Skip to main content

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

 

Equal pay and pay disclosure laws have become somewhat of a hot button topic across the country in recent years.  A recent development out of Colorado on the topic is worth noting and leading things off this week.

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


New Colorado Pay Disclosure Law Keeps Some Employers Away

Chip Cutter over at The Wall Street Journal wrote an article a few weeks ago that is worth recognizing.  In the article, Cutter points out that while many employers are hiring workers for remote work positions around the country, many are choosing to avoid Colorado as a result of a recent pay disclosure law that went into place.  That law, among other things, requires employers with only just a few workers in the state to disclose the expected salary or pay range...including for remote work positions.  That has left some employers choosing to stay out of the state so as to not fall within the scope of this new law.


EEOC Releases Guidance Regarding Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity Workplace Discrimination

The EEOC recently released guidance for employers and employees alike in regard to sexual orientation and gender identity workplace discrimination in the workplace.  Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Bostock v. Clayton County that the termination of an employee on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity was a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  That led to different interpretations of whether all forms of discrimination and harassment prohibited by Title VII’s sex discrimination provision are likewise prohibited by Title VII when done on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.  This guidance should provide a bit of guidance.

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, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more