Franczek Radelet P.C • June 14, 2019
Over the last few days, we’ve been sending you updates on the key provisions of SB75, the anti-harassment legislation awaiting approval by Governor Pritzker. Previously, we wrote about the Workplace Transparency Act. In this alert, we focus on another new law created by SB75, the Hotel and Casino Employee Safety Act. This new law, once it takes effect, will require hotel and casino employers to (1) provide “panic button” devices to certain employees; and (2) implement a sexual harassment policy including certain provisions detailed in the law. If this sounds familiar to Chicago employers, it should, as it generally mirrors the requirements of a Chicago ordinance enacted in 2017.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • June 05, 2019
The healthcare setting involves many potential “joint employer” landmines, as hospitals often have outside vendors providing services (i.e. food service, laundry service) inside their facilities.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • May 16, 2019
As workplace laws continue to evolve, the potential risk exposure is increasing. Jackson Lewis prepared this trends overview to help assess the current workplace law landscape in the #MeToo era and the wave of agency charges, latest claims, and new laws.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • May 13, 2019
Much has been written lately about the #MeToo movement and its presence in workplaces as diverse as universities, movie and TV studios. Hospitals are no exception. Savvy employers know that hospitals—large facilities that employ people of all educational backgrounds, races, religions, sexual orientations, ages, and more—can be ground zero for sexual harassment at any time.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • April 21, 2019
Before “#MeToo” became a movement, it was a well-known, damaging type of evidence to employers litigating discrimination claims. “Me too” in the employment litigation context refers to evidence that employees other than the plaintiff also were also discriminated against. Employers had traditionally sought, with mixed results, to exclude such evidence as improper character evidence under FRE 404(b) or as substantially more prejudicial than probative under FRE 403. Debate raged over admissibility. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court tackled the issue and held that “me too” evidence is not per se admissible or inadmissible. See Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379, 388 (2008). Rather, the Court found, admissibility depends on a fact-intensive inquiry.
Fisher Phillips • April 14, 2019
Despite a 10 percent overall drop in the number of charges of employment discrimination, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission just reported that sexual harassment charges filed with the agency jumped by 13.6 percent from the previous year. The 7,609 sexual harassment charges received in FY clearly demonstrate that the #MeToo movement is in no way slowing down. What do employers need to know about this development?
As sexual harassment in the workplace continues to be a focus for businesses, workers and enforcement agencies, evolving requirements and workplace demands have caused employers to focus on prevention strategies.
Phelps Dunbar LLP • March 14, 2019
In a significant decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed a lower court and held that false workplace rumors that a female employee had been promoted for having sex with her boss could serve as the basis for sexual harassment and retaliation claims against an employer. The case also serves as a warning to employers of the costs involved in not effectively addressing such situations.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • February 26, 2019
Employers have little control over employees’ bad, impulsive decisions. However, employers have full control over how they respond to a complaint of harassment. Any employer can ensure it investigates an allegation of harassment. Failure to do so can be costly.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • February 15, 2019
Employers may be liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for failing to effectively address and stop gossip and rumors of an alleged sexual relationship between a female employee and a male supervisor, the federal appeals court in Richmond has held. Parker v. Reema Consulting Servs., No. 18-1206 (4th Cir. Feb. 8, 2019).