In Maryland, if your employment application includes criminal history questions, then you are not paying attention to Shawe Rosenthal’s electronic communications. As we advised in an E-Lert, “Ban the Box” (the little box asking about criminal history that applicants check off) became the law in Maryland effective February 29, 2020.
Following last month’s federal court ruling that the U.S. Department of Labor had exceeded its authority under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) in formulating certain regulatory provisions, the DOL has now issued a revised Final Rule, which becomes effective on September 16, 2020. These revisions do the following: (1) reaffirm the work-availability requirement, (2) reaffirm employer approval of intermittent leave, (3) modify the timing requirement for documentation, and (4) scale back the broad exemption for health care providers. Employers nationwide will need to make adjustments to their FFCRA procedures in accordance with the revised Final Rule.
On September 8, 2020, U.S. District Court Judge Gregory Woods of the Southern District of New York, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order vacating various portions of the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) Final Rule regarding the definition of joint employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Judge Woods found that the Final Rule violated the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) because it was (1) arbitrary and capricious, and (2) not in accordance with law.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission updated its What You Should Know About Covid-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act and Other EEO Laws resource to add Q&As about employers’ authority to require testing or ask questions about COVID-19 symptoms, confidentiality of COVID-19 diagnoses, and reasonable accommodations, as well as considerations for furloughs/layoffs, treatment of older workers. Most of this guidance was provided in the EEOC’s March 27 webinar and other resources.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury issued, on August 28, 2020, a Notice concerning President Trump’s Presidential Memorandum concerning employers’ deferral of payroll taxes. Here are the key points:
Oh, the irony! The National Labor Relations Board – the federal agency charged with enforcing the National Labor Relations Act, which is the law that governs the relationship between unions and management, and includes the obligation to bargain in good faith – is being accused of failing to bargain in good faith! By its own union!
In this new pandemic world, employers are grappling with many questions. One of them is when can they require employees to provide the results from any COVID-19 tests that they have taken, in the context of granting leave and returning to work.
On August 5, 2020, the EEOC released technical assistance documents for employees and health care providers on opioid addiction and employment. The documents provide questions and answers about how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects employees who use legal opioid medications or have past addiction to opioids. Of particular significance, the EEOC asserts that employees currently in treatment for opioid addiction are protected by the ADA – thereby officially endorsing a position that they have previously asserted on a less formal basis.
President Trump issued, on August 8, 2020, Memoranda and Executive Orders concerning unemployment insurance, payroll tax withholding, evictions, and student loans. Below, we discuss the two employment-related Presidential Memoranda (which have been incorrectly designated Executive Orders in the media, although there is little technical distinction between the two). Neither requires immediate action by employers.
In a decision potentially 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) 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.