HDR thirdshift

Historic settlement of sexual orientation discrimination lawsuit

On June 28, 2016, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that it had settled one of its first lawsuits alleging sexual orientation discrimination. The settlement—in the form of a consent decree—requires Pallet Companies, doing business as IFCO Systems (IFCO), to pay $202,200 in addition to a number of nonmonetary requirements. This landmark decree comes less than a year after the EEOC first concluded that discrimination on the basis of an employee’s sexual orientation amounted to sex discrimination.

Continue reading

Asking about family medical history costs employer over $300,000

I know, I know. I’ve already blogged about this subject—about how employers shouldn’t be asking about family medical history. But the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has once again charged an employer with violating the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). And the employer also asked questions about the disabilities of applicants in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).

Continue reading

U.S. Court of Appeals addresses unpaid trainees

On April 25, 2016, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a case involving unpaid trainees, but the scope of its ruling was narrower than decisions about unpaid interns made by the Second and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals, as well as by U.S. District Courts in New York and California.

Continue reading

Dept. of Labor issues new overtime regulations

On May 18, 2016, the U.S. Labor Department (DOL) issued its new overtime rules. These new rules primarily address the trigger amount for exempting executive, administrative, professional, and computer employees from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). These exemptions are frequently referred to as EAP exemptions or white-collar exemptions.

Continue reading

Employers are limited in use of social media to oppose “unionizing” efforts

As discussed in a previous post, employers cannot terminate employees for using social media to exercise their right to engage in protected concerted activity (typically seen as “unionizing”). Holding that employers cannot fight fire with fire, a recent court decision has now limited the extent of the employer’s ability to use social media to oppose “unionizing” activities.

Continue reading