The South Carolina Human Affairs Commission (SCHAC) has released its new workplace poster, revised to reflect certain changes required by the recently enacted South Carolina Pregnancy Accommodations Act.
Articles Discussing General Topics In South Carolina Labor & Employment Law.
In the current robust economic climate, employers are often faced with the inverse of the predicament they encountered only 10 years ago. In 2008, many businesses began drastically downsizing. Today, however, employers frequently find themselves asking, Where are the qualified applicants?
South Carolina’s attorney-client privilege protects against the disclosure of communications pursuant to which legal advice of any kind is sought by a client from a professional legal adviser, acting in that capacity. At the client’s discretion, such confidential communications are protected from disclosure by the client or the legal adviser except if such protection is waived. The only recognized exception to this time-honored privilege recognized by the South Carolina Supreme Court includes communications in furtherance of tortious or fraudulent conduct. South Carolina has long revered the sanctity of attorney-client communications. How, then, are we now faced with the potential destruction of that privilege if an insurer denies bad faith liability?
The South Carolina Human Affairs Commission (SCHAC) has published Frequently Asked Questions on the new state Pregnancy Accommodations Act. It also has published a new anti-discrimination poster that includes provisions required under the Act.
As discussed in our June 2018 Alert, earlier this year the South Carolina Legislature passed the Pregnancy Accommodations Act, which expands existing state law protections for pregnant employees and, notably, requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for “medical needs arising from pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” Pursuant to this new law, the South Carolina Human Affairs Commission has issued a new poster, which must be posted by all employers in South Carolina with 15 or more employees. The poster is available in English and Spanish.
The S.C. Human Affairs Commission (SCHAC) has released an updated employment discrimination poster that summarizes the state’s new Pregnancy Accommodations Act as well as other provisions of the S.C. Human Affairs Law.
The Carolinas remain the least unionized region in the United States. New jobs continue coming to the area’s employee-friendly environment. By contrast, unions are struggling to retain current members and to recruit new ones. Their fight for survival and relevance in today’s economy has fueled new tactics, as shown by recent union activity in the Carolinas.
Executive Summary: Effective May 17, 2018, a new South Carolina law, the Pregnancy Accommodations Act, expanded existing state law protections for pregnant employees. Most notably, the new law requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for “medical needs arising from pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” including lactation and the need to express breast milk.
Governor McMaster signed S. 345 (Act No. 234 of 2018) into law on Friday May 18th amending the Nurse Practice Act and expanding the scope of practice for Nurse Practitioners, Certified Nurse Midwives and Clinical Nurse Specialists (APRNs) — there are no changes relating to physician supervision of Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs).
South Carolina has a new law protecting pregnant women and new mothers in the workplace. Effective May 17, 2018, the South Carolina Pregnancy Accommodations Act amended the South Carolina Human Affairs Law (S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-13-10, et seq.), to provide additional protections for pregnant workers and additional requirements for employers. Although many of the requirements in the Pregnancy Accommodations Act already exist in federal anti-discrimination laws, specifically, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Pregnancy Accommodations Act provides specific examples of reasonable accommodations for pregnant women and requires that covered employers provide certain written notice to employees.
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a narrow ruling in favor of a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, No. 16-111 (June 4, 2018).
The South Carolina Pregnancy Accommodations Act amends the South Carolina Human Affairs Law to require employers with at least 15 employees to provide reasonable accommodations to employees for medical needs arising from pregnancy, childbirth, or other related medical conditions (including lactation), unless the employer can demonstrate the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business.
On Thursday, May 17, 2018, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster signed one of the most significant new pieces of state legislation impacting employers in recent years. The South Carolina Pregnancy Accommodations Act (HB 3865) will, among other things, require employers to notify employees of their right to be free from discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. Critically, this new notice requirement goes into effect immediately as to all new employees, and must be satisfied no later than September 14, 2018, for all existing employees.
Last week, more than a hundred South Carolina employees became eligible to receive millions of dollars from a settlement fund of $22.5 million. A federal judge approved settlement of a lawsuit against a steel mill in Huger, S.C. Nearly half of the settlement will go to the plaintiffs’ lawyers and the remainder will be allocated to eligible employees based on a settlement formula focusing on individual factors, including pay differentials allegedly due to lost promotions, and the frequency, severity, and duration of alleged racial hostility within the workplace.
UPDATE: The Petitioners’ Motion for Rehearing was denied. While the Petition for Certiorari was pending, a settlement agreement was reached, as a result of which the parties seek an Order of the Court dismissing this case and vacating this opinion.