Are participants in a workplace investigation, as complainant or alleged perpetrator of misconduct, ‘untouchable’ by their employer – can their performance be managed, can they be disciplined, can they be retrenched without risk of court proceedings against the employer?
Amendments to the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”) regulations, going into effect on July 1, 2015, are meant to clarify a number of uncertainties, align the CFRA regulations more closely with the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) regulations (where the laws are consistent), and ensure employers and employees have a clear understanding of their rights and duties under the CFRA.
NLRB Expands Scope of Union Representatives’ Permissible Conduct During Investigatory Interviews Under Weingarten
In a 2-to-1 decision, a three-member panel of the National Labor Relations Board has held it was unlawful for an employer to threaten a union steward with suspension for showing an employee, during the employer’s investigative interview about a violation of company procedure, the steward’s answer to a question asked by the interviewer, which was written in the steward’s notebook, so that the employee could read it to the interviewer.
In a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court gave new life yesterday to former UPS driver Peggy Young’s claim of unlawful pregnancy discrimination when it vacated the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision affirming the dismissal of Ms. Young’s claim against her former employer.
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act extends Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination to include pregnancy. It also says that employers must treat “women affected by pregnancy . . . the same for all employment-related purposes . . . as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.”
The U.S. Supreme Court revived a pregnant employee’s discrimination claim against UPS, ruling that the employer’s policy of providing light-duty work only to employees meeting certain specifications (but not necessarily pregnant employees) may violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”).
The latest office fodder for me and my colleague, Jason Usher (who formerly worked at the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”)), involves an Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision, Valley Health System LLC, that found that a healthcare employer’s English-only rule violated the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”).
U.S. Supreme Court Revives Suit Against UPS, Extending McDonnell-Douglas Burden Shifting Framework to Pregnancy Discrimination Cases
The U.S. Supreme Court vacated a Fourth Circuit decision Wednesday, reviving a pregnancy bias case against the United Parcel Service brought by a former delivery driver who was denied a light-duty work accommodation while pregnant.
It makes perfect sense that when entering into a new business relationship the parties (and their counsel) are keenly focused on getting things started.
Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court issued the much anticipated opinion in a pregnancy discrimination claim, Young v . United Parcel Service.