June 2, 2015
On Your Marks, Get Ready…Stereotype!
On Monday June 1, 2015, in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores [pdf] the United States Supreme Court, addressed the issue of whether an employer can be liable for refusing to hire an applicant or discharging an employee on a “religious observance and practice” if the employer doesn’t have actual knowledge that a religious accommodation is required.
May 29, 2015
DOL Releases Revised FMLA Forms
The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) has released revised model Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) forms for employers’ use in administering and determining eligible FMLA leave. Under the terms of the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) must review the FMLA forms every three (3) years.
October 3, 2014
Religious Accommodation in the Workplace
Yesterday was the first day of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014-2015 term and the Court already has made a splash in employment law news. In EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., the EEOC has claimed that Abercrombie failed to provide a reasonable religious accommodation for a hijab-wearing job applicant. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the EEOC and held that Abercrombie failed to provide a reasonable accommodation to its clothing policy.
July 16, 2014
EEOC Issues New Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination
Claims of discrimination can one be one of the most costly charges an employer can face. Understanding how the Ohio Civil Rights Commission (OCRC) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) analyze claims of discrimination is paramount in preventing discrimination in the workplace and for preparing a defense if discrimination charges have been filed.
January 20, 2014
Transferring Employees Just Got More Complicated
Last week in Deleon v. Kalamazoo County Road Commission, No. 12-2377, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the question of whether an “adverse” employment action exists if an employee is transferred to a position he applied and interviewed for. In this case, Deleon, a fifty-three year old Hispanic male was employed by the Kalamazoo County Road Commission (“the Commission”) for twenty eight years and beginning in 1996 served as an “Area Superintendent.” In 2008, a vacancy arose for the position of “Equipment and Facilities Superintendent.”
December 23, 2013
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals weighs in on position descriptions and the ADA
If you have been to one of Clemans Nelson’s seminars on the fundamentals of a sound H.R. system you have heard Brian Butcher or Michael Esposito say, “the two key parts of any sound H.R. system are (1) your job descriptions and (2) your policy manual.” Without these documents the employer will inevitably find itself in an undesirable position. “What exactly is an ‘undesirable position’?”, employers may ask.
December 9, 2013
Unemployment Compensation and Probationary Employee Removals
Ohio is an at-will employment State. This means, employees can be terminated for any reason or no reason at all. There are three caveats to that rule. First, employers can’t take adverse employment actions against their employees for discriminatory reasons (e.g. race, color, religion, national origin, age, gender, military status, etc.). Second, if the employer is in the public sector, adverse employment actions are often restricted by statute.
July 26, 2013
Social Media Headaches: Don’t Look to the NLRB for Help
Like all forms of technology, social media is changing at a breakneck pace. By now most employers are aware of Myspace, Facebook, and Twitter, but do you have policies and procedures in place that cover of impact employee activity on micro photo and video websites such as Instagram and Vine?
July 5, 2013
Health Care Law’s Employer Mandate Delayed Until 2015
On July 2, 2013, Mark J. Mazur, the assistant secretary for tax policy at the U.S. Treasury Department, announced a one-year delay, until January 1, 2015, in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandate that employers with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees provide health care coverage to their full-time employees or pay steep penalities.
April 1, 2012
Jury grants EEOC award of $240 Million for disability discrimination.
Jury grants EEOC award of $240 Million for disability discrimination. In a particularly egregious set of facts, the jury determined that the Company had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by creating a hostile environment and imposing discriminatory conditions of employment, and acted with “malice or reckless indifference” to their civil rights.