‘guns in the workplace’ ‘weapons in the workplace’ ‘workplace violence’ ‘concealed weapons’
Continue Reading Public policy exception to at-will employment may preclude employer from firing employee for on-premises weapon in certain states.
EEOC updates Guidance on employer use of arrest and conviction records.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued an updated Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions under Title VII. That Guidance, which takes effect immediately, is a compilation of the past policy documents and prior court decisions regarding the EEOC’s position that employers’ reliance on arrest and conviction
To post, or not to post . . . ? A recent decision may again delay the effective date for the required Notification of Employee Rights.
Unless reversed or stayed before the end of the month, an April 13, 2012 ruling by a federal district court in South Carolina will block the implementation of a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rule that would require most U.S private-sector employers — including most of the 6 million small business in the U.S. —
Independent Contractor may be viewed as employee for purposes of Title VII liability.
The anti-discrimination provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act apply only to employees. The determination of whether an individual is an “employee” for purposes of that Act depends largely on whether a putative employer exercised control over the manner and means by which the individual performed a job. While most employers assume that
Seventh Circuit underscores a circuit split on preferential reassignment of disabled individuals to open positions.
The Federal Circuits currently are split on the issue of whether the ADA requires reassignment of disabled employees to vacant positions when a more qualified candidate exists, with the 10th Circuit and the District of Columbia Circuit holding that the ADA creates preferential treatment for disabled candidates, and the 7th and 8th Circuits holding that
Back pay award in successful retaliation claim against former employer may be based upon position not awarded by a different employer.
It is generally understood that employees can bring Title VII claims – and be awarded damages – for hostile environment, wrongful termination, and retaliation. What is less clearly understood is the extent of the economic damages for which a former employer may be liable in the situation in which a litigant claims to have lost
Title VII protects both current and former employees from discriminatory adverse employment actions.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against “any individual" on the basis of membership in a protected class. In a reminder to employers, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reiterated the generally accepted interpretation that in this language, Title VII explicitly
NLRB’s power to impose penalties for employer’s failure to post “Employee Rights Notice” is clarified by the D.C. Circuit.
On March 2, 2012, a federal trial judge in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a highly-anticipated ruling on the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) controversial notice posting rule. National Association of Manufacturers v. NLRB, No. 11-1629 (ABJ), U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (March 2, 2012).
As most employers now are
Wounded warriors want to return to work – and employers can help that transition.
On February 28, 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released two publications addressing the rights of military veterans with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as part of its efforts to aid such veterans in the transition back into civilian employment. According to government statistics, three million veterans have returned from military
Employee’s inability to work overtime is not a per se disability under the ADA.
The 4th U.S. Court of Appeals has dismissed an employee’s lawsuit, holding that the individual’s inability to work overtime hours was not a substantial limitation that would entitle him to the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Boitnott v. Corning Incorporated, 4th Cir., No. 10-1769, February 10, 2012.
Michael Boitnott, an employee of