In recent years, legal protections for the civil rights of LGBT individuals have expanded at a rapid pace. Since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) in 2014 as unconstitutional, it has done the same with state-law equivalents. That same year, President Obama signed Executive Order 13672, which prohibits federal government contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. As this blog noted in 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) quickly jumped on the bandwagon with regard to other employers, affirming its position that Title VII protections extended to LGBT individuals. Now, the first U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to consider the issue in this new legal landscape has disagreed – albeit reluctantly.
In Pennsylvania, it is a felony for a person to intercept any wire, electronic, or oral communication unless all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception. This makes Pennsylvania a two/multiple-party consent jurisdiction. “Interception” is defined as the acquisition of any oral communication through an electronic, mechanical, or other device other than through a telephone or any component thereof. The traditional example of the crime is tape recording a conversation without the knowledge of one of the parties to the conversation.
HIV infection is a disability under the ADA. What rights and responsibilities does an employer have in relation to HIV-positive applicants and employees? The EEOC recently clarified its position concerning HIV-positive individuals in the workplace in a press release, as well as documents addressing the rights of HIV-positive workers, including the right to be free from discrimination and harassment, and guidance to physicians in facilitating accommodations for those individuals.
Despite being listed as a Schedule 1 controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), marijuana has been legalized or de-criminalized in twenty-five states and the District of Columbia. In five states, such as Colorado, marijuana is legal for recreational purposes – adults are permitted to possess marijuana for essentially any and all personal purposes. In other states, marijuana use is limited to medical purposes – children and adults may ingest some forms of marijuana for enumerated medical purposes so long as they maintain valid prescriptions. The conflict between federal law and state law has created a tricky landscape for employers to navigate.
On July 13, 2016, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued a revised proposal to expand data collection through its Employer Information Report (“EEO-1”). Through EEO-1 reports, the EEOC and the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) have been able to identify possible discriminatory practices and conduct pay discrimination investigations through the race, gender, ethnicity, sex, and job category pay data collected from employers across the country.
Let’s say that one of your employees gets in an accident at work while performing his or her usual job duties. The employee is injured, and you want to know whether to test the employee for intoxicants. After all, you have a substance use policy, and don’t want to face a lawsuit or administrative claim alleging that you are responsible for the accident. Can you require the employee to be tested for intoxication?
Yelp’s recent advertising campaign tells would-be users in search of businesses and services, “We know just the place.” Yelp provides an online forum where users can utilize star-ratings and comments to share their experiences with fellow consumers. Recently, the site has evolved into a venue for consumers to mercilessly complain about their subjectively mediocre experiences. The complaints can sometimes escalate to the point where fellow consumers won’t darken a business’s doorstep based upon its Yelp reviews.
As employment attorneys, we are often asked by employers, “How can I protect my company from employees leaving with critical information or being poached by a competitor?” One way that employers can protect themselves is to prepare reasonable non-compete agreements that have the effect of deterring competitors and, likewise, encouraging retention amongst the workforce. There are, however, pitfalls which must be considered by employers before the execution of these non-compete agreements. Generally speaking, West Virginia courts will accept and enforce non-compete agreements that (1) are no more restrictive than required for the protection of the employer; (2) do not impose an undue hardship on the employee; and, (3) are not injurious to the public.
It wasn’t that long ago when it was fairly clear that sexual orientation was not considered a protected class under Title VII. However, as we first wrote about on this blog last year, sexual orientation discrimination is an expanding legal basis of protection for all employers to be concerned about. This includes educational institutions.