- Age Discrimination
- Americans With Disabilities Act
- Class Actions
- Disparate Impact
- EEOC Regulations
- Employee Benefits
- Family Medical Leave Act
- Labor Law
- Michigan Employment Issues
- National Labor Relations Act
- Noncompete Agreements
- Religion In The Workplace
- Right To Work
- State Employment Regulation
- Trade Secrets
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Wage and Hour
- Chicago City Council Passes Mandatory Paid Sick Leave Ordinance – What Employers Need to Know
- The New Overtime Regulations Are Now Official
- New Federal Defense of Trade Secrets Act Requires Employers to Re-Examine Employee Confidentiality Agreements
- Accommodation of Religion in the Workplace: A Primer
- Employers Beware: Employees May Disparage You Without Risking Their Jobs
- Supreme Court Upholds Sampling in FLSA Cases
- EEOC Files Landmark Lawsuits Alleging Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Wake Up Federal Contractors; Key Affirmative Action Issues for 2016
- The Proposed New Overtime Pay Exemption Rules: What's the Latest Scoop
- OFCCP Information Gathering Alleged to Violate Fourth Amendment Rights Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
In a first of its kind for Illinois,on June 22, 2016, the Chicago City Council passed the Paid Sick Leave Ordinance, making Chicago the latest in a wave of mandatory paid sick leave ordinances around the country.
Chicago’s Ordinance, which becomes effective next year on July 1, 2017, would require most Chicago employers to provide the following:
- Employees accrue paid sick leave (“Paid Leave”) of at least one hour for every 40 hours worked, up to a maximum of 40 hours per 12-month period.
- Employees can carry over up to half of their accrued Paid Leave, up to a maximum of 20 hours, from one year to the next.
- For employers that are covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), employees may carry over up to 40 hours of unused Paid Leave. An employee who uses the carried over 40-hours of FMLA leave for FMLA covered purposesis entitled to use an additional 20 hours of accrued Paid Leave in the same 12-month period, increasing the employer’s Paid Leave obligation to 60 hours.
- Covered “family members” includeindividuals related by blood or whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship.
The ordinance would apply to any individual (including partnership, association, corporation, limited liability company, business trust, or any person or group of persons) that gainfully employs at least one eligible employee and maintains a business facility within the geographic boundaries Chicago. The ordinance exempts employers who provide their employees paid time off in an amount and manner that meets or exceeds the ordinance’s minimum standards and requirements.
The ordinance defines “employee” to cover any individual permitted to work by an employer who works in Chicago for at least 80 hours in any 120-day period. The ordinance excludes a number of workers from coverage, including certain employees employed in agriculture or aquaculture, outside salesmen, members of a religious corporation or organization, and any employee working in the construction industry who is covered by a bona fide collective bargaining agreement. Read More ›
There’s no longer a basis to speculate or read or ignore the rumors. The Department of Labor (DOL) has finalized its changes to the regulations governing who may be exempt from being paid overtime. The changes will still be dramatic in terms of the number of employees impacted, but employers’ worst fears as to what they might contain did not quite materialize. Read More ›
New Federal Defense of Trade Secrets Act Requires Employers to Re-Examine Employee Confidentiality Agreements
This week, President Obama signed the Defense of Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) into law, providing owners of trade secrets new federal protections against trade secret misappropriation. The new law has several features which will be discussed (and inevitably litigated) over the months and years to come, including a provision allowing courts to issue ex parte seizure orders of property containing misappropriated trade secrets, a definition of trade secrets broader than the definition in the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), and a definition of misappropriation narrower than the one in the UTSA. For employers, however, a provision of the act may require that longstanding confidentiality agreements be re-examined. Read More ›
Of the various types of discrimination employers have known they must not commit for 50 years, discrimination based on religion remains one of the most challenging. Unlike race, gender, age and similar “immutable” characteristics, religion is more than what someone is; it is also what someone practices and believes. Therefore, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 sometimes requires that employers treat people differently because of their religion. In further contrast, one does not “preach” an immutable characteristic by trying to convince others to change race, age, or gender, but many feel comfortable, or even obligated, to share religious views with others and possibly even try to convert them. The challenge of accommodating religious practices without fundamentally altering the workplace keeps employers and their HR teams up at night. Here are some practical tips for understanding and handling these sometimes conflicting challenges. Read More ›
On March 25, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a finding by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that Jimmy John’s sandwich makers were wrongfully terminated after posting hundreds of signs insinuating that the sandwiches they make could make customers sick. According to the NLRB and the court, those employees were engaging in concerted activities protected under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). MikLin Enterprises v. NLRB, Case No. 14-3099 (8th Cir. Mar. 25, 2016). Read More ›
On March 22, 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, making it easier for plaintiffs to maintain class actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act, at least in some contexts. Specifically, at least in some donning and doffing contexts, courts may permit plaintiffs to prove their cases through the use of statistical sampling. For a detailed discussion of this case and its impact, as written for the American Bar Association by one of our employment law partners – Robert Boonin, click here.
It is not uncommon for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to push the envelope by taking positions in litigation that exceed the plain language of the federal statutes that it is charged to enforce. Indeed, in its 2013-2016 Strategic Enforcement Plan, the EEOC identified addressing of emerging and developing issues as a priority, specifically mentioning as one of those issues is the “coverage of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals under Title VII’s sex discrimination provisions, as they may apply.” On Tuesday, the EEOC took the next step in prosecuting its Strategic Enforcement Plan when it launched a pair of federal lawsuits alleging discriminatory employment practices based on sexual orientation, -- prime examples of the agency’s tendency to interpret statutes as broadly as possible and beyond what Congress intended. Read More ›
Although the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) has not been as active as the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) in updating regulations and issuing harsh decisions, unprepared federal contractors or subcontractors may face significant problems with the OFCCP during 2016. Read More ›
For months, crystal balls have been working on overdrive trying to predict when the Department of Labor will roll-out the final version of the new white collar overtime pay exemption regulations and what will be in those regulations. While there is no way to accurately make these predictions, there have been some official comments recently made about what can be expected, and it’s not too late for employers to prepare for the new regulations even though the details are still uncertain. Read More ›
OFCCP Information Gathering Alleged to Violate Fourth Amendment Rights Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has seen a rise in challenges to its rights to access data for the compliance reviews it conducts. Most, if not all, of these challenges have raised Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizures. The OFCCP has prevailed on these challenges and has sought immediate enforcement action against those who challenge its right to access data during a compliance review. Attached is the Affirmative Action Compliance Newsletter from Bloomberg Law reviewing the issue and quoting Dykema Cox Smith lawyer, Jaime Ramon.