Employers must consider providing unpaid leave and giving priority to disabled employees who want to be re-assigned under new guidance from the EEOC last month. In the new EEOC Guidance available here “Employer-Provided Leave and the Americans with Disabilities Act”, the EEOC states that if an employee requests it, an employer must consider providing unpaid leave to an employee with a disability as a reasonable accommodation, so long as providing the unpaid leave does not create an undue hardship for the employer. Continue Reading
An expanding patchwork of paid sick leave laws may represent the next challenge for employers trying to keep pace with changing workplace laws.
While Congress has failed to pass federal legislation guaranteeing paid leave to private sector employees, that hasn’t slowed the trend. Continue Reading
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that collective and class action waivers contained in arbitration agreements with employees are unenforceable and violate the National Labor Relations Act. Reaching the opposite conclusion as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and siding with the NLRB, the Seventh Circuit also held that the Federal Arbitration Act does not alter this outcome. The arbitration agreement in question did not allow the employee to opt out, but the Seventh Circuit suggested that arbitration agreements with class and collective action waivers would be unenforceable regardless of the employee’s right to opt out.
Employers operating in Illinois should review their arbitration agreements with counsel and consider the impact of the Seventh Circuit’s ruling on those agreements. The case is Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp., No. 15-2997 (7th Cir. May 26, 2016).
Beginning December 1, 2016 employers will have to pay “white collar” workers a salary of $47,476 ($912 a week) and ensure that they meet certain job duties tests established by law or else pay them overtime, under new regulations issued this week by the U.S. Department of Labor. Bonuses and commissions can count toward as much as 10 percent of the salary threshold, provided they are made on a quarterly or more frequent basis. Continue Reading
On May 11, 2016, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration finalized its 2013 proposed rule aimed at improving tracking of workplace injuries, increasing transparency and encouraging employees to report violations. Continue Reading
Yesterday, President Obama signed the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 into law, the details of which we reported in a recent Akerman Practice Update. The Act allows companies for the first time to bring trade secret theft claims under federal law. Continue Reading
A recent decision offers a not-so-friendly reminder to HR professionals and supervisory employees: you can be individually liable for FMLA violations if you review, approve, and correspond with employees regarding their FMLA leave. Continue Reading
For employers with employees in New York State, the cost of doing business in the state is going to go up due to recent legislation. New York State recently passed the following two important changes in the law which will impact all employees in the state: (a) an incremental increase in the minimum wage, and (b) paid family leave. Continue Reading
A recent U.S. Supreme Court case holding that representative evidence can be used in class/collective actions to the same extent that it could be used in an individual action may not have the broad application hoped for by the plaintiff’s bar. In Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, the Court held it permissible for the class representatives in a wage and hour class/collective action to utilize an expert report to establish the average time spent by workers donning and doffing protective gear in a pork processing plant in Iowa. The workers were required to wear protective gear, but which gear depended on the tasks a worker performed on a given day. Tyson compensated some, but not all, employees for this donning and doffing, and did not record the time each employee spent on those activities. Continue Reading
Even though the deadline for creating accessibility standards has been pushed back to 2018, private businesses are at risk now if they have not yet taken measures to ensure that their websites can be accessed by individuals with disabilities. In fact, just last month a blind man in California successfully argued that a Colorado-based luggage retailer failed to make its commercial website accessible to the visually impaired in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and a California disability law. In Davis v. BMI/BND Travelware, Case. No. CIV-DS-1504682, the court granted judgment to the plaintiff before trial, finding that he “presented sufficient evidence that he was denied full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, privileges, and accommodations offered by Defendant because of his disability.” Continue Reading