Search

The COVID-19 Pandemic has created a multitude of problems for employers including novel employment law allegations. This was to be expected in light of the uniqueness of the situation and the variety of laws and regulations being promulgated and revised since the pandemic began. Basic Human Resource (HR) law and regulations have in some instances been amended to address the novel situations that employees and employers are confronting in light of the global COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this paper is to examine how new and existing law and regulation impact HR decision making and what employers should be doing to reduce their exposure to litigation while the pandemic continues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In October of 2016, the Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJAD) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued guidance for Human Resource Professionals regarding the use of agreements to fix the terms of employment for potential hires that may violate US antitrust laws. The guidance was issued on the heels of the recent settlement of a high profile case regarding alleged violation of US antitrust law by technology companies Apple, Google, Adobe Systems Inc., Pixar and Intel (Wright, 2015). The purpose of this paper is to examine the application of US antitrust laws to Human Resource (HR) management decision making, recent litigation, and suggestions to facilitate compliance with US antitrust laws as they apply to HR decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Shari Lau, the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) manager of SHRM's HR Knowledge Center cited recent survey research in her May 2016 article that reported that "29 percent of the U.S. population has at least one work of inked art" and that "almost half of Millennials have at least one tattoo" (Lau, 2016). "Gone are the days when only sailors and bikers sported tattoos" (Lau, 2016). A wide variety of reasons have been cited for the increased popularity of tattoos and or body piercings among the general population and some of them can create legal complications for organizations attempting to control how their employees present themselves to the public. The purpose of this paper is to examine legal, policy, and practice issues for employers attempting to utilize appearance and grooming standards to limit visible tattoos and piercings in their organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An advantage often cited in the literature regarding internal hiring or promotion is that current employees are known commodities regarding their "fit" with the organization's culture and work environment (Krell, 2015). The easily acquired intimate knowledge of current employees creates a strong incentive to emphasize promoting from within when the need arises. As organizations grow and labor markets become tighter, the lack of available promotable employees may dictate that the employer look to external job markets to fill positions. Assessment as to whether an external candidate's personality will be a good fit for the organization is often described as a key factor that influences the effectiveness of those individuals and also one of the most difficult elements to assess in the selection process (Krell, 2015). In recent years, technological advances in the nature of selection systems has enabled employers to increase their use of online technology to screen job applicants' personalities as to their potential fit with an organization's culture and work environment, and this increased use has not gone unnoticed by US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulators (EEOC) (Lundquist, 2015). The purpose of this paper is to examine legal and policy issues for employers when utilizing technology to assess an applicant's personality as part of the employers screening of external applicants for employment and policy and practice suggestions for employers to facilitate compliance with EEOC guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The associational discrimination provision of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) prohibits employment discrimination against applicants and employees, whether or not they have a disability, because of their known relationship or association with a person with a known disability. The stated purpose of this provision; "is to prevent employers from taking adverse actions based on unfounded stereotypes and assumptions about individuals who associate with people who have disabilities" (EEOC, 2011). In addition to federal law, a number of states and local governments have also enacted statutory protection for employees regarding associational discrimination. Over the last ten years, the number of charges alleging violation of the association provisions received by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), with the exception of FY 2012, has steadily increased. Employees have also had increased success in substantiating allegations regarding associational discrimination (HR Hero, 2008). The purpose of this paper is to examine recent litigation associated with the associational discrimination provisions of the ADA and state laws. In addition, policy and practice suggestions are presented to help employers minimize the risks associated with allegations regarding associational discrimination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In fiscal year (FY) 2014, the United States (US) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) accepted 3,060 whistleblower cases for investigation. This marked the first time in its history that the agency had surpassed 3,000 cases (Maurer, 2015). The OSHA Whistleblower Protection Program enforces 22 federal statutes protecting employees that report violations of a wide variety of federal laws. From workplace safety to securities laws, the depth and breadth of the programs reach takes in a wide swath of the American economic landscape. The purpose of this paper is to briefly examine the reach of OSHA's Whistleblower Protection Program, to examine where the agency's resources have been focused in recent years, and to identify policy and practice suggestions for employers to facilitate compliance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On April 8, 2014, President Obama issued an Executive Order amending Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965 prohibiting federal contractors from retaliating against employees for disclosure of compensation information (Obama, 2014). Executive Order 11246 covers employees who work for service and supply contractors and construction companies covered by Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) regulations that apply to federal government contracts. The Executive Order was heralded by organizations like the National Women's Law Center as "an end to pay secrecy gag rules for employees of federal contractors" (Watson, 2014). It was characterized by others as "unnecessary" given long standing protection afforded to employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) (Smith, 2014). Pay secrecy has often been characterized as a "contentious" issue in many organizations and President Obama's recent executive order has rekindled the debate as to the utility of pay secrecy policies and rules in organizations. This paper examines recent legal, policy, and practice issues for employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act regarding the use of pay secrecy policies and, recommendations to reduce employer exposure to litigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Union membership in the United States has consistently declined since 1983. According to the Hirsch and Macpherson database, the union membership rate, the percentage of wage and salary workers who were members of a union in 2012 was 11.2 percent, down from 11.8 percent in 2011 (Hirsch and Macpherson, 2013). Across the public and private sector of the US economy, the public sector rate (35.9 %) was five times higher than the private sector (6.6 %) (Hirsch and Macpherson, 2013). In addition to the steady decline in union membership, organized labor's use of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) supervised representation election process has also declined over time. In 1983, 4,405 private sector representation elections were held in the United States and only 1,468 were held in 2012.The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the use of the representation election process by organized labor to grow membership in the private sector of the US economy over the last 30 years and recent efforts by organized labor to stem the decline in membership. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the election of a new president and a new majority in the legislative branch, employers subject to laws and regulations administered by the United States Department of Labor (DOL) should be preparing for a number of changes. In June of 2009, new U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, addressing a National Policy Forum in Washington, D.C. stated that under her watch, "enforcement of our labor laws will be intensified" (Gurchiek, 2009). While vowing to not completely eliminate voluntary compliance programs initiated by her predecessor, the main focus of the DOL will turn from voluntary compliance programs to enforcement (Leonard, 2009). The purpose of this paper is to identify aspects of DOL's enforcement efforts that employers can expect to see in the near term and policy and practice suggestions to facilitate compliance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In May of 2007 in response to a perceived "potential for greater discrimination against working parents and others with caregiving responsibilities", the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued new enforcement guidance addressing Unlawful Disparate Treatment of Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities (EEOC-A, 2007). On April 22, 2009, the EEOC issued additional guidance to employers, Employer Best Practices for Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities, offering "proactive measures that go beyond federal nondiscrimination requirements" (EEOC B, 2009). These guidelines are designed to reduce employers' exposure to litigation for "violations against caregivers, and to remove barriers to equal employment opportunity" (EEOC B, 2009). This paper examines the initial guidance provided by the EEOC with respect to individuals with caregiving responsibilities, the recent court cases involving the issue, and the best practices suggestions recently issued by the EEOC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Complying with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) continues to be a challenge for employers. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2008, the U.S. Depart of Labor's Wage and Hour Division (WHD) recouped back wages totaling $185,287,827 for 228,645 workers. While this amount is down from the $220,613,703 recouped in FY 2007, it still represents a 40 percent increase over the FY 2001 amount. Since FY 2001, WHD has recouped more than $1.4 billion in back wages for over two million workers (DOL News Release, 2009). In addition to the back wages recouped by the federal government, employers in a variety of industries all across the United States have over the last ten years been staggered by large settlements awarded to employees in class action litigation estimated to be as high as $319 million in 2007 and even higher in 2008 (Seyfarth Shaw (2008). The purpose of this paper is to examine the nature of the challenges employers have faced in recent years with respect to FLSA compliance and what organizations can do to facilitate compliance with the FLSA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent terms of the Supreme Court have produced a number of important decisions impacting decision making with respect to an organization's human resources. For example, in the 2007/2008 term, the Court issued important decisions involving age discrimination and retaliation. These decisions have been characterized as expanding an employer's burden of proof in responding to allegations and potentially increasing the cost to defend themselves in responding to allegations of discrimination (Smith, 2008-B & AHI's Employment Law Today, 2008). The purpose of this paper is to examine the Court's decisions in these two areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in releasing its 2018 Fiscal Year Report noted several impressive accomplishments included tackling of a number of operational challenges, resolving a number of lawsuits, and securing over $500 million in damages for victims of discrimination. The majority of damages recovered, $354 million, were recovered via mediation, conciliation, and settlements. $53.5 million came through litigation, and $98.6 million for federal employees and applicants in hearings and appeals. The agency handled over a half a million calls and emails and handled over 200,000 inquiries concerning allegations of discrimination. The agency resolved 141 lawsuits and filed an additional 199 lawsuits on behalf of individuals alleging discrimination in employment. The agency focused on promoting awareness on two issues in particular, the pervasiveness of sexual harassment and age discrimination in employment. In the year ahead, the agency has pledged to increase its role as an enforcer, educator, and leader in combatting all forms of workplace harassment. While the agency reported some impressive accomplishments, one area that did not receive attention was the number of complaints dismissed by the agency. This has been, over the years, a statistic the agency has chosen not to clearly address. The purpose of the paper is to review the EEOC accomplishments for fiscal year 2018 and examine what employers can expect in 2019. The paper will examine the basis of EEOC complaints and the number of complaints that are determined to have no reasonable cause. Over the years, on average, over two-thirds of all charges received by the EEOC are determined to have no reasonable cause. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An abstract of the article "Beware the Full Cost Allocation Mistake in Management Decision Making," by Richard V. Calvasina, Gerald E. Calvasina and Eugene J. Calvasina is presented.