Category: Labor & Employment

SCOTUS Favors Employers’ Religious Liberties Over Employee Rights

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued two important decisions this week in cases reflecting the ongoing legal tensions between employers’ religious liberties and the right of employees to be free from discrimination; and in both cases, SCOTUS tipped the scales decidedly in favor of employers’ religious liberties.

First Amendment Supersedes Employment Discrimination Claims

The Supreme Court issued a decision in two similar cases – essentially dismissing the discrimination claims brought by two Catholic school teachers who were discharged from their instructional positions at two different Catholic schools in southern California. In Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (19-267), and St. James School v. Biel (19-348), the Supreme Court held by a 7-2 majority that the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment Religion Clauses foreclose the teachers’ employment discrimination claims. In the OLG case, the former teacher sued for age discrimination; in the St. James case, the teacher was dismissed after she sought a leave of absence for cancer treatment. The teacher later passed away.

Relying on the “ministerial exception” outlined in the 2012 SCOTUS decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171 (2012), the majority opinion, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, noted that “religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools, and therefore the selection and supervision of the teachers upon whom the schools rely to do this work lie at the core of their mission. Judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge those responsibilities would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in dissent, criticizes the majority for its distillation of the Hosanna-Tabor standard into “a single consideration: whether a church thinks its employees play an important religious role,” and observes that it “strips thousands of schoolteachers of their legal protections.”

Religious Exemptions From Birth Control Mandate Under the Affordable Care Act

In a similar but procedurally more complicated ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the federal government’s expansion of a federal rule that exempts employers with religious or moral objections from being required to provide employees with health insurance coverage for birth control under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

In a 7-2 decision in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania (19-431), SCOTUS tackled the latest skirmish of the ACA’s birth-control mandate. The ACA mandate generally requires employers to provide female employees health insurance with access to contraception. Religious entities have repeatedly challenged the rules, as well as the opt-out accommodation process developed under the Obama administration for employers with religious or moral exemptions.  (The Trump administration had expanded those exemptions.)

With the majority opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, SCOTUS held that the departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury had authority to issue rules for employers. In a concurring opinion, Justice Elena Kagan (joined by Justice Stephen Breyer) acknowledges the statutory authority of the federal agencies, but cautions, “that does not mean the Departments should prevail when these cases return to the lower courts. The States challenged the exemptions not only as outside the HRSA’s [Health Resources and Services Administration’s] statutory authority, but also as ‘arbitrary [and] capricious.’”

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Ginsburg (joined by Justice Sotomayor) notes, “Today, for the first time, the Court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights to the nth degree.”

Takeaways for Discerning Employers

While these Supreme Court decisions, in tandem, may bolster employers’ confidence in their sincerely held beliefs and moral objections about certain employment-related decisions, it is also important to recognize its limitations.  Employers should strategize with their leadership and legal counsel to carefully weigh whether and to what extent these decisions should (or will) inform their own policies and practices, as well as any resulting reputational impact and workplace morale considerations.

© 2020 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

For more recent SCOTUS employment decisions, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

Former JUUL Employee Seeks Injunction Against Pre-Employment NDA

On June 4, 2020, a former employee of electronic cigarette maker JUUL Labs, Inc., filed a complaint in California District Court seeking to enjoin JUUL’s enforcement of a non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”) she was required to sign as a condition of her employment. The former employee, Marcie Hamilton, alleges in her complaint that JUUL required her to sign an NDA prohibiting her from disclosing “essentially, everything related to JUUL” (emphasis in original) prior to beginning her employment. She further alleges that the “terrorizing effect” of the NDA, which JUUL requires all of its employees to sign prior to beginning their employment, unlawfully precludes employees from “blowing the whistle” to government or law enforcement agencies about suspected illegal activity, in violation of California law.

As alleged in the complaint, the JUUL NDA requires employees to “hold in strictest confidence” and not disclose, among other things, JUUL’s customers, products, markets, and any “information disclosed by the Company to [the employee] and information developed or learned by [the employee] during the course of employment.”  Employees are prohibited from disclosing such information to “any person, firm, or corporation, without written authorization from the Company’s Board of Directors.”  Having no temporal limit, the prohibition “lasts forever.”  According to the complaint, JUUL relies on these NDAs to prevent employees from providing relevant information in ongoing government investigations, as well as administrative and judicial actions, into the use of JUUL’s products by minors and the health dangers of its products, more broadly.

Ms. Hamilton alleges that the NDA’s prohibition on disclosing seemingly any information about JUUL whatsoever to any entity whatsoever violates California Labor Code § 1102.5(a). Section 1102.5(a) prohibits employers from making, adopting, or enforcing a rule, regulation, or policy that “prevent[s] an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency,” or to “any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry,” if the employee reasonably believes the information discloses a violation of law. Ms. Hamilton also alleges that the NDA violates California Government Code § 12964.5. Section 12964.5 was enacted in response to the #MeToo movement and prohibits employers from requiring employees to sign any document that “purports to deny the employee the right to disclose information about unlawful acts in the workplace, including, but not limited to, sexual harassment.”  Ms. Hamilton alleges that in violating these and other California statutes, the NDA has caused “ongoing and irreparable public harm.”  In her lawsuit, she seeks a finding that the NDA is unenforceable and an order enjoining JUUL from attempting to enforce it against her, as well as other forms of relief.

Employers’ Use of NDAs to Intimidate and Muzzle Employees

Unfortunately, NDAs like the one JUUL requires employees to sign as conditions of their employment are not uncommon. To the contrary: large corporations – and powerful individuals – often require employees to sign similar NDAs as conditions of their employment in an effort to stymy competition, insulate themselves from prosecution, and even protect themselves from public embarrassment. As Ms. Hamilton points out in her complaint, former Hollywood producer and convicted rapist Harvey Weinstein used similar pre-employment NDAs to prevent victims of his sexual abuse from reporting it to law enforcement. See Edward Helmore, “Harvey Weinstein lawsuit: attorney general says ‘we have never seen anything as despicable,’” (February 12, 2018).

Disgraced restauranteur Mike Isabella likewise used draconian NDAs to prevent his employees from reporting sexual harassment in his restaurants, including by prohibiting employees from disclosing any “details of the personal and business lives of Mike Isabella, his family member, friends, business associates and dealings” – seemingly without any employment-related purpose whatsoever. In that case, an employee’s breach of the NDA carried with it an unconscionably high penalty of $500,000 per breach, plus attorneys’ fees expended by the company as a result of the breach. See Maura Judkis and Time Carman, “Mike Isabella’s restaurants used nondisclosure agreements to silence sexual harassment accounts, lawsuit alleges.” (April 3, 2018).

Not all states have statues like California’s, which expressly prohibit employers from restricting employees’ ability to disclose information about suspected violations of law to government or law enforcement agencies. But many states nevertheless uphold a clear public policy against doing so. If you signed an NDA as a condition of your employment and want to blow the whistle about any type of illegal conduct by your employer, consider consulting with an employment attorney to determine whether the agreement prohibits you from providing information about violations of law to government or law enforcement agencies and, if so, whether it may be unenforceable.

©Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLP

For more on non-disclosure agreements, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

Virginia Employees Protected From Retaliation for Raising Concerns About COVID-19 Workplace Safety Issues

On June 29, 2020, the Virginia Safety and Health Codes Board moved forward with an emergency workplace standard to curb the spread of COVID-19. These standards would apply to all Virginia employers and places of employment under the jurisdiction of the Virginia Occupational Health and Safety Administration.

Pursuant to 16 VAC 25-220, Emergency Temporary Standard, employers would be required to:

  • Mandate physical distancing on the job, i.e., “keeping space between yourself and other persons while conducting work-related activities inside and outside of the physical establishment by staying at least 6 feet from other persons. Physical separation of an employee from other employees or persons by a permanent, solid floor to ceiling wall constitutes physical distancing from an employee or other person stationed on the other side of the wall.”
  • Clean and disinfect all common spaces, including bathrooms, frequently touched surfaces, and doors at the end of each shift, and where feasible, disinfect shared tools, equipment, and vehicles prior to transfer from one employee to another.
  • Provide personal protective equipment to employees and ensure its proper use in accordance with VOSH laws, standards, and regulations applicable to personal protective equipment, including respiratory protection equipment when engineering, work practice, and administrative controls are not feasible or do not provide sufficient protection.
  • Assess the workplace for hazards and job tasks that could potentially expose employees to SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 and ensure compliance with the applicable standards for “very high,” “high,” “medium,” or “lower” risk levels of exposure.
  • Inform employees of methods of self-monitoring and encourage employees to self-monitor for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 if they suspect possible exposure or are experiencing signs of forthcoming illness.
  • Notify their own employees who were at a worksite with an employee who subsequently tested positive for active COVID-19, other employers whose employees were also present, and the building/facility owner of the affected site within 24 hours of discovery of possible exposure.
  • Develop and implement policies and procedures for employees to report positive results from antibody testing, and while an employee who has tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may return to work, employers are not required to allow an employee who has received such a test to return.

In addition, the emergency workplace standard prohibits employers from:

  • Discriminating against or discharging an employee because that employee voluntarily provides and wears their own personal protective equipment, if such equipment is not provided by the employer, as long as that equipment does not create an increased hazard for the employee or other employees.
  • Discriminating against or discharging an employee who has raised a reasonable concern about SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 infection control to the employer, the employer’s agent, other employees, or a government agency, or to the public through print, online, social, or any other media.

These workplace safety standards are set to go into effect on July 15, 2020, and employers could be fined up to $13,000 for failing to comply.

The United States Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued guidance to employers to protect workers but has not adopted a binding rule. OSHA provided guidance to employers on preventing worker exposure to SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 in March 2020, and in June 2020 it released guidance on returning to work. The guidance on returning to work states that employers should continue to be flexible and allow employees to work remotely when possible, use alternative business operations such as curbside pickup to serve customers if feasible, implement strategies for basic hygiene and disinfection at work, encourage social distancing, apply procedures for identification and isolation of sick employees, and provide employee training on the various phases of reopening and necessary precautions. Further, employers should not retaliate against employees for adhering to OSHA’s safety guidelines or raising workplace health and safety concerns. Though these guidelines are not binding, employers are bound by the General Duty Clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, which requires that they provide a safe workplace free from serious hazards.

Virginia’s recently-enacted whistleblower protection law, which became effective July 1, 2020, will protect workers that disclose violations of the emergency workplace standard. In particular, the new Virginia whistleblower protection law provides a private right of action for an employee who suffers retaliation for “in good faith report[ing] a violation of any federal or state law or regulation to a supervisor or to any governmental body or law-enforcement official.” Va. Code § 40.1-27.3(A)(1).

The statute proscribes a broad range of retaliatory acts, including discharging, disciplining, threatening, discriminating against, or penalizing an employee or taking other retaliatory action regarding an employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because of the employee’s protected conduct. Id. at § 40.1-27.3(A).

A prevailing whistleblower under Virginia’s whistleblower protection law can obtain various remedies, including:

  • An injunction to restrain a continuing violation;
  • Reinstatement to the same or an equivalent position held before the employer took the retaliatory action; and/or
  • Compensation for lost wages, benefits, and other remuneration, together with interest, as well as reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. at § 40.1-27.3(C).

© 2020 Zuckerman Law

For more anti-retaliation legislation, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

Black Lives Matter, Racial Unrest and Corporate Culture – How Do Employers Respond?

As the daily news continues to show protests and calls for justice in response to the death of George Floyd and others at the hands of police officers, there is, unsurprisingly, a desire from employees to hear from their employers regarding the ongoing violence and racial unrest in our communities and across the country. Many employers recognized the gravity of the racial unrest by celebrating, for the first time, Juneteenth on June 19, 2020, a holiday celebrating the emancipation of slaves. But is that enough? How do employers respond?

As a practical matter, employers must be aware of the application of Constitutional free speech protections, employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act and state laws that may apply to expressive employee conduct, as detailed in our previous post.

Beyond that, employers can choose the level of their response and engagement, or choose to do nothing at all—there is no right or wrong answer or a “one size fits all” solution. The most common reaction from employers is to acknowledge the unrest and issue a statement of support. Many employers have also chosen to make a public announcement expressing solidarity and support of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Though these responses are important, they fail to accomplish the more ambitious goal of many employers, which is to articulate and implement a strategy for lasting and real change within their own workplace and beyond. This action requires substantial reflection, consideration, time and effort.

So, for employers looking to do more, where do they start?

  • Leadership: Good leaders serve as good models. Leaders can lead by example and provide a safe workplace where all employees feel respected and included. As it pertains to the current environment, leaders can be open about their own lack of knowledge and share their growth and experiences with their workforce.
  • Anti-Discrimination Policies: Employers can review their policies regarding equal employment opportunity and workplace discrimination. Though most employers articulate such policies as a matter of course, it is important to reinforce these policies and remind employees of what is expected of them and to reassure employees who may be feeling vulnerable at this time.
  • Diversity Initiatives: Employers can focus on building diversity within their ranks by ensuring that recruitment, hiring, retention and advancement are truly objective and based on merit. Employers can also consider implementing a version of the National Football League’s recently-revised “Rooney Rule,” wherein at least two non-white candidates must be considered for open head coaching positions, and one non-white candidate must be considered for coordinator, senior football operations or general manager positions. Forming a diversity committee or task force is another way to ensure that minority members of your workforce are being heard and understood by management.
  • Awareness: Employers can educate their employees about prejudice and racism in its various forms; this can consist of formal training or open forums in which employees can communicate with one another and, importantly, with their co-workers of color. Employers can also make educational materials available for employees.
  • Community Involvement: Employers can publicly support the movement in the form of donations or activism. Doing so can create a sense of pride among your workforce, and it can also help in attracting future hires that share the principles of your workplace.

© Copyright 2020 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

ARTICLE BY Anne Marie Schloemer at Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP.

For more on employer-employee conduct see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

NLRB Approves Company’s Baseball Cap Rule

Under Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), employers are permitted to maintain uniform and dress code policies in the workplace, so long as such policies do not prohibit employees from wearing union insignia, absent special circumstances, such as health and safety concerns. While seemingly straightforward, application of this rule can be quite meticulous in practice. A recent National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) case, World Color (USA) Corp., a Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Quad Graphics Inc., 369 NLRB No. 104 (June 12, 2020), provides guidance as to when an employer can restrict apparel logos at work.

When Can You Limit Apparel to Company Logos?

World Color (USA) Corp., is a Wisconsin company that maintains a facility in Nevada, where it prints commercial inserts for newspapers.

In early 2011, World Color distributed a set of mandatory guidelines to its employees containing a uniform and dress code policy requiring that all employees wear authorized company uniforms as a condition of employment, and to dress and groom professionally at all times. The guidelines permitted employees to accessorize the uniform, but required the accessorizing to be “in good taste and in accordance with all safety rules.” The guidelines further required that if “hair… could potentially get caught in [production equipment], it must be secured… with a hairnet or other means. Baseball caps are prohibited except for [company] baseball caps worn with the bill facing forward.” World Color further prohibited wearing buttons and pins on the production floor as a safety hazard.

After the union filed a charge, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the policy was unlawful because it prohibited employees from wearing baseball caps with union logos and from displaying union insignia on hats.

After several appeals, however, the Board found that the policy did not prohibit employees from engaging in the protected activity of wearing caps bearing union insignia. Rather, the cap policy merely required employees to wear a company cap to align with the overall company uniform. The Board noted that employees were not prohibited from wearing union insignia on the company cap as long as they were “in good taste and in accordance with all safety rules”. As such, the Board found that the uniform policy was lawful because it permitted employees to wear union insignias on company caps as long as they did not pose a safety risk.

What This Decision Means for Employers

Uniform and dress code rules are just one of a great number of issues that employers face in ensuring that their workplace policies comply with the mandates of the NLRA. The NLRA applies to almost all private sector employers nationwide, whether their employees are currently represented by a union or not. Employers should be aware of the level of scrutiny that can be placed on their workplace policies — by unions, by ALJs, and by the Board. Employers should be on the look-out for uniform and dress code provisions that:

  • Specifically prohibit wearing union insignia;

  • Broadly prohibit wearing all non-company insignia, even without reference to unions;

  • Require company or supervisor approval or authorization of union insignia;

  • Unreasonably limit the size and shape of union insignia on uniforms;

  • Prohibit union insignia without documented specific and legitimate safety reasons.

We recommend that employers consult with experienced labor counsel to revise and review their workplace policies to fully comply with all state and federal requirements, including the NLRA. This way, employers will be in the best position to protect the right to efficiently and effectively maintain their businesses. Moreover, employers should be aware that even seemingly minor violations of the NLRA may compromise the ability to assert their rights in other contexts, such as possible threats of union organizing.

©2020 von Briesen & Roper, s.c

For more on dress code policies, see the National Law Review Labor and Employment law section.

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Landmark Ruling in Favor of LGBTQ Employees in the Workplace

Yesterday, in a much-anticipated opinion, the United States Supreme Court held that federal anti-discrimination laws protect LGBTQ employees in the workplace. This ruling provides much needed clarity for employers and resolves a court split in which some federal courts recognized that federal law prohibited LGBTQ discrimination, while others (including those covering Florida, Georgia, and Alabama) stated that LGBTQ discrimination was not unlawful.

This landmark ruling, in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, arises out of three different appeals. In two of the cases, the employees were fired despite having long and successful careers after their employers learned that they were homosexual. In the third case, an employee who initially presented herself as a male announced several years later that she planned to transition to “living and working full-time as a woman.” The employer terminated her immediately.

The law at issue – Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) – prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin. However, the law makes no mention of sexual orientation.

Nevertheless, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that all three terminations were illegal. In doing so, the Court noted that “[a]n employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

Although several states and municipalities have passed laws and rules prohibiting all or at least some forms of LGBTQ discrimination, this ruling clarifies that both sexual orientation discrimination and gender identity/transgender discrimination are prohibited by federal law throughout the United States.

The federal agency responsible for enforcing Title VII provides the following examples of LGBTQ-related conduct that it considers to be unlawful:

  • Refusing to hire an applicant because she is a transgender woman.
  • Firing an employee because he is planning or has made a gender transition.
  • Denying an employee equal access to a common restroom corresponding to the employee’s gender identity.
  • Harassing a woman because she does not dress or talk in a feminine manner.
  • Harassing a man because he dresses in an effeminate manner or enjoys hobbies that are traditionally associated with women.
  • Harassing an employee because of a gender transition, such as by intentionally and persistently failing to use the name and gender pronoun that correspond to the gender identity with which the employee identifies, and which the employee has communicated to management and employees.
  • Denying an employee a promotion because he is gay or straight.
  • Paying a lower salary to an employee because of sexual orientation.
  • Denying spousal health insurance benefits to a female employee because her legal spouse is a woman, while providing spousal health insurance to a male employee whose legal spouse is a woman.
  • Harassing an employee because of his/her sexual orientation (e.g., derogatory terms, sexually oriented comments, or disparaging remarks for associating with a person of the same or opposite sex).
  • Discriminating against or harassing an employee because of his/her sexual orientation or gender identity, in combination with another unlawful reason, for example, on the basis of transgender status and race, or sexual orientation and disability.

The penalties for non-compliance can be significant, including potential for significant emotional distress and other compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees.

This ruling is particularly significant to employers in jurisdictions like Florida that did not recognize that LGBTQ discrimination was unlawful under federal law. In light of this decision, employers should immediately take the following proactive steps to prevent and prohibit LGBTQ discrimination in the workplace:

  • Review your handbooks and anti-discrimination policies to ensure that sexual orientation and other LGBTQ-related status are included in your list of legally protected categories.
  • Consider adopting policies and procedures protecting the rights of transgender employees. For example, a transgender woman must be allowed to use a common female restroom or locker room facility, and dress code policies should permit employees to follow the dress code matching their gender identity.
  • Update your discrimination and harassment training modules to ensure that LGBTQ-related discrimination and harassment is addressed. Such training should include specific examples of what types of conduct could constitute unlawful discrimination. Managers and human resources personnel in particular need to be made aware that LGBTQ discrimination is unlawful and will not be tolerated.

In addition, employers will need to closely follow EEOC guidance and case law that follows this ruling. For example, as Justice Alito mentioned in his dissenting opinion, it is unclear what impact this ruling will have on employees who want their employers to pay for sex reassignment surgery and treatment.

© 2007-2020 Hill Ward Henderson, All Rights Reserved

For more on SCOTUS’s recent decision, see the National Law Review Civil Rights law section.

How Lawyers and Other Professionals Can Set Up Their Work-From-Home Space During COVID-19

Since the federal government’s mandated social distancing orders due to covid-19, working from home has presented new challenges for professionals at law, real estate and financial firms alike. Below are four tips on how you can get acclimated in your redefined workplace.

  1. Set Boundaries – One of the benefits of working from home is the ability to take advantage of the extra time on your hands since the work commute has vanished. However, it can be tempting to work from the most comfortable place in your home – your bed. Studies have found that working from your bed decreases productivity levels and makes it difficult to fall asleep at night because your brain associates your bed with work and stress. It is important to set boundaries between your workspace and your place of relaxation. Try setting up your space in a separate room such as the living room or guest room; in a smaller or studio apartment, you can set up a divider wall to establish designated spaces for work and play.
  2. Lights, Camera, Action! – Having your workspace near a window where natural lighting can seep through is an energy booster and stress reliever. According to medical professionals, the rays from the sun improve the communication between the regions of the temporal lobe which control emotions such as anxiety and stress. Sunlight also produces endorphins and serotonin hormones – “happy” hormones – that enhance our moods throughout the day.
  3. Minimize Distractions – While this is a challenge if your home has turned into a school and entertainment center, there are ways to avoid daily distractions. One example is limiting cell phone usage by using the “Screen Time’s Downtime” feature available on all Apple iPhone devices and many Android devices. Try setting it up during your work hours to avoid spending unnecessary time on social media. Wall calendars, daily to-do lists and designated browsers for personal and business activities can also keep your mind focused throughout the day. If you live with loved ones and/or roommates, establish “quiet hours” so everyone is on board and aware of your allocated time to focus.
  4. Create a Routine – When adapting to this new reality, creating a routine is key to maintaining your mental wellness and productivity. Shower at the same time you normally would, wear what you would normally wear to the office (although loungewear may be tempting!) and prepare your preferred type of coffee, tea or infused water to start your day. Most notably, make sure you go outside and remain active to improve blood circulation to the brain. When it’s time to return to business as usual, you won’t feel sluggish and your mind will feel ready more than ever to tackle the day.

© 2020 Berbay Marketing & Public Relations

For more on working from home, see the National Law Review Law Office Management section.

A Virtual Discussion Series | Part I: Labor, Employment and OSHA Developments and Strategies for Companies and PE Investors Navigating COVID-19 Hurdles

In this webinar, Partners in the Private Equity/Mergers and Acquisitions Practice Group, Heather Rahilly and Andrew Ritter, moderate a discussion with Partners in the Labor, Employment and OSHA Practice Group, Michael Miller and Lawrence Peikes, to discuss developments and strategies in labor, employment and OSHA for companies and investors navigating COVID-19 hurdles.

Key takeaways from this webinar include:

  • New developments and trends in labor and employment laws
  • Summary of current changes to OSHA regulations and standards
  • New litigation and regulatory concerns and how to mitigate risk
  • How legal developments in OSHA, labor and employment may affect current and future deal practice

© 1998-2020 Wiggin and Dana LLP

For more on OSHA labor regulation, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

Supreme Court of the United States Upholds DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals)

In a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts on Department of Homeland Security et al vs. Regents of the University of California, the Supreme Court held that the DACA rescission was improper under the Administrative Procedures Act.

In the decision, Chief Justice Roberts concludes “that the acting secretary violated the [Administrative Procedure Act]” and thus the decision to end the DACA program must be vacated. Today, over 700,000 foreign nationals have availed themselves of the opportunities provided by DACA.

In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts writes:

“We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies. ‘The wisdom’ of those decisions ‘is none of our concern.’ Chenery II, 332 U. S., at 207. We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action. Here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients. That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner. The appropriate recourse is therefore to remand to DHS so that it may consider the problem anew.”

Chief Justice Roberts was joined in the majority by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sotomayor. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh filed opinions that concurred with parts of the dissent and majority.

On June 15, 2012, then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano issued a memorandum creating a non-congressionally authorized administration program that allowed certain individuals who entered the United States as children and met various other requirements, namely lacking current lawful immigration status, to request deferred action for an initial period of up to two years, with the ability to renew thereafter, and eligibility for work authorization. This program became known as DACA – Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

The program has faced continuous constitutional scrutiny since its creation, including the Department of Homeland Security’s order that ended the program in 2017. Lower court rulings enabled the DACA program to continue, ultimately leading to suit being brought before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s decision is not a final resolution on DACA, but instead rules that the Trump Administration’s total recession of DACA was “arbitrary and capricious” and that the administration failed to give adequate justification for ending the program. This decision keeps the DACA program in place.

The full ruling on the case can be found here.

©2020 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

EEOC: What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws, today updated its Technical Assistance Questions and Answers, “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws.” This Technical Assistance is intended to help employers address practical issues that may arise in their day-to-day operations and oversight of their employees as they return to work in the context of COVID-19. The EEOC has consistently reminded employers that the federal anti-discrimination laws continue to apply during the pandemic and that these laws do not interfere with the guidance issued by public health authorities, including the CDC.

What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws

The EEOC’s previously issued Technical Assistance discussed critical issues such as disability-related inquiries and medical examinations, confidentiality of medical information, and hiring and onboarding during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the EEOC provided detailed guidance on handling reasonable accommodations during the pandemic. In this newly issued Technical Assistance, the EEOC focuses in even further on these and related issues, and provides an analysis of common topics that many employers have been or will be facing as employees are preparing to return to work.

The updated questions and answers include topics such as: whether an employee is entitled to an accommodation under the ADA to avoid exposing a family member who is at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19; whether reasonable accommodations are required during the process of screening employees before they enter the worksite; whether employees age 65 or older, who are at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19, can be involuntarily excluded from the workplace based on their age; whether pregnant employees can be involuntarily excluded from the workplace due to their pregnancy and, relatedly, whether there is a right to accommodation based on pregnancy during the pandemic. In addition, the updated Technical Assistance discusses steps employers can take to prevent and address possible harassment and discrimination that may arise related to the pandemic, particularly as against employees who are or perceived to be Asian.

EEOC Technical Assistance Questions and Answers

Employers should review this newly issued Technical Assistance from the EEOC so that they are prepared to address these issues if they arise as businesses are re-opening and employees are returning to the workplace.

©2020 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved

For more on EEOC COVID-19 guidance, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.