Key Points Mandatory vaccination programs may be permissible at federal level without Title VII religious exemption. The equivalent state religious exemption is still viable in California. Social, political, or personal preference objections about the possible effects of the COVID-19 vaccine do not qualify as “religious beliefs” under the Title VII religious exemption. DOES V. MILLS On October 29, 2021, in a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court in Does v ...
Unexpectedly siding with the liberal wing of the Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch penned a 6-3 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, holding that Title VII’s prohibition on sex-based discrimination also covers sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. The Court’s decision dealt a historic victory for proponents of expanding gay and trans protections for workers under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ...
On May 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued its 5-4 decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16-285; Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, No. 16-300; and NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., No. 16-307 holding that an employer may require its employees to sign a dispute resolution arbitration agreement that includes an employee’s waiving the right to bring a claim on a class or collective action basis ...
Yesterday, in a closely-followed case, the Supreme Court decided not to hear an appeal brought by the Domino’s pizza chain, which sought to overturn the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision that entities selling online must make their websites and apps accessible to people with disabilities ...
On June 20, 2011, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, reversing a Court of Appeals decision that had affirmed certification of a nationwide class of 1.5 million female employees in a gender discrimination suit against Wal-Mart. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that class certification was improper because the named plaintiffs failed to satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ...
Hot off the presses from our United States Supreme Court is a decision decided February 21, 2012 affirming a broad construction of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). While the decision, Marmet Healthcare Center, Inc. v. Clayton Brown, 565 U.S. – (2012) No. 11391, would appear to be a case of narrow import – it reverses a decision of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals that held arbitration provisions in nursing home contracts to be invalid – the language is far reaching ...
Today, the Ninth Circuit upheld California’s new law (AB 51) barring arbitration provisions in employment contracts.The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other organizations challenged the law in federal court. The district court enjoined the law, ruling that it conflicts with the Federal Arbitration Act. A divided Ninth Circuit panel reversed. Judge Lucero, a Tenth Circuit judge sitting by designation, wrote the majority opinion (joined by Judge Fletcher). Judge Ikuta dissented ...
Citing an independent cost of service study’s findings that the U.S. Government is not fully covering its costs for the processing of visas, the Department of State has announced its intention to increase visa fees. The rule, which will go into effect on June 4, 2010, would increase fees for certain non-petition-based nonimmigrant visas and some Border Crossing Cards ...
Signaling a possible further relaxation of the strict in-person non-immigrant visa interview requirements, the U.S. Embassy in London has indicated that beginning in December the Visa Reissuance Program may be extended to include key business categories such as “H” and “L” and exchange visitors/students under “J” and “F.” The U.S ...
On January 5, 2018, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) published a much-anticipated proposed rule that would make it easier for groups or associations of employers to band together to form association health plans (“AHPs”).[1] The proposed rule comes in response to an executive order issued by the White House in October 2017 directing the DOL to consider issuing such a rule ...
As the new year started, two Department of Justice memoranda began circulating that may bring a change in the way the United States focuses its efforts in the FCA arena. The first, entitled, “Factors for Evaluating Dismissal Pursuant to 31 U.S.C ...
On 6 April 2006, new regulations, called the Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment - TUPE - Regulations 2006 came into force to replace the well-known 1981 Regulations. These are the Regulations that make provision for protection of employees ? from dismissal and in their terms and conditions - where a business is transferred from one company to another. TUPE 2006 differs in a number of ways from the 1981 Regulations ...
On 6 April 2006, new regulations, called the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) – TUPE - Regulations 2006 came into force to replace the well-known 1981 Regulations. These are the Regulations that make provision for protection of employees – from dismissal and in their terms and conditions - where a business is transferred from one company to another. TUPE 2006 differs in a number of ways from the 1981 Regulations ...
The government has today published its response to the consultation on changes to the TUPE Regulations, which are due to come into force in January 2014. Set to stay: service provision changes and employee liability information The headline point is that service provision changes are set to stay. Under the current TUPE Regulations, outsourcings, insourcings and retenders/second generation outsourcings would trigger a TUPE transfer ...
Deciding what happens to employees in a TUPE transfer where there is more than one transferee is never straightforward. However, developments in this area continue to add complexity to the situation, adding cost and uncertainty to employers. Recent developments In the recent case of McTear Contracts Ltd v Bennett & ors the EAT looked at a situation where there were two transferees in the context of a service provision change ...
On August 2, 2017, President Trump and Senators David Perdue (R-GA) and Tom Cotton (R-AR) announced an immigration bill, which would profoundly amend and re-structure the Immigration Nationality Act ...
In the current economic downturn it seems that industrial relations are once again in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. Recent "wildcat" strikes over the use of foreign labour suggest a trend towards more militant attitudes within the workforce and the possibility of greater industrial unrest. The UK's labour laws are very complex ...
Kicking off our 2021 Tricky Issues Series, in this article we consider when misconduct is sufficiently serious to amount to gross misconduct. Misconduct v gross misconduct – why does it matter? Misconduct is one of the five potentially fair reasons an employer must have to dismiss an employee fairly. In this context, misconduct usually refers to two types of improper or unacceptable behaviour – ordinary misconduct and gross misconduct ...
In the latest article for our Tricky Issues series, we consider how employers should deal with personality clashes in the workplace, why they need to be dealt with quickly and the legal position when employers consider dismissal ...
In the latest article for our Tricky Issues series, we explore what employers need to consider when seeking to change contracts of employment and the legal risks which may arise when those changes are not agreed by the employees concerned. A contract is a binding agreement between its parties and cannot normally be amended without the express consent of all signatories ...
There are many situations where an employer is required to calculate an employee’s weekly pay. Whilst this might appear straightforward, there are nuances that employers need to be aware of. We explore the most common tricky areas and how to address them. Identifying a week’s pay is necessary when calculating holiday pay, statutory redundancy pay, notice pay or the basic award for an unfair dismissal claim ...
In a welcome decision for employers, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has considered the extent to which employment tribunals should investigate the employer's marking and scoring process in a redundancy procedure and held that detailed judicial scrutiny of the scores awarded in a redundancy process is inappropriate (Dabson v David Cover & Sons Ltd). Mr Dabson argued that he had been dismissed unfairly for redundancy ...
In a welcome decision for employers, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has considered the extent to which employment tribunals should investigate the employer's marking and scoring process in a redundancy procedure and held that detailed judicial scrutiny of the scores awarded in a redundancy process is inappropriate (Dabson v David Cover & Sons Ltd). Mr Dabson argued that he had been dismissed unfairly for redundancy ...
