- Posts by Nathaniel M. GlasserMember of the Firm
As the workforce rapidly changes, companies seeking to resolve employee concerns while also complying with employment laws turn to attorney Nathaniel Glasser, an astute workforce compliance counselor with a litigator’s mind ...
Employers in the technology industry should take note of last week’s decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in EEOC v. New Breed Logistics (PDF). The court declined to reconsider a panel holding that, in the context of a retaliation claim, “a demand that a supervisor cease his/her harassing conduct constitutes protected activity under Title VII.”
Three former employees of New Breed Logistics, a supply-chain logistics company, asserted that they had engaged in protected activity by telling their supervisor to stop making advances and sexual comments. The ...
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Young v. UPS, [1] the EEOC has modified those aspects of its Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues (“Guidance”) that deal with disparate treatment and light duty.
Under the prior guidance, issued in 2014, the EEOC asserted that a pregnant worker could prove a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”) simply by showing that she was “treated differently than a non-pregnant worker similar in his/her ability or inability to work.” The 2014 guidance also took the position that an ...
In a decision emphasizing the need for employers to focus on data security, on June 15, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California refused to dismiss a lawsuit filed by nine former employees of Sony Pictures Entertainment who allege the company’s negligence caused a massive data breach. Corona v. Sony Pictures Entm’t, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-09600 (C.D. Ca. June 15, 2015).
In November 2014, Sony was the victim of a cyber-attack, which has widely been reported as perpetrated by North Korean hackers in relation for “The Interview,” a Sony comedy ...
One day before the U.S. Department of Labor’s Family & Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) same-sex spouse final rule took effect on March 27, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ordered a preliminary injunction in Texas v. U.S., staying the application of the Final Rule for the states of Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Nebraska. This ruling directly impacts employers within the technology, media, and telecommunications industries who are located or have employees living in these four states.
Background
In United States v. Windsor, the U.S. Supreme Court ...
One day before the U.S. Department of Labor’s Family & Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) same-sex spouse final rule took effect on March 27, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ordered a preliminary injunction in Texas v. U.S., staying the application of the Final Rule for the states of Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Nebraska. This ruling directly impacts employers within the financial industry who are located or have employees living in these four states.
Background
In United States v. Windsor, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense ...
One day before the U.S. Department of Labor’s Family & Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) same-sex spouse final rule took effect on March 27, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ordered a preliminary injunction in Texas v. U.S., staying the application of the Final Rule for the states of Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Nebraska. This ruling directly impacts employers within the retail industry who are located or have employees living in these four states.
Background
In United States v. Windsor, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of ...
One day before the U.S. Department of Labor’s Family & Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) same-sex spouse final rule took effect on March 27, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ordered a preliminary injunction in Texas v. U.S., staying the application of the Final Rule for the states of Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Nebraska. This ruling directly impacts employers within the hospitality industry who are located or have employees living in these four states.
Background
In United States v. Windsor, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the ...
In a case that has strategic implications for employers’ use of arbitration agreements in response to collective claims brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the Eighth Circuit has held that former servers at an Arkansas pizzeria chain lack standing to challenge the pizzeria’s enforcement of an arbitration agreement that bars current employees from joining the FLSA collective action. Conners v. Gusano’s Chi. Style Pizzeria, No. 14-1829 (8th Cir. Mar. 9, 2015).
In Conners, the plaintiff filed a proposed collective action lawsuit on behalf of herself and ...
Virginia has now joined the chorus of jurisdictions that ban social media snooping by employers. As we previously reported here and here, in a growing trend a number of states prohibit employers from requiring prospective or current employees to provide access to their social media accounts during the hiring process. On March 7, 2015, the Virginia legislature passed H. 2081, a law prohibiting employers from asking or requiring employees or applicants (1) to disclose the username and password to their social media accounts, and (2) to add an employer to the list of contacts ...
No software company wants to lose its best programmer for an extended period. But employers should take heed of the recent decision by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals when considering employee requests for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. In Gordon v. United States Capitol Police, No. 13-5072 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 20, 2015), the D.C. Circuit held that an employer who discourages an employee from taking FMLA leave may be liable for an interference claim, even if that discouragement was “ineffective.” In other words, don’t bully, discourage, or make ...
Scheduling around employees taking frequent or extended leaves of absences can be complicated for retail companies looking to staff the floor during peak shopping periods. But retail employers considering requests for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act should be aware of a recent decision from the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals finding that an employee can pursue an FMLA interference claim even though she received the leave requested. In Gordon v. United States Capitol Police, No. 13-5072 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 20, 2015), the D.C. Circuit held that an employer who ...
Client service is paramount in the hospitality industry, and frequent or extended leaves of absences by employees may make providing the same level of consistent service difficult. But employers should take heed of the recent decision by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals when considering employee requests for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. In Gordon v United States Capitol Police, No. 13-5072 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 20, 2015), the D.C. Circuit held that an employer who discourages an employee from taking FMLA leave may be liable for an interference claim, even ...
In a case emphasizing the importance of acting in good faith in the interactive process and how an employer can do it right, on February 13, 2015, the First Circuit denied the EEOC’s petition for a rehearing en banc of the court’s decision to dismiss a lawsuit brought against Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc. by a diabetic former employee who claimed that her erratic working hours were exacerbating her condition. EEOC v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc., 774 F.3d 127 (1st Cir. 2014), reh’g en banc denied (Feb. 13, 2015).
Pamela Manning, a former sales associate at Kohl’s, had type I ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Video: New H-1B Visa Fee, EEOC Shutters Disparate Impact Cases, Key Labor Roles Confirmed - Employment Law This Week
- New $100,000 H-1B Fee Proclamation – Implications and Action Steps
- Video: FTC Backs Off Non-Compete Ban, Warns Health Care Employers - Employment Law This Week
- Artificial Intelligence and Disparate Impact Liability: How the EEOC’s End to Disparate Impact Claims Affects Workplace AI
- Reminder: Massachusetts Salary Range Disclosure Requirements Take Effect in October