In late December of 2012, the EEOC approved its Strategic Enforcement Plan for 2013-2016. Sadly, one of the agency’s enforcement priorities has been ignored on this blog.
Until now.
Last week, President Obama signed an Executive Order requiring federal contractors to provide paid sick leave. More on that here. The Department of Labor has a roadshow and social media campaign, through which it is touting the benefits of paid family and medical leave. And the Family and Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act is currently pending in Congress. This bill would provide create a family and medical leave insurance program.
As the debate over government-mandated paid sick leave continues, Patrick Kulp at Mashable reports here that over 200 faculty members from 88 institutions across the country, including MBA programs at NYU, Harvard and Wharton, have signed this open letter calling upon Congress to adopt a national paid family and medical leave policy.
.jpg)
I swear. If you put ketchup on that Labor Day hot dog, I’ll find and you and— Oh, hey! Didn’t see you there. Happy Tuesday to you. I hope that you had a nice mustard-covered-hot-dog-filled Labor Day. Me? I forgot how bloody awful it was to spend hours in blazing heat miniature golfing with four kids. I was pretty sweet, I tell you.
But, did you see the news yesterday? President Obama signed an Executive Order requiring federal contractors to ensure that employees on those contracts can earn up to 7 days or more (56+ hours) of paid sick leave annually.
Ok, how about the details…
An alcoholic employee can present a number of tricky legal issues affecting the workplace. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, there’s a certain dichotomy. That is, alcoholism is a disability under the Act. However, an employer can ban alcohol in the workplace and require that employees not be under the influence of alcohol.
But what about an alcoholic employee, who, while remaining sober at work, seeks a leave of absence to treat?
I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. But, even if I had, heck, I could move in to a Holiday Inn Express for a month and still not have anything intelligent to offer when one of my clients brings up the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare).
Now, I’m guessing that some of you have ACA dartboards migraines questions. (Something other than WTH?!?!?). I’m going to do one better than refer you to our Employee’s Benefits Practice Group.
My firm is hosting a free Affordable Care Act breakfast briefing on Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 8:15 am at our office in Philadelphia, PA. Not only can you participate in a roundtable discussion about impending reporting requirements relating to the Affordable Care Act and related healthcare reform and compliance issues, but you get access to ACA compliance nerds from both my firm and Deloitte.
Not a day goes by — or, so it seems — that an employee isn’t making headlines for some social media stupidity that results in losing a job. But, social needs to keep its ego in check and pay respect to the true OG that paved the way.
Yeah, son. Email. Continue reading
If you are a Philadelphia employer, check out my post from February and this poster. While the new law requires employers of 10 or more to provide paid sick leave, those with 9 or few employees must still provide unpaid sick leave. If you haven’t done so already, update your employee handbooks.
For the rest of you (and, I suppose, my Philadelphia employer readers too), the results of yesterday’s Facebook poll are in…and not all that surprising.
71% of those who responded would fire an employee who identifies herself on Facebook as one of your employees and, in a status update, praises the murder of two police officers. Others would either discipline/counsel the employee (21%), or do nothing to the employee (4%). One of you would consult the company’s social media policy before taking action. Another one of you would discuss with the employee first and then decide what to do.
Ok. Let’s assume that I’m looking to fill another Blogprentice position here at the Bloggerdome.
[FYI – The Blogprentice’s job is to massage my scalp during those brief periods of writer’s block or when I get the vapors, rub my feet at all other times, plus whatever tasks, reasonable or unreasonable, I may assign from time to time. Job pays minimum wage. And, by that, I mean compliments. That is to say, part of the job is to compliment me. Another part is to make sure I’m using compliment correctly (instead of complement)].
All hires must then pass a background check and drug screen. Continue reading
A few years ago, I posed the question: Is a workplace “English-only” rule legal?
Yadda, yadda, yadda, sometimes.
That is, in this Compliance Manual, the EEOC confirms that employers may adopt English-only rules under certain circumstances, insofar as it is adopted for nondiscriminatory reasons (e.g., safety, business necessity) and not to discriminate on the basis of national origin. Continue reading
This “invasion of privacy” question is the lynchpin of a new lawsuit from two former employees of one of the largest beer companies in the world. The complaint (available here), which began in state court, has been removed to federal court in New Jersey.
David Gialanella, reporting for the New Jersey Law Journal (full article here), summarizes the facts of the case:
A year ago, five company employees, including Nascimento and Yule, exchanged a series of text messages, apparently disparaging fellow employee Alex Davis. The messages were transmitted using their personal mobile phones, and on their own time, but Nascimento’s personal phone was linked to his company iPad through the iMessaging application, causing the messages to be stored on the iPad, according to the complaint.
Afterward, Nascimento was issued a new iPad, while the old one—with his text messages and credit card information still stored on it—was loaned to Davis. Davis discovered the text messages and complained, after which Nascimento, Yule and the others were questioned by investigators hired by Anheuser-Busch, according to the complaint.
Nascimento, Yule and a third employee involved in the messaging were terminated last September for “‘violation of corporate policy regarding use of company equipment,’” while a fourth was reprimanded, according to the complaint.
The Employer Handbook Blog