Yesterday, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released a new technical assistance document called “Visual Disabilities in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act.”
Sure, you could read all 59 pages of it. Or I can digest it here for you in a few hundred words—your choice. Continue reading
Last night, I read a New Jersey federal court opinion involving a woman who lived and worked remotely in New Hampshire for a company in New Jersey. She sued under New Jersey law, alleging she received less pay than certain male co-workers. The defendants moved to dismiss the action because the remote worker did not live or work in New Jersey. But the court denied the motion.
Here’s why. Continue reading
We began July with New York City starting to enforce its law that requires companies hiring with artificial intelligence to notify candidates, provide candidates with particular information about data collected and analyzed, and independently audit the technology. It’s all in the name of removing bias from the hiring process, which the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has warned employers about, too.
Now, two Senators are co-sponsoring legislation they claim will “protect and empower workers by preventing employers from relying exclusively on artificial intelligence or bots to make employment decisions.” Continue reading
When most people think of federal anti-discrimination laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they associate them with employees suing employers for things like discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environments.
But Title VII covers more than just employers.
I was going to title this one: “Sorry, I’m pretty sure that’s not how diversity, equity, and inclusion works.”
It’ll make sense in a second.
Let’s change up the facts from yesterday’s “free speech” blog post. Continue reading
Today I bring you another example of how an employee does not forego their freedom of speech when working for a private employer. But, employees who speak out are not immune from the consequences of their speech either.
In this case, racism.
In early 2020, an employee at a global food supplier left work early with flu-like symptoms. That day she obtained a doctor’s note recommending that she “stay out of work for three days, from February 19-21, 2020.” The employee requested to have five days off to recuperate. However, the note said nothing about her inability to work beyond those three days. Her employer terminated her on February 21.
For every unicorn $25.6 million jury verdict you may read about online, thousands of discrimination cases fall well short of that mark. Way more never have a shot at making it to trial. And some don’t even have sufficient facts on the face of the complaint, which, if true, would establish a cause of action. They get dismissed right away.
Just like the case I have for you today.
The Employer Handbook Blog