Every now and then I read a case where from the beginning when presented with the employer’s handling of a termination, I can see the wheels coming off – so to speak.
Such was the case when I read Matchko v. Kost Tire Distributors, Inc. The employer laid off (or was he terminated? –
In response to the coronavirus pandemic, many employers have permitted or mandated telework arrangements for their employees. As more people become vaccinated and the number of new COVID-19 cases declines, however, those employers will likely begin to recall their employees to the office. Unsurprisingly, many employees have become accustomed to working from home over the past year, and enjoy the ability to wake up, throw on athleisure, and do a couple loads of laundry as they go about their workday. This begs the question: is an employer obligated to permit an employee to telework simply because the employee finds working from home more preferable, desirable, or convenient than going to the office? A federal judge in the District of Columbia recently said “no.”
Continue Reading Employees Don’t Get to Telework Just Because They Want To…
This week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced new, more relaxed COVID-19 protocols for fully-vaccinated individuals. Notably, among the guidance, the CDC stated that such individuals should continue to “[f]ollow guidance from individual employers.” But should employers modify their existing guidance to account for these new protocols?
Continue Reading Looser COVID-19 Rules for Vaccinated Individuals? What This Means for Employers
In my next installment of what has turned out to be a series on the articles written by EEOC staff members for its quarterly Digest of Equal Employment Opportunity Law, I offer you some interesting tidbits from its most recent publication, addressing national origin discrimination under Title VII – a protected characteristic that is surprisingly wide in scope and, as the EEOC notes, often overlaps with race, color, or religious discrimination. As I noted in my blog post on the EEOC’s article on fragmentation of harassment, although these articles are targeted towards federal agencies, they offer private employers some insight as to the EEOC’s approach to these issues.
Continue Reading The EEOC’s Very Broad Approach to National Origin Discrimination and English-Only Policies
In my spare time (which has been limited during the pandemic, given the whirlwind of COVID-19-related legal developments), I like to peruse the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s quarterly Digest of Equal Employment Opportunity Law. (Nerd alert!) In addition to summaries of recent EEOC decisions and federal court opinions, each digest contains an article that provides some insight into the EEOC’s position on a particular topic. Now while the articles are targeted towards federal agencies, they offer private employers a roadmap as to the EEOC’s thinking. We’ve blogged about prior articles on religious discrimination, remedies for discrimination, comparing harassment prevention to crime prevention, and new types of race discrimination, among other things. A recent article caught my eye – “Claims of Harassment and the Problem of Fragmentation.” (Well, that’s a new phrase to me!)
Continue Reading What Is Fragmentation of Harassment Claims? The EEOC Speaks
As individuals beyond front-line healthcare workers are becoming eligible for the vaccine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has just released a toolkit for employers of essential workers, to join those that it previously released for medical centers/clinics/clinicians, and long-term care facilities. Although targeted for these specific employers, the resources provide information and resources that are applicable to employers generally.
Continue Reading More Guidance from the CDC on Workplace Vaccination Programs
Following the shocking events of January 6, 2020, there have been many reports of individuals who have been terminated, suspended or resigned from employment as a consequence due to their involvement in the deadly storming of the Capitol building or their active support of President Trump’s “stolen election” narrative. But what exactly are the parameters of when an employer can take action against an employee for engaging in off-duty activities that an employer may find repugnant? We first blogged about this issue back in 2017, in light of the deadly white nationalist/supremacist rally in Charlottesville. But a refresher seems timely.
Continue Reading Can Employers Terminate for Off-Duty Conduct (Say, Like Storming the Capitol)?
Effective February 19, 2021, Montgomery County’s Ban-the-Box law is becoming far more restrictive and will apply to all employers – not just those with 15 or more employees.
As employers with employees in Montgomery County, Maryland should know, Montgomery County had previously enacted a Ban-the-Box law that prohibited inquiries about an applicant’s arrest or conviction record until the end of the first interview. (The “Box” refers to the box, contained on many employment applications, that must be checked if the applicant has a criminal record.) This law has now been amended, with expansive new protections for applicants and employees of all Montgomery County employers.
Continue Reading Montgomery County’s Ban the Box Law Is Becoming More Restrictive
Oh, the drama! A couple of recent cases warn employers that drama that happens in the workplace may give rise to liability for workplace harassment.
Continue Reading Workplace Drama = Workplace Harassment?
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.
Continue Reading Maryland Bans Another Box from Employment Applications (and Discussions)