Skip to main content

What I’ve Been Reading This Week


For those who are tired of spending the past few days reading about the Mueller report, Russia, Democrats, President Donald Trump, etc., I hope this week’s post can serve as a nice change of pace.  There are a good mix of topics, ranging from hostile work environments to equal pay matters all the way to a recent FMLA case.

As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week.


Distinguishing Between A Hostile Work Environment & A Bad Boss

Earlier this month, Johnny C. Taylor, Jr. fielded a few HR related questions for a USA Today article.  One of the questions had Johnny address the differences between a hostile work environment and "just" working for a bad boss/bully.  While the laws can differ in each state (and some states have even adopted anti-bullying laws), there is no federal law that directly prohibits bullying.  On the other hand, some workplace actions, communications or behaviors that are pervasive or serious enough to disrupt work can create a hostile working environment and be found to be in violation of federal law.  As Johnny notes, any employee experiencing an untenable work environment should make their HR department aware of any concerns.  The sooner the complained of conduct is identified, the sooner HR can look into the matter and take appropriate action.


Paycheck Fairness Act Clears House; Next Stop: The Senate

Earlier this week, the House passed the Paycheck Fairness Act with a final vote of 242 - 187.  The bill seeks to close the loopholes in the Equal Pay Act of 1963.  For those that are not aware, the Equal Pay Act stipulates that employers cannot differentiate salary based on gender unless a number of factors, such as seniority, merit, and work level, come into play.  The Paycheck Fairness Act would go one step further and ban employers from asking applicants how much they made in previous jobs, would get rid of employer rules that prohibit employees about their salary information, and require employers to be more transparent about how much they pay employees.  One of the more pivotal portions of this legislation is the requirement that employers would be required to share salary data with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), so that the EEOC could monitor potential discriminatory practices.  It is worth noting that this is the eleventh time the bill has been brought up and the second time it has cleared the House.  However, with a Republican controlled Senate, even if a Republican or two jump across the aisle, I would suspect the Paycheck Fairness Act will again falter.


Reminder to Employers: The FMLA Allows For Leave to Care For Adult Child

Using a recent settlement by the University of Northern Iowa, HRDive published an article earlier this morning to remind employers that the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") allows employees to take protected leave to care for an adult child.  As some readers might be aware, the FMLA provides that covered employers must allow eligible employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid, protected leave within a twelve month period for family and medical reasons.  Notably, the FMLA can be used to care for a child age 18 or older, per guidance from the Department of Labor.  Employers, while ensuring compliance with the FMLA, make sure note to forget some of the more nuanced portions of the Act or risk being in an untenuous position, such as the University of Northern Iowa...

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more