Your tax dollars are at work! The U.S. Department of Labor today announced the availability of an updated version of its popular Employment Law Guide, an online publication that describes the major employment laws administered by the Department.
The Employment Law Guide is a companion to the department's FirstStep overview advisor, an online system that allows employers to quickly and easily determine which federal employment laws apply to them by answering a few simple questions about relevant variables. Each chapter in the Employment Law Guide corresponds to the laws addressed in the FirstStep advisor, outlining coverage under the law; its basic requirements; employee rights; recordkeeping, reporting, notice and poster requirements; penalties and sanctions for non-compliance; relation to state, local and other federal laws; and contact information for further assistance.
Kiernan's Corner: Preventive Law for Employers
Showing posts with label federal employment law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federal employment law. Show all posts
November 30, 2009
August 17, 2009
Supreme Court Roundup
Here's a recap of the US Supreme Court's 2008-2009 major labor and emplpyment law decisions:
Ricci v DeStefano, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-1428.ZS.html#content.
By throwing out the results of an firefighters' promotional exam, New Haven, CT violated Title VII’s prohibition against race discrimination. A 5-4 majority applied a new standard of statutory construction, holding that before an employer can engage in what otherwise would be prohibited discriminatory treatment in order to avoid or remedy an unintentional, disparate impact, the employer must have “a strong basis in evidence” to believe it will be subject to disparate impact liability if it fails to take the race-conscious, discriminatory action. Mere fear of litigation, as alleged by New Haven, was not enough. (June 29, 2009).
Locke v Karass. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-610.ZS.html.
A union may charge fee-paying nonmembers for the national, or "extra-local" litigation expenses incurred by its parent union, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled, holding that the First Amendment permits such charges (January 21, 2009).
Crawford v Metro Gov’t of Nashville. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1595.ZS.html.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Act’s retaliation protections extend to employees who speak out about discrimination and harassment not on their own initiative, but when answering questions during an employer-ordered internal investigation. (January 26, 2009).
14 Penn Plaza LLC v Pyett. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-581.ZS.html.
Reinforcing its decidedly pro-arbitration policy, the Supreme Court held that courts must enforce collective bargaining agreements that “clearly and unmistakably” require union members to arbitrate ADEA claims. (April 1, 2009).
AT&T Corp v Hulteen. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-543.ZS.html.
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act does not require employers to set current pension benefits at a level that will restore service credits to female employees for pregnancy leaves taken prior to the passage of the PDA. (May 18, 2009).
Gross v FBL Fin Servs Group. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-441.ZS.html#content
Much to my surprise (and that of many other observers), the Supremes refused to use the mixed-motives burden-shifting rules of Title VII, and held that an age discrimination plaintiff under the ADEA must establish by a preponderance of evidence that age was the “but-for” cause of the adverse employment action challenged. Even when the employee has produced some evidence that age was a motivating factor in the employer's decision, the burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer to show that it would have taken the same action regardless of age. (June 18, 2009).
Ricci v DeStefano, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-1428.ZS.html#content.
By throwing out the results of an firefighters' promotional exam, New Haven, CT violated Title VII’s prohibition against race discrimination. A 5-4 majority applied a new standard of statutory construction, holding that before an employer can engage in what otherwise would be prohibited discriminatory treatment in order to avoid or remedy an unintentional, disparate impact, the employer must have “a strong basis in evidence” to believe it will be subject to disparate impact liability if it fails to take the race-conscious, discriminatory action. Mere fear of litigation, as alleged by New Haven, was not enough. (June 29, 2009).
Locke v Karass. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-610.ZS.html.
A union may charge fee-paying nonmembers for the national, or "extra-local" litigation expenses incurred by its parent union, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled, holding that the First Amendment permits such charges (January 21, 2009).
Crawford v Metro Gov’t of Nashville. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1595.ZS.html.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Act’s retaliation protections extend to employees who speak out about discrimination and harassment not on their own initiative, but when answering questions during an employer-ordered internal investigation. (January 26, 2009).
14 Penn Plaza LLC v Pyett. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-581.ZS.html.
Reinforcing its decidedly pro-arbitration policy, the Supreme Court held that courts must enforce collective bargaining agreements that “clearly and unmistakably” require union members to arbitrate ADEA claims. (April 1, 2009).
AT&T Corp v Hulteen. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-543.ZS.html.
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act does not require employers to set current pension benefits at a level that will restore service credits to female employees for pregnancy leaves taken prior to the passage of the PDA. (May 18, 2009).
Gross v FBL Fin Servs Group. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-441.ZS.html#content
Much to my surprise (and that of many other observers), the Supremes refused to use the mixed-motives burden-shifting rules of Title VII, and held that an age discrimination plaintiff under the ADEA must establish by a preponderance of evidence that age was the “but-for” cause of the adverse employment action challenged. Even when the employee has produced some evidence that age was a motivating factor in the employer's decision, the burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer to show that it would have taken the same action regardless of age. (June 18, 2009).
April 6, 2009
Employers Be WARNed!
There’s no doubt that these are tough times. Last month the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reported that workplace discrimination filings soared to an unprecedented level of 95,402 during fiscal year 2008, which ended September 30.
The EEOC statistics are astounding. Total claims went from 82,792 in 2007 to 95,402 in 2008, a 15 percent increase in just one year. Sexual harassment charges went from 12,510 in 2007 to 13,867 in 2008, the largest number of charges since 2002, sharply reversing a ten-year trend of flat or declining sexual harassment charges. Claims of age discrimination and retaliation charges saw the largest increases -29% and 23%, respectively. "The EEOC has not seen an increase of this magnitude in charges filed for many years," said EEOC acting chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. The EEOC speculated that the surge in filings may be due to multiple factors, including economic conditions and employees’ greater knowledge of the law.
Then look at the unemployment statistics: As of March, the unemployment rate was 8.5%, the highest level in more than 25 years. More than 2 million people have lost their jobs since the beginning of the year. That’s 2 million potential plaintiffs.
If your organization is contemplating a large layoff or reduction in force (RIF), be WARNed! That means compliance with the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN). This federal law generally requires employers of 100 or more full-time employees to provide a 60 days’ notice of plant closings (termination of 50 or more employees) or mass layoffs (500 or more employees at a site or 50-499 employees constituting at least 33 1/3% of the full-time workforce at a site).
WARN says that an employer must provide written notice 60 calendar days before a plant closing or mass layoff to employees or their representative (union), the State dislocated worker unit (unemployment) and the local chief elected official. There are some exceptions, such as when the employer offers to transfer employees to a different site within a reasonable commuting distance, or the layoffs are due to unforeseeable business circumstances or a natural disaster. In addition, WARN has complex regulations regarding the timing and aggregation of terminations, definition of a "site" and similar details.
If that weren’t enough, a variety of states, including California, New York, and New Jersey, have their own “mini-WARN” laws that set different standards. For instance, New York law covers companies of 50 workers or more and California law coverage starts at 75, but federal law only applies at companies with 100 or more employees. New Jersey requires a more detailed notice than the feds, and New York requires 90 days’ notice instead of 60. The federal Department of Labor provides some online resources for employers facing layoffs, including links to state dislocated worker units, where employers can get information about any mini-WARN laws that might be applicable.
What this means to you: Obviously, employers should get expert advice from a local employment attorney when planning a mass layoff or plant closing. There's no doubt that many companies have a legitimate need to cut staff. The question becomes whether the companies have - and can prove - a legitimate basis for deciding who to keep and who to let go. It sounds clichéd, but now, more than ever, managers need to know the law on wrongful termination and the critical importance of documentation, and how to put that knowledge to practical use every day when tackling workplace problems.
The EEOC statistics are astounding. Total claims went from 82,792 in 2007 to 95,402 in 2008, a 15 percent increase in just one year. Sexual harassment charges went from 12,510 in 2007 to 13,867 in 2008, the largest number of charges since 2002, sharply reversing a ten-year trend of flat or declining sexual harassment charges. Claims of age discrimination and retaliation charges saw the largest increases -29% and 23%, respectively. "The EEOC has not seen an increase of this magnitude in charges filed for many years," said EEOC acting chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. The EEOC speculated that the surge in filings may be due to multiple factors, including economic conditions and employees’ greater knowledge of the law.
Then look at the unemployment statistics: As of March, the unemployment rate was 8.5%, the highest level in more than 25 years. More than 2 million people have lost their jobs since the beginning of the year. That’s 2 million potential plaintiffs.
If your organization is contemplating a large layoff or reduction in force (RIF), be WARNed! That means compliance with the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN). This federal law generally requires employers of 100 or more full-time employees to provide a 60 days’ notice of plant closings (termination of 50 or more employees) or mass layoffs (500 or more employees at a site or 50-499 employees constituting at least 33 1/3% of the full-time workforce at a site).
WARN says that an employer must provide written notice 60 calendar days before a plant closing or mass layoff to employees or their representative (union), the State dislocated worker unit (unemployment) and the local chief elected official. There are some exceptions, such as when the employer offers to transfer employees to a different site within a reasonable commuting distance, or the layoffs are due to unforeseeable business circumstances or a natural disaster. In addition, WARN has complex regulations regarding the timing and aggregation of terminations, definition of a "site" and similar details.
If that weren’t enough, a variety of states, including California, New York, and New Jersey, have their own “mini-WARN” laws that set different standards. For instance, New York law covers companies of 50 workers or more and California law coverage starts at 75, but federal law only applies at companies with 100 or more employees. New Jersey requires a more detailed notice than the feds, and New York requires 90 days’ notice instead of 60. The federal Department of Labor provides some online resources for employers facing layoffs, including links to state dislocated worker units, where employers can get information about any mini-WARN laws that might be applicable.
What this means to you: Obviously, employers should get expert advice from a local employment attorney when planning a mass layoff or plant closing. There's no doubt that many companies have a legitimate need to cut staff. The question becomes whether the companies have - and can prove - a legitimate basis for deciding who to keep and who to let go. It sounds clichéd, but now, more than ever, managers need to know the law on wrongful termination and the critical importance of documentation, and how to put that knowledge to practical use every day when tackling workplace problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)