Earlier this month, the Ohio legislature passed and the Governor signed into law House Bill 606, which provides qualified immunity to employers who are accused of spreading COVID-19. It goes into effect on December 13, 2020 and covers conduct between March 9, 2020 and September 30, 2021. The new law provides immunity for businesses from customers and employees bringing lawsuits alleging exposure, transmission, or contraction of COVID-19 in a place of business, unless the owner’s or employer’s actions amounted to reckless conduct or willful misconduct. This is obviously good ...
On September 22, 2020, President Trump issued an Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping that prohibits federal contractors and grantees from engaging in many forms of diversity, inclusion, and implicit bias training.
The Order requires that government agencies to include in every new government contract, provisions barring the contractor from using workplace training that inculcates in its employees any form of race or sex stereotyping or any form of race or sex scapegoating, including concepts that:
- one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;
As summer winds down, a lot of attention has been given to schools resuming classes. Some schools are meeting in person fully or partially but many have moved to online classes for the foreseeable future. Even schools meeting in person may be forced to change course depending on circumstances, e.g. students or teachers contracting COVID-19. All of this means a great deal of uncertainty for working parents and a major issue for employers who will have to manage attendance and leave issues.
On July 21, 2020, the National Labor Relation Board (the “NLRB”) issued its decision in General Motors LLC, 14-CA-197985 369 NLRB No. 127 (2020), adopting a motivating factor test, for cases involving abusive or offensive statements made by employees in the course of “concerted activities” which are otherwise protected under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (the “NLRA”). The test, also known as the Wright Line standard, focuses on whether the employee’s Section 7 activity was a motivating factor in an employee’s discipline or discharge and shifts the ...
As the COVID-19 threat lingers and businesses look for ways to protect their employees, there has been a lot of talk about contact tracing in the workplace. As the name suggests, contact tracing is a process of determining who an infected individual has had contact with and possibly exposed to a disease. This is not a new process and in the past has been done by interviewing people to create lists of exposed individuals who could be warned or isolated. With modern technology, there are a lot more options, some of which employers are considering using in the workplace.
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, a new landmark ruling clarifying that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—which prohibits workplace discrimination—applies to discrimination based upon sexual orientation and gender identity.
As businesses begin the process of re-opening, many are finding that due to changed conditions, they are overstaffed. One possible solution to this problem is a reduction in force (RIF). In planning a RIF, there are a great many factors for employers to consider in the current environment, including the points listed below.
Today, the DOL announced publication of a final rule that expands the ability of retirement plans to deliver participant disclosures online or via email by establishing a new, voluntary safe harbor that allows the use of electronic media as a default for participant disclosures. The final rule is in response to the previously reported October, 2019 proposed rule which allowed plan administrators to notify retirement plan participants that required disclosures, such as SPDs, will be posted on a website. Here are some key points of the final rule:
As employers bring employees back into the workplace, many are considering various forms of testing as a means to promote employee safety. While some forms of testing are fairly straightforward, such as taking employees’ temperatures, laboratory testing for COVID-19 is not as simple.
In Notice 2020-29 released on May 12, 2020, the IRS provides expanded options for participants with respect to 2020 mid-year election changes and also provides increased flexibility to apply unused amounts in health FSAs to medical care expenses incurred through December 31, 2020, and unused amounts in dependent care assistance programs to dependent care expenses incurred through December 31, 2020. Although the temporary relief under Notice 2020-29 was issued in response to the COVID-19 health emergency, the relief is not limited to individuals affected by the pandemic. Specifically:
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- Coronavirus
- Labor Law
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- NLRB
- Discrimination
- IRS
- Department of Labor
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Retirement
- Arbitration
- NLRA
- Employer Policies
- ERISA
- Race Discrimination
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Accommodation
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Litigation
- Social Media
- National Labor Relations Act
- National Labor Relations Board
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Employer Handbook
- Employment Litigation
- EEOC
- Wage & Hour
- 401(k)
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Title VII
- Paycheck Protection Program
- ADAAA
- Workplace Accommodations
- Sexual Harassment
- Employer Rules
- Unions
- Transgender Issues
- Technology
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Securities Law
- Privacy
- FMLA
- Disability
- Workplace Violence
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Health Savings Account
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Sixth Circuit
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Disability Discrimination
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- OSHA
- Overtime Pay
- Religion Discrimination
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Representative Election Regulations
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Department of Justice
- Benefits
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Environmental Law
- Privacy Laws
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Healthcare Reform
- Electronically Stored Information
- Telecommuting
- Affirmative Action
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Compensable Time
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Security Screening
- Supreme Court
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Classification
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Misclassification
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- Taxation
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Antitrust
Recent Posts
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Termination Done Right - Part 1
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Welcome 2021 - 5 Things for Employers to Consider
- Congressional Proposal Extends Tax Credits to Companies Providing Paid Leave, but Allows Requirement to Expire
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: EEOC Issues New Guidance on COVID-19 Vaccinations
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Non-Compete Agreements - Five Mistakes by Three Parties
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Employment At-Will – Myth or Reality?
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: COVID-19 Immunity Laws
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Reductions in Force - Key Factors to Consider
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast
- 5 Things Employers Should Know About Military Leave