I LOVE when people bring treats into the office.  From bagels, to muffins, to cakes, to cookies – I will eat them all.  That’s why when I saw a story about brownies being brought into an office with a little something extra baked into them (hint, the secret ingredient was NOT love), I was taken aback. Continue Reading Lessons Learned from those “Special” Treats in the Breakroom or at the Office Party

As an employment attorney, I deal with new issues nearly every day.  But, there’s one issue that seems to come up on a regular basis.  It involves employers asking for advice about terminating employees who have violated work rules but also have engaged in legally protected activities, such as taking leave under the FMLA.  Employers are often hesitant to terminate such employees for bad behavior out of fear of being accused of violating the law.  A case out of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Arana v. Temple University Health System) from last week provides support to employers that discipline and even terminate employees for violating workrules put in place for safety purposes.    Continue Reading No, You Can’t Sleep on the Job, Especially when it’s a Matter of Life or Death!

Employers struggle with the challenges of social media platforms that allow employees to post information, complaints, and even disclose confidential company information on an anonymous basis. Often, the information is false or misleading – but employers usually find little recourse, as we’ve discussed in a previous post, Employee Warning – GlassDoor Posts May Not Always Be Anonymous (in which we discuss the rare case where the employer triumphs). This week, CNN Money reported on another new app, “Blind,” for employees to make these anonymous postings. Continue Reading Another Anonymous Employee Posting App? Watch Out!

Just before the holidays, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Department of Justice was rescinding 25 documents that the agency considered to be unnecessary, inconsistent with existing law, or otherwise improper. The DOJ’s press release, which includes quotes from Sessions regarding his decision to withdraw the guidance can be accessed here. Of note, he categorized the process agencies have been adopting in the digital age (especially under the Obama Administration) of publishing a letter or posting a webpage to signify a change in agency guidance to be an “abuse” of the regulatory process, as prescribed by Congress. Continue Reading The ADA Under Attorney General Sessions

The consensus amongst employers in the recent past has been that, because federal law categorizes marijuana as an illegal substance, employers could take adverse action against individuals who tested positive for marijuana (refusing to hire, disciplining or terminating). In that same vein, because marijuana was illegal under federal law, the thought was that an employer had no obligation to provide accommodations to workplace policies, such as drug testing policies, to individuals who tested positive because of medical marijuana use.  (Except in Nevada, because it is the only U.S. jurisdiction whose statute requires accommodations for medical marijuana users).  However, a recent case, Barbuto v. Advantage Sales & Mktg., LLC, has seemingly caused the traditional line of thinking to go up in smoke. Continue Reading Do Employers Have to Provide Accommodations for Medical Marijuana Use?

OSHA initially launched the “Heat Illness Prevention” campaign in 2011 to help educate employers and employees on the dangers that may arise when working in hot environments.  This year, OSHA re-emphasized its plan of action and published a “Quick Card,” which outlines several ways for employers to maintain the safety of their employees.  Heat illness can take many forms including heat stroke, heat exhaustion, heat cramps, and heat rash. Continue Reading OSHA’s Guidelines for Employees Working during the “Dog Days of Summer”

transgender1600As I discussed in a blog last month, the Trump Administration rescinded joint Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Education (DOE) guidance (a “Dear Colleague” letter) that had been issued under the Obama Administration on how the agencies interpret Title IX (the non-discrimination law that applies to schools and students) in the context of bathroom use by transgender students. The guidance had stated that transgender students should be allowed to use the gender-specific bathroom consistent with their stated gender identity.  The rescission of this guidance occurred just weeks before the Supreme Court of the United States was scheduled to hear oral arguments in the Gloucester County School Board v. G.G. (Gavin Grimm) case this month. Continue Reading Supreme Court Kicks Transgender Case Back – What Does This Mean for Employers?

transgender1600Yesterday, February 22, 2017, the Trump Administration rescinded Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Education (DOE) guidance that had been issued to schools on May 13, 2016 in the form of a “Dear Colleague” letter.  The letter stated that it was the DOJ’s and DOE’s interpretation of Title IX (the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in education) that schools must allow transgender students to use the gender-specific bathroom with which they identify and that schools could not force students to use bathrooms based on their biological sex.  The DOJ and DOE stated that schools that did not follow the guidance could risk losing federal funding. Continue Reading Trump Administration Rescinds Transgender Student Guidance – What Does This Mean for Employers?

Last week, a federal district court in Nevada extended Title VII protections to a transgender employee with respect to bathroom usage by holding that discrimination “because of sex” under Title VII includersghs discrimination based on a person’s gender.

The Plaintiff (Roberts) is a transgender police officer with the Clark County School District (the Department) who identifies as a male officer.  In 2011, Roberts began dressing for work like a man, grooming like a man, and identifying himself as a man.  He also started using the men’s bathroom at work.  Co-workers in turn complained that a woman was using the men’s bathroom.  A meeting was called with Roberts, and his supervisors told him that he could not use the men’s restrooms and that he should only use the gender-neutral restrooms to “avoid any future complaints.”  When Roberts complained about the bathroom ban, he was informed that he would not be allowed to use the men’s restroom until he could provide official documentation of a name and sex change. Continue Reading Nevada Federal Court Finds that Prohibitions on Transgender Employee’s Bathroom Usage is Discrimination Because of Sex under Title VII