Wisconsin Supreme Court Mints New Test for Determining Discriminatory Intent in Disability Cases

July 10, 2018 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

In a huge win for Wisconsin employers, the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected the longstanding version of the inference method followed by the Labor Industry Review Commission (LIRC) to determine intent in disability discrimination cases involving conduct that manifests from the employee’s disability. It replaced LIRC’s method with a two-part inquiry that requires employees to prove (1) the employer took an adverse employment action against him or her because of conduct caused by his or her disability, and (2) the employer knew the employee’s conduct was caused by his disability. More ›

Taking Work Restrictions Seriously: The EEOC Is Targeting “100% Healed” Policies as Systemic Disability Discrimination

July 10, 2018 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

A “100-percent healed” policy refers to a practice or procedure that mandates that an employee be released to work by his physician without any restrictions before he may return to work. For example, if an employee who took FMLA leave for carpal tunnel surgery was released to return to work with a reasonable restriction, e.g., 10 minute break after every hour of prolonged typing, a 100-percent healed policy would prevent the employee from returning to work, perhaps altogether if the restriction becomes permanent. More ›

Massachusetts Employees Need Not Wait 90 Days to File Wage Act Claim Says 1st Circuit

July 5, 2018 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

In Lawless v. Steward Health Care System, LLC, the First Circuit Court of Appeals recently considered a novel question: whether an employee suing for violation of, M.G.L. c. 149, §§ 148, 150 (the “Wage Act”), could recover under the statute despite filing her lawsuit before receiving permission from the Attorney General or waiting 90 days after notifying the Attorney General of her claims. It answered the question yes, rejecting the employer’s position that the Wage Act provided for a grace period of up to 90 days. More ›

Unpacking the Supreme Court's Janus Decision

June 30, 2018 by Tom H. Luetkemeyer

The United States Supreme Court issued its long-anticipated decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employee Council 31 on June 27, 2018.  The five to four majority held that requiring public-sector employees who are not union members to pay union agency fees violates the First Amendment.  In the final paragraphs of the majority opinion, the Court made it clear that in the context of a public sector employer-union relationship, non-member employees in the bargaining unit must provide express consent before union dues can be deducted from their paychecks.  Janus' implications for public employers are wide-ranging. However, the immediate question that unionized public-sector employers must address is how to administer existing agency fee provisions in collective bargaining agreements and distinguish between union members and non-members, whose express consent is now required before union dues can be deducted from their paychecks.  It is important to note that this decision is grounded in constitutional principles and only applies to public sector unionized employees. More ›

Strategies for Age Inclusion in Honor of the ADEA's 50th Birthday

June 29, 2018 by Linda K. Horras

In honor of the golden anniversary of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the EEOC issued a report entitled "The State of Age Discrimination & Older Workers in the U.S. 50 Years After the ADEA." At a time when sex and race issues are at the forefront of the news, the EEOC reminds us that older workers face struggles of their own obtaining and retaining employment. More ›

Multiple Minimum Wage Increases to Take Effect on July 1, 2018

June 28, 2018 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

On July 1, 2018, multiple state and local authorities will increase the hourly minimum wage rate ever closer to the $15.00 per hour wage demanded by the Fight for $15 advocates. The following lists of minimum wage increases are not exhaustive and may not reflect increases within a certain working sector (for example, increase in minimum wages for tipped workers or hotel workers).Therefore, we encourage you to contact legal counsel for up-to-date information regarding your city, county or state. More ›

California Court Okays Hour Rounding Policy

June 26, 2018 by Linda K. Horras

In  AHMC  Healthcare,  Inc.  v.  Letona,  decided  earlier  this  week,  a  California  state  of  appeals  court  considered  an  employer's  use  of  a  time  clock  rounding  system  and  whether  it  violated  California  Labor  Law.  While  it  is  a  California  case,  it  rests  on  the  federal  regulation  governing  time  rounding  found  in  29  CFR  §  785.48  and  is  thus  an  instructive  case  for  all  employers  who  use  or  are  thinking  about  adopting  a  rounding  policy.  More ›

Trust the Process: Relying on Existing Law or Policy is not an ADA Defense Says Third Circuit

June 25, 2018 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Many times, employers evaluate disability claims by simply checking the boxes. It’s easy to develop tunnel vision, especially when the employer feels the issue is narrowly defined by an existing law or policy, e.g., a law or employer policy requiring that certain employees be vaccinated. However, this narrow frame of mind may cause employers to miss the complete picture. A recent 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals (DE, NJ, PA) decision illustrates the consequences of missing the big picture. In Ruggiero v. Mount Nittany Medical Center, the court addressed the interplay between a hospital’s vaccination policy and the ADA, holding held an employee’s ADA claim could proceed because the hospital failed to engage in the interactive process. The Court held the hospital had a duty to engage in the process once aware of her disability and request for accommodation, regardless of its policy requiring that all employees be vaccinated. More ›

Lawful, Unlawful, or It Depends? NLRB Issues New Guidance on Employer Policies Affecting Section 7 Rights

June 22, 2018 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Earlier this month, the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) General Counsel issued Memorandum GC-18-04 providing guidance on handbook rules in light of the Board’s Boeing Company decision. In Boeing, the Board reevaluated when a seemingly neutral work rule, handbook rule, or employment policy violates the rights of workers granted by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In doing so, it adopted a new test balancing the negative impact a given rule may have on an employee’s ability to exercise his or her Section 7 rights versus the employer’s right to maintain a disciplined and productive workplace. It also laid out three categories of rules: those that are always lawful, those that are usually always unlawful, and those it depends-type rules falling into the middle category. The GC’s guidance sorts common workplace policies into these three buckets. More ›

SCOTUS Green Lights Class Action Waivers in Major Win for Employers

May 23, 2018 by Linda K. Horras

The United States Supreme Court ruled earlier this week that employees must submit claims to arbitration on an individualized basis when their employment agreements require it, even when those claims could be brought as class or collective action under federal legislation such as the Fair Labor Standards Act. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch held that parties to an arbitration agreement are bound by their agreement, as the Federal Arbitration Act envisioned. The Court cited the long history of supporting private arbitration agreements as an efficient and cost-effective means of handling disputes between parties, including parties to an employment agreement who have a dispute over wages. More ›

Search

Subscribe via Email

RSSSubscribe via RSS
TwitterFollow us on Twitter/X

Blog Editors

Blog Contributors

Archives