Medical Staff Member Deemed Independent Contractor, Not Eligible for Title VII Protection

When assessing potential exposure for their employer-clients under federal labor and employment statutes, employment and health care attorneys often must start with the basics. That determination of employment status becomes even more important in medical facilities, such as hospitals, which have multiple and complex levels of workers with varying levels of skills and responsibilities. This is especially true with independent medical staff members who may have other contractual relationships with hospitals—such as recruitment agreements or administrative services contracts—which can complicate these questions.

The Ninth Circuit recently confronted such a situation when deciding whether an independent member of the medical staff, who had a separate recruitment agreement as well as an on-call services agreement, was an employee or independent contractor. This decision is important for the litigants, because independent contractors ordinarily are not covered by Title VII. More ›

EEOC Issues Guidance on Opioid Use and Accommodation in the Workplace

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued two technical assistance documents on opioid-related disability issues and reasonable accommodation. The first document (Guidance) employs a question and answer format and focuses primarily on typical questions employees may ask, although employers can also use it as a useful guide when dealing with the illegal use of opioids, the lawful use of prescribed opioids, employees who have a history of opioid use or abuse, and the accommodation responsibilities in each instance. The second document offers guidance to healthcare providers tasked with providing documentation for opioid-using patients seeking accommodations. More ›

Eleventh Circuit Rejects Retaliation Claim Because HR Manager's Conduct was "Unreasonable" and Not Protected Under Title VII

In Gogel v. Kia Motors Mfg. of Ga., the Eleventh Circuit examined Title VII's opposition clause and the extent to which "oppositional conduct" can be considered so unreasonable that it loses Title VII protection. In this case, Kia fired its HR manager for strongly encouraging an employee to file a discrimination lawsuit against the company. Once terminated, the HR manager sued the company for retaliation, arguing that her actions were protected by Title VII's opposition clause. The court rejected the argument and the claim, handing a victory to employers. More ›

Federal Court in New York Strikes Down Key Provisions of DOL's FFCRA Final Rule

In State of New York v. United States Department of Labor, the Southern District of New York struck down several key aspects of the Department of Labor's (DOL) Final Rule implementing the provisions of Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). Brought by the State of New York, this suit challenged several features of the DOL's Final Rule as exceeding the DOL's authority. The DOL cross-filed for summary judgment and moved to dismiss for lack of standing. More ›

NLRB Clarifies its Section 7 Evidentiary Standard for Evaluating Employer Discipline for Employee Abusive Conduct

Last September, we anticipated a change in National Labor Relations Board (Board) policy regarding the evidentiary standard for resolving unfair labor practice charges related to employer discipline of employee abusive conduct. Now, the Board will employ a single proof paradigm—the Wright Line test—to resolve such unfair labor practice allegations. More ›

As COVID-19 Cases Increase, States Adopt Workplace Standards and Emergency Ordinances

With over 40 states showing a significant increase in the number of COVID-19 cases, the novel coronavirus remains top of mind for employers throughout the U.S. Numerous state and federal measures have been—and continue to be—enacted in response to the pandemic. We explore some of these recent policies and their impact on employers below. More ›

Minneapolis Earned Sick and Safe Time Ordinance Upheld by Minnesota Supreme Court

On June 10, 2020, in Minnesota Chamber of Commerce v. City of Minneapolis, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the City of Minneapolis' Earned Sick and Safe Time (ESST) Ordinance. The ordinance requires employers to provide sick and safe time to employees who work within the city, and applies to all employees who work in Minneapolis, regardless of whether or not the employer is based in Minneapolis. Employers operating in Minneapolis—or other Minnesota cities with similar ordinances such as Duluth and St. Paul—should review their local ordinances, along with state and federal laws, to ensure compliance. More ›

Proclamation by Trump Administration Will Have Major Impact on Employer-Sponsored Immigration

On June 22, 2020 President Trump signed a Proclamation suspending certain immigration applications and entry into the United States which will dramatically—albeit temporarily—impact the landscape of employer-sponsored immigration. Subject to limited exceptions, the suspension applies to foreign workers in the H-1B, H-2B, L-1, and J-1 visa categories, as well as their dependents, and is effective from June 24 to December 31. More ›

CDC Issues Guidance That Serological Testing of Employees Violates ADA

As more states are reopening and employees are returning to work, some employers will be considering testing employees for COVID-19 before allowing them to return to the workplace. In a prior post, we wrote about guidance from the EEOC that states that employers may test employees before returning to work as long as the testing complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). We also wrote about the various types of COVID-19 testing available, including serological testing and diagnostic testing. Serological testing looks for the presence of COVID-19 antibodies, while diagnostic testing checks for the presence of the COVID-19 virus itself. More ›

Think You Finally Understand the PPP? Think Again… Because It Has Been Amended

On June 5, 2020 H.R. 7010—known as the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act (the "Act")—went into effect. The Act amends the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) created by the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. Although the amendments provide greater flexibility for employers, they may also require reconsideration of prior understandings and decisions. More ›