Susan L. Bickley and Emery Gullickson Richards
On October 5, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) stance that gender identity is protected as part of the prohibition against “sex” discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Sessions issued a letter outlining this position to all U.S. attorneys and the leading officials of all federal agencies, stating that while Title VII provides various protections for transgender individuals, the statute “does not prohibit discrimination based on gender identity per se, including transgender status.” Continue reading “DOJ Reverses Course—Title VII Does Not Cover Gender Identity”
Earlier this year, New York City 
Enacted in 1935, the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) was designed, among other things, to protect the rights of employees and employers, including protecting an employee’s right to engage in protected concerted activity in the workplace, such as complaining to other employees about her manager or terms and conditions of employment, without fear of retaliation by his or her employer. The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), an independent federal agency with five members appointed by the president, enforces the NLRA and effectively controls its interpretation and application, subject to limited review by the courts. In less than a decade, the NLRB of the Obama administration extended the protections of the NLRA—in ways some would say were never contemplated by Congress—to employees’ work-related conversations conducted on social media, such as Facebook and Twitter. Those protections apply regardless of whether the employee is represented by a union or not. With this expansion of protection for social media activities, employers must carefully consider the NLRB’s decisions, or else proceed at their own peril. 
On September 11, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit revived a lawsuit under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) that the employer claimed was barred by settlement of an employee’s workers’ compensation claim.
Over half of the states in the country allow for the limited possession of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Several states, including New York, Connecticut, and Illinois, even provide explicit workplace protections to prevent adverse employment actions against medical marijuana patients. However, the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) makes it a federal crime to use, possess, or distribute marijuana. Under federal law, marijuana remains classified as a Schedule I controlled substance, regardless of whether it has any acceptable medical uses. So what should an employer do when an applicant or employee fails a drug test due to marijuana use, or after being informed that an applicant or employee needs to use marijuana as part of his or her medical treatment? These questions are slowly making their way into courthouses across the country, and two recent cases may prove to be instructive. 