Washington has adopted the nation’s first state-run long-term care (LTC) services and support trust program.
Archives for May 4, 2021
Debra Weiss Ford discusses the employment and civil rights implications of a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court ruling regarding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in “Bostock v. Clayton County: Civil Rights Jenga,” published by New Hampshire Bar News.
Felice Ekelman discusses best practices for ensuring compliance with new regulations from the U.S. Department of Labor regarding employee tip credits in “3 Things To Do When Navigating Tip Credit Rules,” published by Law360.
William Manning discusses the implications of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services reinstating its policy of giving deference to previous decisions in “USCIS Reverts to Prior Deference Policy for Visa Extensions,” published by SHRM.
Allison Dearington discusses the diversity and inclusion implications of a new law in Connecticut prohibiting workplace discrimination against hairstyles associated with certain races in “Legal Experts: Employers Should Review Policies in Light of New CT Anti-Discrimination Law,” published by the Hartford Business Journal.
As COVID-19 vaccines become widely available and businesses look to safely resume travel, employers may be wondering if they can require “vaccine passports”—proof of vaccination—before allowing employees to travel for work.
FordHarrison LLP, one of the country’s largest management-side labor and employment law firms, is pleased to announce that three attorneys in the Spartanburg office have been listed as 2021 South Carolina Super Lawyers and Rising Stars. Wade E. Ballard, Partner, was listed as a Super Lawyer while Kristin S. Gray, Partner and Brian N. McCracken, Senior Associate were listed as a Rising Stars.
FordHarrison LLP, one of the country’s largest management-side labor and employment law firms, is pleased to announce that three new associates, have joined the firm in three different northeastern offices, including New England. Matthew (Matt) T. Clark (Senior Associate), Berkeley Heights; Michael P. Lewis (Associate), Hartford; and Andrew T. Williamson (Senior Associate), New York City, have joined the firm.
Executive Summary: Maintaining a diverse workforce is increasingly necessary for companies to be successful and competitive in the global marketplace. But what happens when diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives collide head on with an employer’s obligation to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs? Employers are facing this and other dilemmas with increasing frequency, as they build and strengthen their efforts towards a diverse and equitable workplace, by supporting and celebrating all cultures, backgrounds, beliefs, and religions. In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County recognizing that LGBTQ+ employees are protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are increasingly being placed in the difficult position of weighing often diametrically opposed rights. Religious freedom or LGBTQ+ rights; how do you choose? It’s simple; you don’t.
Executive Summary: For decades fitness facilities have been offering “women-only” sections, allowing women to exercise in private without self-image worries or unwanted male attention. But these sections are now in jeopardy as the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities (CHRO) brings a case against two prominent Connecticut gyms, Edge Fitness and Club Fitness, to the Connecticut Supreme Court, asserting that such sections amount to illegal sex discrimination against men. This is an issue of first impression.
In Pelcha v. MW Bancorp, Inc., the Sixth Circuit recently held that ageist comments attributed to a bank’s CEO were insufficient evidence to support an employee’s claim that she was fired because of her age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Two of the three statements in question related to another employee in her eighties, and the third was a statement that the bank should hire younger tellers.
The California Privacy Protection Act (CPRA) amended the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and has an operative date of January 1, 2023. The CPRA introduces new compliance obligations including a requirement that businesses conduct risk assessments. While many U.S. companies currently conduct risk assessments for compliance with state “reasonable safeguards”
How to figure it out for yourself — and convince your boss.
The New Deal was mostly for men.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today that registration is open for its 24th Annual Examining Conflicts in Employment Laws (EXCEL) Training Conference. The virtual training conference is being held June 15-17, 2021.