Skip to main content

What I’ve Been Reading This Week


Paid time off, vaccine accommodation requests, and pronouns in the workplace.  To say we are running the gamut of employment law topics this weeks is an understatement.  Regardless of your preferred article, each of the below articles has a bit of a nuanced look at a particular development on the given matter.  I encourage readers to page through each as these are relevant updates worth a read.

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


Congressmen Call for Better Paid Time Off For Workers to Get Vaccinated

Last Friday, Congressmen Jerry Nadler and Alex Padilla wrote a letter to Marty Walsh, Secretary of Labor at the Labor Department, and Jeff Zients, the White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator, calling for the adoption of more paid time off for workers to get the coronavirus vaccine.  In the letter, the Congressmen ask the Labor Department to determine if paid time off can be provided to workers for vaccination related time away from work as well as for the Labor Department to clarify any requirements related to paid time off while getting the vaccine.  Given that the White House is working hand in hand with the Labor Department to encourage vaccinations in the workplace, it will be interesting to see if this letter spurs either the Labor Department or White House toward action.


United Airlines Hit With Lawsuit Alleging Failure to Accommodate

On September 21st, a lawsuit was filed against United Airlines by several workers that claim the company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to accommodate employees that sought exemptions from the company’s vaccine mandate.  United, as with many other employers, instituted vaccine mandates for its workers a few months ago.  While certain religious or medical exemptions might have enabled workers to forgo this vaccine mandate, the lawsuit alleges that United violated federal law by failing to accommodate these exemption requests from workers.  The lawsuit, Sambrano v. United Airlines Inc., is still in the early stages of litigation but worth keeping an eye on over the coming months.


Employer Hit With $30,000 Judgment in Pronoun Discrimination Lawsuit

Pronouns in the workplace…a point of contention (or pride) for many.  This article notes a recent judgment from the British Columbia Human Rights Council (“Council”) that found an employer unlawfully discriminated against a non-binary, gender fluid, transgender worker who was ultimately terminated.  The lawsuit alleged that the worker requested “they/them” pronouns be used in the workplace, but coworkers instead used “she/her/sweetheart/honey” pronouns.  The employee was summarily terminated a few days later after a stand off with coworkers (including a bar manager) over the pronouns.  The Council held that the termination was not unlawful because of the requested use of pronouns but instead because the employee was transgender.  For those looking for a bit more reading on pronouns in the workplace (and the potential pratfalls that might arise), this article is worth a quick read.

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