Category: Strategic counseling

Finally! U.S. Supreme Court to Weigh in on Title VII LGBTQ+ Protection

Jason E. Reisman and Mark Blondman

Just this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court finally agreed to hear three cases from the circuit courts that split on whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects against discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The basic question boils down to whether the word “sex” includes a protection for LGBTQ+ employees.

EEOC Initiative/Trigger. Though there have been efforts over the last 50+ years to seek such protection under Title VII, the true impact came from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) push beginning in 2012, when it issued an administrative ruling holding that gender identity discrimination constitutes sex bias and therefore is protected. As everyone probably knows, in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit jumped into the fray with both feet in 2017, finding that Title VII’s “sex” does indeed include sexual orientation. In fact, before the full Seventh Circuit heard that case, a three-judge panel on that court had stated that it was a “paradoxical legal landscape in which a person can be married on Saturday and then fired on Monday for just that act”—a reference to same sex marriage being legal. Continue reading “Finally! U.S. Supreme Court to Weigh in on Title VII LGBTQ+ Protection”

“Obesity Alone” Is Not a Disability under the New Jersey Law against Discrimination

Rosemary McKenna

Earlier this month, a three-judge panel for the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey affirmed a 2018 trial court decision granting summary judgment against a self-described obese former bus driver for defendant Community Bus Lines, Inc. (“Community”), and dismissing the driver’s claim for violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJ LAD”). In doing so, the appellate court held that “obesity alone is not protected under the NJ LAD as a disability unless it has an underlying medical cause.” Because plaintiff, in part, failed to present any direct or circumstantial evidence that defendants perceived the driver as disabled due to a medical condition that caused him to be overweight, the appellate court found his claim was without merit.

Case Background

The plaintiff in this matter worked as a bus driver for Community for 10 years during which time he weighed between 500 and 600 pounds. To maintain his status as an active bus driver, he was required to undergo a medical examination every two years and obtain medical certification verifying his fitness to drive. In 2015, a doctor certified by the United States Department of Transportation (“DOT”) conducted plaintiff’s examination and temporarily disqualified him from driving a bus pending further testing. The plaintiff never followed through to complete the required additional testing and was therefore placed “out of service.” Despite his failure to schedule the follow-up testing, plaintiff’s supervisor referred him for a second opinion to another doctor, who confirmed the prior conclusions and found that further testing was needed before a medical certification could be issued. Neither doctor who examined plaintiff determined that he was disabled but only that further testing was required before he could be certified. Plaintiff again did not pursue the required testing and remained on leave. Continue reading ““Obesity Alone” Is Not a Disability under the New Jersey Law against Discrimination”

Minimize Litigation Risks When Using Biometric Data

Ana Tagvoryan, Brooke T. Iley, and David J. Oberly

The following article was published on SHRM.org.

This is the second article in a two-part series on biometric technology and the law. The first article explains the legal requirements for using biometrics in the workplace. This article provides tips on avoiding liability.

Under various state laws, the potentially extensive legal exposure to individual and class-action lawsuits stemming from the collection, storage and use of biometric data should give employers pause before they implement biometric-data programs in the workplace.

Companies that acquire and use biometric data face the thorny task of complying with an intricate web of regulations governing the use of that data—a task that will only become more difficult as more states adopt their own versions of biometric data privacy legislation.

A new wave of biometric-data lawsuits, particularly in Illinois, will likely build as a result of the Illinois Supreme Court’s Jan. 25 ruling in Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., No. 123186, which determined that plaintiffs can pursue claims for mere technical violations of Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), even absent any actual injury or harm. Many lawsuits have not centered on challenges to employers’ use of biometric data but instead have focused on the collection of such data.

Fortunately, employers can implement several best practices to minimize the risk of becoming embroiled in litigation stemming from the use of workers’ biometric data. Continue reading “Minimize Litigation Risks When Using Biometric Data”

Learn the Rules on Employers’ Use of Biometric Data

Ana Tagvoryan, Brooke T. Iley, and David J. Oberly

The following article was published on SHRM.org.

This is the first article in a two-part series on biometric technology and the law. This article explains the legal requirements for using biometrics in the workplace. The second article provides tips on avoiding liability.

With the recent rapid advancement of biometric technology, more employers have begun relying on biometric data to accomplish a range of objectives in the workplace.

According to a 2018 survey by Gartner, 6 percent of U.S., European and Canadian companies surveyed tracked workers using biometrics.

Employers who use biometrics can achieve real economic and security benefits, but the practice comes with litigation risks.

Three states—Illinois, Texas and Washington—have enacted laws regulating biometric data to protect employee privacy concerns. An individual’s biometric information is not a secure identifying feature once it has been compromised. Continue reading “Learn the Rules on Employers’ Use of Biometric Data”

Trifecta! DOL Issues Proposed “Employer-Friendly” Joint Employer Rule

Jason E. Reisman

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) completed the wage and hour trifecta, issuing the third of its critically acclaimed proposed rules—this one redefines (or clarifies, if you prefer) the regulations addressing the concept of “joint employment.” Joint employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) is an important concept as it often is used to hold multiple entities liable for the minimum wage and overtime violations relating to a group of employees. The existing regulations have not been materially updated in more than 60 years—needless to say, the nature and scope of business interactions have changed materially over that time. Continue reading “Trifecta! DOL Issues Proposed “Employer-Friendly” Joint Employer Rule”

DOL Pulls Ripcord—Proposed Rule Clarifying “Regular Rate” Parachutes In

Jason E. Reisman

Yesterday, as anticipated (see our prior blog post here), the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) released its proposed guidance to clarify the rules regarding what is and is not required to be included in the “regular rate of pay” (“RROP”). Remember, the RROP is the rate used for the calculation of overtime pay to non-exempt workers.

Though completely unexpected when the DOL initially announced its plan to clarify these rules, employers will undoubtedly be pleased by the effort. Nothing—from the employer standpoint—is really ever perfect, but this is progress. Originally targeted to be released in December 2018, like many other DOL projects, it was delayed a bit.

According to the DOL’s announcement, this proposal attempts to clarify that employers can exclude the following from the RROP:

  • the cost of providing wellness programs, onsite specialist treatment, gym access and fitness classes, and employee discounts on retail goods and services;
  • payments for unused paid leave, including paid sick leave;
  • reimbursed expenses, even if not incurred “solely” for the employer’s benefit;
  • reimbursed travel expenses that do not exceed the maximum travel reimbursement under the Federal Travel Regulation System and that satisfy other regulatory requirements;
  • discretionary bonuses, by providing additional examples and clarifying that the label given a bonus does not determine whether it is discretionary;
  • benefit plans, including accident, unemployment, and legal services; and
  • tuition programs, such as reimbursement programs or repayment of educational debt.

Though we’re still working our way through the proposal, we are hopeful that it actually does address certain items that have long created quagmires for employers. Of course, the proposal will be subject to 60 days of public comment. Then, once the DOL reviews all comments, it will issue a final rule. Please stay tuned for further updates as this process continues!

The Uncertain Future of Gender Pay Reporting

Mark Blondman and Emery Gullickson Richards

As you may recall, in 2016, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued a Rule requiring private employers with more than 100 workers to include certain pay data, based on gender, race, and ethnicity, on their Form EEO-1s. The Rule, which purportedly was aimed at encouraging employers to ensure that compensation was directly related to jobs being performed and as a means of combating pay disparities, was slated to go into effect with the filing of EEO-1 forms in March 2018.

Under President Trump, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) blocked enforcement of the Rule and announced that decision in August 2017.

On March 4, 2019, Judge Tanya Chutkan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in response to a 2017 lawsuit filed by advocacy groups including the National Women’s Law Center, issued an Opinion and Order directing that the OMB reinstate the EEOC’s 2016 pay reporting Rule. Continue reading “The Uncertain Future of Gender Pay Reporting”

DOL Drops a Bomb … Err, the New Salary Threshold—$35,308!

Jason E. Reisman

Don’t say I didn’t tell you so—you read it right here on Monday: the new Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) white collar exemption salary threshold was just about to hit the street. And, guess what?

It’s arrived—just last night—and our D.C. sources (that is, BR’s “deepthroat”) from Monday’s blog were right on point, missing the final threshold number by only $308.

The Department of Labor (“DOL”) announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”), which sets the new salary threshold that purports to make overtime pay available to another one million American workers. Remember, the last time the salary threshold was updated was in 2004, under the George W. Bush administration, which increased the threshold to $23,660 (or $455/week). Then, the Obama administration proposed to increase it to $47,476 (or $913/week)—yikes! No worries, though, a federal judge in Texas—appointed by President Obama, no less—struck down that proposed salary threshold. With the new Trump administration coming on board and promising to issue a new rule, the appeal of the Texas judge’s decision was placed on hold.

And, now, here we are Continue reading “DOL Drops a Bomb … Err, the New Salary Threshold—$35,308!”

More “Leaks” from D.C.? New DOL Salary Threshold = $35,000?

Jason E. Reisman

As I previously reported in mid-January (see my blog post here), the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) long-awaited, updated proposal setting a new salary threshold for the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (“FLSA”) white collar exemptions finally made its way to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review. That means the public should see it within 90 days or so.

Now, according to my D.C. sources (BR’s “deepthroat”), here’s the latest: Continue reading “More “Leaks” from D.C.? New DOL Salary Threshold = $35,000?”

LGBT Protection under Title VII? “No,” Says Fifth Circuit Judge

Alix L. Udelson

Some 40 years ago, in Blum v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1979), the Fifth Circuit pronounced that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not prohibit sexual orientation discrimination. Despite the immense shift in the cultural and legal zeitgeists since then, including decisions from several federal appellate courts holding the exact opposite, the Fifth Circuit seized the opportunity in its recent decision in Wittmer v. Phillips 66 Company to reiterate—albeit in dicta—that the Blum decision remains the law of that Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.

Nicole Wittmer, a transgender female, received a conditional offer of employment from Phillips 66. But Phillips 66 rescinded the offer when Wittmer’s background check revealed that she had been less than candid about her employment history during her job interview.

Wittmer then filed suit against Phillips 66 alleging transgender discrimination under Title VII. Continue reading “LGBT Protection under Title VII? “No,” Says Fifth Circuit Judge”