On June 5, 2020, Illinois Governor Pritzker signed into law HB 2455, which creates a rebuttable presumption of workers’ compensation coverage for first responders and front-line workers who are exposed to and contract COVID-19. This recent legislative enactment follows the withdrawal of Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission’s emergency rule which included similar language.
In enacting this legislation, Illinois becomes the latest state to create a presumption of workers’ compensation coverage specific to COVID-19 and joins Alaska, Arkansas California, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin, all of which have created a presumption of coverage extending to varying sectors of employment. Continue Reading
The world of work has remained broadly the same for the last 100 to 200 years – offices might have lost the wood panelling, trains become less smoky (inside and out!), top hats turned into bowler hats then no hats, beards have gone in, out, then back into fashion, but the central tenet remains – I pay you money, I expect you to turn up to work and do your job. This holds true even for those industries that loudly trumpet their ‘disruptive’ ways ” – you only have to visit the newest glass palaces that stand for many modern offices to see the nattily dressed employees largely ignoring the free foosball, PlayStation, beanbags in the break-out rooms, etc., and glued to their desks in rows, just like the same battery chickens of a century ago. The more you fill the office with free fruit and things that look like play and relaxation, the more you are actually giving your staff the least possible reason to leave the building.
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 have a legal obligation to protect their customers against sexual harassment perpetrated by their employees and supervisors? This was the issue recently considered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Yucis v. Sears Outlet Stores, LLC.
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 based on known or disclosed disabilities, but also discrimination against individuals who are “regarded as” disabled. A recent case from the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (which covers Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) examined this “regarded as” prong of the ADA, and specifically, an exception to it when the perceived disability at issue is of short duration and minor in its limitations.
