Posts

May Updates

APPLIES TO

Varies

EFFECTIVE

Varies

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

This Short List addresses the following topics:
  1. California: Registered Fictitious Business Names May Be Listed on Pay Stubs
  2. Indiana: Leaving Work to Voluntarily Testify is Not Protected
  3. Kentucky: Attorneys Must Represent Employers at Unemployment Proceedings
  4. New York, NY: Bans Pre-Employment Marijuana Testing in 2020
  5. New York, NY: Prohibits Discrimination Based on Employee Sexual and Reproductive Health Decisions
  6. Westchester County, NY: Updated Guidance Issued on Paid Sick Leave

Read more

Eleventh Circuit: Discrimination Defined When Compared to Similar Employees

APPLIES TO

All Employers with AL, FL, GA employees

EFFECTIVE

March 21, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

When making a discrimination claim under federal law, an employee must show she was treated differently than a “similarly situated” individual. In Lewis v. Union City, the Eleventh Circuit en banc defined what it means to be similarly situated. Specifically, only employees who are “similarly situated in all material respects” may be compared for purposes of finding discrimination. Although the analysis of similarity of “all material respects” will be determined on a case-by-case basis, the court gave “guideposts” of what to consider. For example, such individuals will have (1) engaged in the same basic conduct, (2) been subject to the same employment policy or rule, (3) ordinarily have the same supervisor, and (4) a shared employment or disciplinary history.

Read more

New Jersey: Medical Marijuana Protected from Workplace Discrimination

APPLIES TO

All Employers with NJ Employees

EFFECTIVE

March 27, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Wild v. Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc., the New Jersey Court of Appeal stated that although the Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act does not prohibit discrimination for use of medical marijuana, the Law Against Discrimination (LAD) may. There, an employee used medical marijuana as part of his cancer treatment. While driving for work, the employee was struck by another vehicle that ran a stop sign. Although the emergency room treating physician did not observe the employee to be under the influence and did not perform a blood test noting that the employee had a medical marijuana card, the employer required a blood test before the employee could return to work and ultimately terminated him.

Read more

Massachusetts: Denying Lateral Transfer May be Considered Discriminatory

APPLIES TO

All Employers with MA Employees

EFFECTIVE

January 29, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Yee v. Massachusetts State Police, the state Supreme Judicial Court stated that by not granting Yee, a self-identified Chinese Asian-American, a lateral transfer from one Troop to another in the State Police, while granting the same transfer to Caucasian employees, his employer caused an “adverse employment action.” Specifically, Yee claimed the transfer would have afforded him additional opportunities for compensation for working overtime and on details. The Court stated that an adverse employment action is not limited to denial of a promotion, but includes a material difference in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

Read more

Missouri: LGBTQ Protections Expanded for Sex Stereotyping

APPLIES TO

All Employers with MO Employees

EFFECTIVE

February 26, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Lampley v. Missouri Comm’n on Human Rights, the Missouri Supreme Court stated that sex stereotyping can form the basis of a sex discrimination claim under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). There, an employee claimed he was discriminated against because his behavior and appearance did not evoke sufficient “maleness” for his employer. Although the employee acknowledged he was gay and the MHRA does not protect sexual orientation, the Court stated that “an employee who suffers an adverse employment decision based on sex-based stereotypical attitudes of how [one] should act can support an inference of sex discrimination.” Moreover, “sexual orientation is incidental and irrelevant to sex stereotyping.” Employers must take care to ensure equal treatment of employees, regardless of stereotypes associated with one’s biological sex.

Action Items

  1. Have anti-harassment and discrimination policies reviewed for compliance.
  2. Have employees trained on sexual harassment and discrimination prevention.
  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.

© 2019 ManagEase

Washington: Employers Have Strict Liability for Employees’ Discriminatory Conduct Toward Non-Employees

APPLIES TO

All Public Accommodation Employers with WA Employees

EFFECTIVE

January 31, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Floeting v. Group Health Collective, the Washington Supreme Court stated that employers are strictly liable for discriminatory conduct employees engage in toward non-employees in places of public accommodation, even if the employer did not know about the behavior. Places of public accommodation are defined as all facilities used by the public, such as banks, hotels, restaurants, medical provider’s offices, education facilities, etc.

Read more

New York City, NY: New Protected Categories Centered on Reproductive Choice

APPLIES TO

All Employers with 4 or more New York City, NY Employees

EFFECTIVE

May 20, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

The New York City Council recently voted to amend the NYC Human Rights Law to include “sexual and other reproductive health decisions” to its list of protected classes. The amendment prohibits discrimination against applicants or employees based on their sexual and reproductive health decisions, defined as “any decision by an individual to receive services, which are arranged for or offered or provided to individuals relating to sexual and reproductive health, including the reproductive system and its functions.”  Examples of such services include, but are not limited to, fertility-related procedures; STD prevention, testing, or treatment; family planning services or counseling; birth control drugs or sterilization treatments; emergency contraception; pregnancy testing; or abortion.

Action Items

  1. Have anti-discrimination policies and training materials updated for compliance with the new requirements.
  2. 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.

© 2019 ManagEase

Seventh Circuit: ADEA Applies to Employees and Job Applicants

APPLIES TO

All Employers with IL, IN, and WI Employees

EFFECTIVE

April 26, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In a split from an Eleventh Circuit ruling last year, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently stated that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”) provides protections not only to current employees aged 40 or older, but to similarly situated job applicants as well.

California: FEHA Amendments Expand Protections Related to “National Origin”

APPLIES TO

All Employers with CA Employees

EFFECTIVE

July 1, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

The Office of Administrative Law recently approved amendments to the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which include, in part, changes to the state’s anti-harassment, discrimination, and retaliation requirements related to the national origin of employees and job applicants, regardless of documented status.  These amendments go into effect July 1, 2018.

South Carolina: New Pregnancy Accommodations Act

APPLIES TO

All Employers with SC Employees

EFFECTIVE

May 17, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

On May 17, 2018, Governor McMaster signed the New Pregnancy Accommodations Act (HB 3865) into law, effective immediately, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related conditions. This includes failing or refusing to hire, bar, or discharge an employee/applicant from employment, denying employment opportunities based on a protected category or the need for reasonable accommodations, or requiring employees/applicants to accept an accommodation that they choose not to accept if they do not have a known limitation or it is unnecessary for the performance of their essential duties. Read more