Dykema Labor & Employment Law Blog
Posts by Arlene Switzer Steinfield
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on TwitterTopics
- Age Discrimination
- Americans With Disabilities Act
- Arbitration
- Class Actions
- Discrimination
- Disparate Impact
- EEOC Regulations
- Employee Benefits
- Family Medical Leave Act
- Harassment
- Immigration
- Independent Contractors
- Labor Law
- Michigan Employment Issues
- National Labor Relations Act
- Noncompete Agreements
- OFCCP
- Privacy
- Religion In The Workplace
- Retaliation
- Right To Work
- State Employment Regulation
- Trade Secrets
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Wage and Hour
- Whistleblower
Contributors
Recent Posts
- Clarity on Legality of Work Rules Under NLRA has Arrived!
- Supreme Court Strikes “Knock-Down Blow” to Public Sector Unions
- 5th Circuit Reminds Employers to Follow Requirements of Arbitration Agreement
- Supreme Court Approves Waiver of Class/Collective Actions In Arbitration Agreements. What Does it Mean for Employers?
- Easy as ABC: California High Court Mandates New Test for Independent Contractors–Most Workers Should Now be Classified as Employees
- Higher Learning: Employees of Educational Institutions Likely Protected From Sexual Orientation Discrimination under Title IX
- Face/Off: The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act Spawns a Wave of Class Action Lawsuits
- The Supreme Court Gives Employers the Green Light, Will No Longer Narrowly Construe FLSA Exemptions
- Silence Just Became More Expensive: Trump Tax Reform Requires Employers to Choose Between Tax Deduction and Confidentiality of #MeToo Settlements
- Employers Face Risks Despite State Sexual Harassment Allegations in the Post-Weinstein Era, Placing Higher Emphasis on Internal Investigations
Showing 4 posts by Arlene Switzer Steinfield.
Good News for Employers: Additional EEOC Reporting Requirement on Pay Information Has Been Put on Hold Indefinitely
The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) announced on August 29, 2017, that the pending deadline for covered employers to submit pay data to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has been suspended indefinitely. Employers had been facing a deadline of March 31, 2018, to submit this additional pay information. In its memo to the EEOC, OMB stated that it would be “initiating a review and immediate stay of the effectiveness of [the pay data collection] aspects of the EEO-1 form.” Read More ›
EEOC Files Landmark Lawsuits Alleging Sexual Orientation Discrimination
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 ›
OSHA Provides Interim General Guidance for Workers and Guidance for Workers in Fields at Increased Risk of Ebola Exposure
In a recently published Interim Guidance regarding the control and prevention of Ebola, OSHA has provided interim general requirements and recommendations for workers whose duties are performed in circumstances that are known or reasonably suspected to be contaminated with the Ebola virus (e.g., due to contamination with blood or other potentially infectious material). OSHA differentiated such workers from those who have direct contact with persons with Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever. Read More ›
Retaliation under Title VII: A Three-Year Gap Is Not Enough to Refute Causation Under Certain Circumstances
In retaliation cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the question that frequently arises in evaluating the requisite element of causation is whether “timing is enough.” Many courts have held that although temporal proximity between the protected activity and the adverse employment action is sufficient to establish a prima facie case, such close timing, standing alone, is insufficient to meet plaintiff’s ultimate burden of proof. But in Malin v. Hospira, Inc.,___ F.3d ___, Case No. 13-2433 (August 7, 2014), the Seventh Circuit addressed the converse question. The issue addressed in Malin was whether a three-year gap conclusively refuted a retaliation claim. The appellate court expressly rejected the principle that “the passage of a particular amount of time between protected activity and retaliation can bar [a retaliation] claim as a matter of law.” Slip op. at 2. Read More ›