All across America this morning, pregnant employees are screaming out in muted shouts of joy and giving each other belly bumps.
I had to share an excellent blog post on Seattle’s $15 Minimum Wage: Not Unconstitutionally Discriminatory? by Shannon McCarthy of the ZorBlog. My tongue-in-cheek title unfortunately rings some truth.
The United State Supreme Court issued its much anticipated decision in the case of Young v. UPS on March 24, 2015. As of now, Young’s pregnancy discrimination claim remains alive and well.
Under section 56 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), it is now a criminal offence for any person or organisation to require an individual to submit a ‘subject access request’ (i.e. the right for an individual to access any of their personal data held by third parties on payment of a fee, provided certain requirements are met) in order to obtain and provide a copy of their criminal record.
Most employers already know they cannot forbid employees from criticizing management, workplace conditions, or discussing salaries in person or on the Internet.
U.S. Supreme Court Vacates Young V. UPS Finding That UPS Failed to Accommodate Lifting Restrictions of Pregnant Worker
The U.S. Supreme Court revived Peggy Young’s pregnancy discrimination claim against UPS by vacating a Fourth Circuit decision today by a 6-3 vote.
The General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) recently issued a 30 page report summarizing its position on employer work rules (such as, most commonly, employee handbooks) and providing examples of what does and does not have a “chilling effect” on possible concerted (i.e., potential union) activity as defined by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).
The Sweet Sixteen has come and gone and it was glorious. Streamed live over our new Apple Watches, 16 employment law issues battled it out for the right to move onto the Elite Eight, which will be held next week at Sixth Circuit Stadium in Cincinnati.
Supreme Court Upholds Department of Labor’s Authority to Issue Interpretive Rules Without Public Notice or Comment
Rules promulgated by agencies of the federal government can be divided into those which have the force and effect of law and those which are merely “interpretative” or provide general statements of policy concerning the agency’s view of the law.