just saying.)
We just got a call from a client who was notified by the state of a claim for unemployment benefits for one of their employees. Actually, their CEO. Who is still employed. And who therefore had not filed a claim for benefits. Unfortunately, they were the victims of a scam involving fraudulent unemployment benefits claims.
As offices and other workplaces reopen, employers are struggling with the issue of masks and face coverings in the workplace. There has been much confusion about whether and when cloth face coverings are required, and what are an employer’s obligations with regard to their use.
Several federal agencies have recently issued additional COVID-19 guidance of interest to employers, including the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and the Small Business Administration (SBA). We summarize these developments below.
Continue Reading COVID-19 Agency Update: OSHA Issues Guidance on Reopening for Non-Essential Businesses; EEOC Addresses Antibody Testing and Reasonable Accommodations, Harassment and Discrimination; SBA Provides New PPP Application
In a landmark ruling, a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII’s prohibition on “sex discrimination” in employment encompasses sexual orientation and gender identity.
The killing of George Floyd, an African American, at the hands of a white Minneapolis police officer, was a tragic moment in our country’s history. It has sparked weeks of public protests in cities and states across the U.S. Individuals have gone to the streets to voice their concerns about the issues of racial injustice in American society. While police brutality may be at the forefront, the movement is aimed at shedding light on all areas of racial inequality. Many high-profile figures, from politicians to stars to professional athletes, have been vocal about their condemnation of racial bias. They have further indicated in no uncertain terms that any individual, company, or organization that remains silent on issues of racial inequality is in fact complacent and part of the problem.