In March of this year, I wrote about a recent decision from the United States Supreme Court – Staub v. Proctor Hospital – addressing the “cat’s paw” theory of liability in employment discrimination cases. Under the cat’s paw theory, a plaintiff can hold an employer liable for the animus of a supervisor who was not charged with making the ultimate employment decision but, nonetheless, influenced the decision. As I noted in the March article, the Court’s decision will have far-reaching implications, and we have already started to see evidence of this.
This little corner of cyberspace has devoted ample screen acreage to the impact smartphones and other mobile communication and media devices have on the workplace. The proliferation of those handy pieces of technology requires it and demands employers’ attention as well. Just last week, Apple announced its App Store surpassed 15 billion downloads to its 200 million iOS devices around the world. Earlier this spring, Google announced it had activated the 100 millionth Android device with those users downloading in excess of 4.5 billion apps.
There is an alarming connection between the National Labor Relations Board’s much-publicized decision to file a complaint against Boeing, covered previously on this blog HERE and HERE, and the new proposed election rules which the NLRB announced a few weeks ago. Put simply, both actions are part of the Board’s recent effort to severely curtail employer free speech rights.
In December 2010, OSHA issued Compliance Guidance for Residential Construction, rescinding the Interim Fall Protection Compliance Guidelines for Residential Construction. The new standards took effect last week, but citations for fall protection violations will commence September 15, 2011, with a three-month grace period for employers complying with the old guidelines.