UPDATE: On January 21, 2021, the defendants filed a motion with the district court for permission to take an interlocutory appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on the following question: “What causal standard is required to establish that a plant closing or mass layoff is “due to any form of natural disaster” under … Continue Reading
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has recently handed down a judgment which serves as a useful reminder for employers of the risks of taking disciplinary action against union representatives for behaviour which may look like misconduct but which actually constitutes union activity. By way of background, section 146(1)(b) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) … Continue Reading
The range of employers who may be liable for the misclassification of workers just got bigger. On January 14, 2021, the California Supreme Court decided that the decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 (Dynamex) applies retroactively to all non-final cases that predate the April 2018 Dynamex decision. Dynamex … Continue Reading
It’s been a frenetic October and we’re still in the first week. Here is a quick summary of significant developments in U.S. Immigration just within the past few days. Federal District Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Halting Implementation of Nonimmigrant Visa Ban On October 1, 2020 Judge Jeffrey S. White of the District Court for the … Continue Reading
“Loss of trust and confidence” is often pleaded as a basis for a fair dismissal, but rarely successfully. Employment Tribunals are astute to employers using it as a short cut to address performance or conduct issues without going through a proper procedure. After all, a dismissal without a fair procedure is going to be unfair … Continue Reading
The Tenth Circuit – covering Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming – just became the first federal appellate court to explicitly rule that employees can bring “sex-plus-age” claims against employers under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—a claim alleging discrimination on the basis of gender against individuals over the age … Continue Reading
An employee confronts you – a small business owner – and calls you a “f***ng mother f***cker,” a “f***ing crook,” an “a**hole,” and “stupid,” tells you that none of your employees like you and everyone talks about you behind your back, and warns you that you’ll regret firing him, if you do. Or you’re a … Continue Reading
Earlier this month the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a regulation adopted under the Trump administration significantly cutting back the requirement that insurers and group health plans provide coverage for contraceptives without cost sharing under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).… Continue Reading
The striking down of the Privacy Shield by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) last week may have significant consequences for UK and EU employers which are headquartered in the US or which otherwise transfer the personal data of their employees to that country. Brief history – the original EU Data Protection … Continue Reading
In a previous blog, we discussed Darby v. Childvine, a decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in which the court considered whether an otherwise healthy person with a genetic mutation meets the definition of disabled under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). As a reminder, the ADA … Continue Reading
The religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools, and therefore the selection and supervision of the teachers upon whom the schools rely to do this work lie at the core of their mission. Judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge those … Continue Reading
“Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable … Continue Reading
Resolving a question that previously had vexed lower courts and resulted in inconsistent rulings across the country, on Monday, June 15, 2020, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition against sex-based discrimination in employment set forth in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes claims of sexual orientation and gender … Continue Reading
We all know that employers have a legal obligation under federal law, as well as under various state and local laws, to provide their employees with a safe work environment free from sexual harassment, and that under certain circumstances, an employer can be held legally responsible for harassment directed at its employees. However, do companies … Continue Reading
With the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) now 30 years old, most people, and certainly all HR professionals and employment lawyers, know that it is unlawful to discriminate against employees (and applicants) on the basis of a physical or mental disability. What is less widely known, however, is that the ADA not only prohibits discrimination … Continue Reading
UPDATE: June 1, 2020: The NLRB announced via a press release and General Counsel memorandum that notwithstanding the judge’s order remanding the rule to the NLRB for reconsideration, “it will implement in full all of the rule changes unaffected by the recent U.S. District Court order.” Accordingly, the following provisons in the rule are in … Continue Reading
Quite a fun little case on TUPE this week, if you like that sort of thing (and on the upside, even if you don’t, at least it has nothing to do with COVID-19). Regulation 4(4) of TUPE states that TUPE-related changes to terms of employment are void in most circumstances. This has long been read … Continue Reading
With almost all of the current news being focused on coronavirus-related topics, it’s easy to forget that courts and agencies continue to do their jobs, issuing decisions and opinions. On occasion, one of those decisions is significant enough to warrant a distraction from all things COVID-19. A recent National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) … Continue Reading
Our colleague Jacob Davis at Squire Patton Boggs’ Sports Shorts blog discussed the recent ruling in the Equal Pay Act and Title VII case brought by members of the U.S. women’s national soccer team against U.S. Soccer alleging that they were discriminated against by being paid less than their male counterparts. On Friday, May 1, … Continue Reading
Sunny Anthony worked for TRAX International as a technical writer. During the course of her employment, she asked TRAX to accommodate her disabilities–post-traumatic stress disorder and related anxiety and depression—by letting her work from home, which TRAX denied or otherwise declined to allow.[1] So Ms. Anthony sued TRAX, alleging that it violated the Americans with … Continue Reading
On April 16, 2020, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the First District Court of Texas held that an employer could compel a former employee to arbitrate her wrongful termination case, even though it had not signed the arbitration agreement, because the evidence demonstrated that the employer intended to be bound by … Continue Reading
Earlier this week, Mr Justice Snowden gave the first judgment on the Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme [here]. Rather than bask in the Bank Holiday sunshine digging into his Easter eggs, he sought to bring clarity to some of the more murky aspects of the scheme – specifically, how the Scheme operates when the employer … Continue Reading
Back in 2016 we commented on the increasing breadth of the vicarious liability concept as seen in a claim against supermarket chain Morrisons [here]. The store was held liable to a customer who was violently assaulted by one of its petrol station attendants in direct contravention of the criminal law, his training and all reasonable … Continue Reading
In non-coronavirus related developments, on March 16, 2020, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) issued a decision in Baylor University Medical Center, reversing an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision that found certain severance agreement provisions to be unlawful under Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Section 8(a)(1) prohibits employers from … Continue Reading
