Using Criminal Convictions in the hire Process: A Hobson's Choice for Employers?

Is the government really telling employers that they are not allowed to disqualify an applicant because of past criminal activity? In a word, yes. That is increasingly becoming the case on the state level and has been the focus of federal enforcement efforts over the past several years, ever since the EEOC updated its guidance on this topic in 2012. This flurry of activity has made what was historically a simple hiring practice into a legal minefield. More ›

Dazed but Slightly less Confused: Employer's Drug Testing Policy Prevails In Termination Challenge

If you are in one of the 23 (and counting) states, which permits the medically authorized use of marijuana, you need to take note of a Colorado Supreme Court decision issued yesterday. The decision itself is based on the specific language of the Colorado medical marijuana statute, but the decision may nonetheless be an important guide for employers nationwide wrestling with how to enforce drug and drug testing policies in states where the use of marijuana has been legalized. More ›

Chicago Minimum wage hike is here: are you Ready?

You may recall that last December, just as Chicagoans were starting to hunker down for another cold, snowy winter, the Chicago City Council made national news by passing an ordinance that will raise the minimum wage for Chicago workers. More specifically, the ordinance will gradually raise the minimum wage for Chicago workers over the course of the next four years from the current $8.25/hour to $13/hour. More ›

OSHA Issues Guidance on Transgender Workers and Workplace Restrooms

For those savvy employers staying ahead of the curve, here’s something new: OSHA has published a “Best Practices” guide addressing restroom access for transgender workers.  To be clear, as “guidance,” the OSHA publication is not a rule or regulation, and does not create legal obligations for employers. Still, this is the latest development in a fast-changing area of employment law, with protections for transgender workers shifting (it feels) all the time.  More ›

Supreme Court Vacates fourth Circuit in UPS Pregnancy Discrimination case, but Rejects EEOC's "Most Favored Employee" Argument

Since the case was argued on December 3, 2014, practitioners and clients alike have been anxiously awaiting the Supreme Court's decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc.That wait is over as the Supreme Court issued a divided opinion yesterday. The majority opinion vacated the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that had affirmed summary judgment in UPS's favor in a suit that arose out of the company's decision to deny leave to a pregnant driver in accordance with the terms of its leave provisions set out in a collective bargaining agreement.   More ›

Court Upholds Contractual Six-Month Filing Deadline for Age Discrimination Claim

After an employee for a delivery service was terminated, he filed an age discrimination claim against his employer. In addition to defending the matter on the merits, the employer also argued that employee's age claim was time-barred due to a six-month limitation period included within the employee's employment agreement. The employee argued that the provision was unenforceable because it foreclosed his ability to wait and receive a right to sue notice from the EEOC before bringing suit. In rejecting this argument, the Sixth Circuit pointed to the fact that claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), unlike claims brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, do not require an employee to receive a right to sue notice as a precondition to filing suit. Rather, an employee can file suit 60 days after filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Consequently, the provision did not impair the employee's rights and was held to bar his ADEA claim. In light of this holding, coupled with recent strong Supreme Court support for the enforceability of class waivers within employment agreements, employers should evaluate their use of employment agreements within the workforce and determine if additional protections can be incorporated.

For more information read Dekarske v. Fed. Ex. Corp., No. 11-12132 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 9, 2013).