In Osborne-Trussell v. The Children’s Hospital Corp., the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court stated that the Domestic Violence and Abuse Leave Act (DVLA) protects more than “current” employees and does not require a specific leave or accommodation request for its statutory protections to be implicated.

There, a nurse had a restraining order against an abuser. The nurse received and accepted a conditional offer of employment from a hospital. The abuser then posted threats and false statements on social media and tagged the hospital. The nurse informed the hospital that she had a protective order in place and was working with law enforcement to enforce it. The hospital subsequently rescinded the offer of employment.

The Court stated that the DVLA was not limited to current employees given that its purpose, in part, was to protect abused individuals from adverse consequences at work. Regardless, the nurse made sufficient allegations that she was in an employment relationship with the hospital even though she had not started her orientation. Additionally, the court said that the nurse was subject to the DVLA’s protections upon giving advance notice of a potential leave request by having a protective order, the abuser’s violation of the order, and her enforcement efforts. Akin to a pregnant individual giving notice of a current pregnancy but not yet needing leave, the nurse did not need to specifically request leave to benefit from the DVLA’s protections.

Action Items

1. Update procedures for managing DVLA protections.
2. Have appropriate personnel trained on DVLA requirements.
3. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.

© 2021 ManagEase

The New Jersey Cannabis Commission published its Initial Rules for Personal Use of Cannabis, addressing issues for adult use of recreational cannabis. The Initial Rules address at least one employer concern regarding drug testing.

Previously, the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA) included a provision that required any employer-sponsored drug testing of employees or applicants to include a “physical examination.” The physical examination must be conducted by a person certified to recognize drug impairment, with the New Jersey Cannabis Commission developing a certification program to train and certify individuals to conduct such evaluations.

The Initial Rules have put the physical examination component of employer drug testing on hold.  The Rules indicate that until the Commission has developed standards for the certification program, no physical evaluation of an employee undergoing drug testing will be required.

Action Items

1. Review the Initial Rule here.
2. Have drug testing procedures reviewed consistent with the current rules.
3. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.

© 2021 ManagEase

New York City Bill Nos. 888-A and 901-A, collectively referred to as the “Retirement Security for All” acts, will require private employers of five or more employees to enroll covered staff in either a city or company-managed retirement savings plan.

Read more

Last year, Virginia implemented an emergency temporary standard to combat COVID-19. This year, Virginia made the standard permanent.  On September 8, 2021, new updates to the Final Permanent Standard were issued to streamline the rules and make them compatible with current standards.

Exposure risk levels (lower, medium, high, very high) have been eliminated in favor of two main distinctions: “higher-risk” workplaces and healthcare services and support employers.  Higher-risk workplaces are those with employees who are not fully vaccinated, are in a location with substantial or high community transmission (regardless of vaccination status), and otherwise at-risk workplaces where employees are working close together, have prolonged or frequent contact with coworkers or the public, work indoors with inadequate ventilation, may be exposed to the virus through respiratory droplets or aerosols, or commonly share employer-provided transportation and living quarters. The update also provides examples of higher-risk workplaces.

Read more