The 12 Days of California Labor & Employment Series – Day 6: Au Naturel Hair is Always Welcome

It's the end of the year and while everyone is busy, employers in California should be aware of new laws and regulations that go into effect on January 1, 2020. In the spirit of the season, we are using the "12 days of the holidays" to blog daily about one of these new California laws and its impact on California employers. On the sixth day of the holidays, my labor and employment attorney gave to me: six geese a laying and SB 188. More ›

"Ok Boomer"... From Internet Meme to Workplace Age Discrimination

Conflict exists between every generation, at least to some degree, and this is not new. Advancements in technology, the status of the economy, and other large-scale factors create differences in perspective between older and younger generations. But employers should be vigilant and warn employees about the use of "Ok Boomer" and other age-related comments, as well as dismissive attitudes directed towards older workers. Given the prevalence of lawsuits alleging age discrimination and harassment, this latest popular phrase is cause for concern. More ›

The 12 Days of California Labor & Employment Series – Day 5: More Expansion to Lactation Accommodations

It's the end of the year and while everyone is busy, employers in California should be aware of new laws and regulations that go into effect on January 1, 2020. In the spirit of the season, we are using the "12 days of the holidays" to blog daily about one of these new California laws and its impact on California employers. On the fifth day of the holidays, my labor and employment attorney gave to me: five golden rings and SB 142. More ›

The 12 Days of California Labor & Employment Series – Day 4: Notice Required to Employees Regarding Flexible Spending Accounts

It's the end of the year and while everyone is busy, employers in California should be aware of new laws and regulations that go into effect on January 1, 2020. In the spirit of the season, we are using the "12 days of the holidays" to blog daily about one of these new California laws and its impact on California employers. On the fourth day of the holidays, my labor and employment attorney gave to me: four calling birds and AB 1554. More ›

The 12 Days of California Labor & Employment Series – Day 3: Harassment Training Deadline Extended

It's the end of the year and while everyone is busy, employers in California should be aware of new laws and regulations that go into effect on January 1, 2020. In the spirit of the season, we are using the "12 days of the holidays" to blog daily about one of these new California laws and its impact on California employers. On the third day of the holidays, my labor and employment attorney gave to me: three French hens and SB 778. More ›

The 12 Days of California Labor & Employment Series – Day 2: Longer Statute of Limitations for Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation Claims was not on Employers' Holiday Wish List

It's the end of the year and while everyone is busy, employers in California should be aware of new laws and regulations that go into effect on January 1, 2020. In the spirit of the season, we are using the "12 days of the holidays" to blog daily about one of these new California laws and the law's impact on California employers. On the second day of the holidays, my labor and employment attorney gave to me: two turtle doves and AB 9. More ›

SCOTUS Reviewing Standard of Proof in Workplace Allegations of Racial Discrimination

For the last 150 years, the "motivating factor" standard of proof test was the pinnacle of what a plaintiff had to meet to prove allegations of racial discrimination in the workplace. However, the U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a case that will hold the "motivating factor" test to a much higher "but for" standard of proof in order to prevail in a racial discrimination suit. A decision in this case could have far-reaching effects on both the employment and economic sectors. More ›

The Eighth Circuit Examines When Partners are Owners as Opposed to Employees Covered by the ADEA

Earlier this week, the Eighth Circuit affirmed a Missouri district court's decision in Von Kaenel v. Armstrong Teasdale, LLP. This case of first impression for the circuit court involved an equity partner at Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Joseph S. von Kaenel, who was forced out at age 70 at the conclusion of 2014. He alleged that but for the firm's mandatory retirement policy in the firm's partnership agreement, he would have retired at or around 75. He filed suit in federal court, where the central issue was whether he was an employee covered under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Eighth Circuit concluded that he was not an employee covered by the ADEA.

While this ruling is specific to law firms, all businesses using a partnership model, especially multitiered partnerships, should proceed with caution in applying this decision.

Read our Lawyers for the Profession® alert about the case to learn more.

The 12 Days of California Labor & Employment Series – Day 1: No Rehire Provision is Now a No-No

It's back! Hard to believe another year is coming to a close and the holidays are fast approaching. As always, the legislature is keeping California employers busy; California has once again enacted many employment laws this year set to go into effect in 2020. In the spirit of the season, it's time for our annual "12 days of the holidays" series, where we will blog daily about one California law and its impact on California employers. So, on the first day of the holidays, my labor and employment attorney gave to me: a partridge in a pear tree and SB 749. More ›

EEOC Petitions the NLRB to Change Legal Test for Considering Whether Employee Racial Outbursts are Protected NLRA Activity

In response to an amicus brief submitted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has agreed to review General Motors LLC, a case which reveals a tension between the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 regarding employee racial outbursts during union activity. The EEOC requested the NLRB to change its test for determining whether or not an employee outburst is protected by the NLRA when it includes racially-charged language. The NLRB's decision could provide employers with more flexibility in disciplining employees for racial misconduct during union activity. More ›