Menu

Showing 6 posts from November 2019.

New York State Prohibits Employee Discrimination Over Reproductive Health Decisions

On November 8, 2019, Governor Andrew Cuomo expanded the list of protected categories under existing New York City Human Rights Law by signing the New York Reproductive Choice Law. Under this provision, employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees or their dependents for their reproductive health decisions. Specifically, the law prohibits employers from accessing personal information about an employee or dependent's "use or access of a particular drug, device or medical service without the employee's prior informed affirmative written consent." Further, employers cannot retaliate against or treat an employee differently because they "use or access a particular drug, device or medical service." More ›

NLRB to Propose Rule Extending Employer Property Rights

Several recent decisions by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have analyzed the balance between employer property rights and union organization rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). These decisions appear to shift the balance in favor of employers. It is anticipated that the NLRB will propose a rule in the near future clarifying employer property rights in light of the recent decisions that have significantly modified past precedent. More ›

Electioneering at the Water Cooler: Protections and Pitfalls of Politics in the Workplace

With the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election less than a year away, political conversations and activities are seeping into almost every aspect of daily life—even the workplace. While discussions on the topic can be harmless, they may also be heated. The Seventh Circuit's decision in Daza v. State of Indiana serves as a cautionary tale and reminder to both public and private employers to proceed with caution when it comes to politics in the workplace. More ›

Attention Minnesota Employers: Duluth Set to Implement New Earned Sick and Safe Time Leave Requirements

On January 1, 2020, the city of Duluth will join Minneapolis and St. Paul in imposing new sick and safe time leave requirements on employers. Specifically, employers with five or more employees—regardless of where those employees work—must provide their Duluth-based employees with earned sick and safe time (ESST). ESST can be used by employees in order to care for themselves or a family member in situations involving illnesses, injuries, and physical or mental health conditions, as well as domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Minnesota employers should assess whether they have employees working in Duluth to which the ESST ordinance may apply. They should also review their current PTO policies and make sure they comply with the ordinance. More ›

Seventh Circuit Issues Another ADA Decision Involving Obesity Disability, Finds Future Impairments Are Not Covered

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has issued another ruling regarding an obesity-related disability accommodation request under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Earlier this past summer, we reported on another Seventh Circuit case, in which the court held that obesity is not an ADA-protected disability unless it is caused by a physiological disorder or condition. In Ronald Shell v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company, the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court's decision, and ruled that an obese applicant for a safety-sensitive position—who was not hired due to his obesity—cannot claim discrimination under the "regarded as" prong of the ADA. More ›

Federal Court in Montana Rules Demand for a Supervisor Reassignment is not an Appropriate Accommodation under the ADA

If you do not like your boss, can you demand your employer provide you with a new one? A federal district court in Montana recently rejected such an accommodation request in a well-reasoned case involving the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and related state law. While the court did not rule out the requested accommodation as unreasonable as a matter of law, it did find the request was not appropriate under the facts of the case. More ›

Search
Subscribe via Email