The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) broad-ranging jurisdiction covers, in short, claims of age, disability, equal pay, gender/pregnancy, genetic information, national/ethnic origin, race/color, and religious/creed discrimination. The EEOC typically sends notice of a charge of discrimination and requests a response, but can exercise subpoena power to enforce requests for information. When an employer receives a charge of employment discrimination, what should you do?Read More
Polsinelli at Work | Labor & Employment Blog
Employers, whether large or small, face an ever-growing web of workplace regulations and potential entanglements with employees. With employment litigation and advocacy experience as our strength, preventing legal problems from arising is our goal. Our Labor & Employment attorneys advise management on complex employee relations and workplace issues. 20 offices; 800+ attorneys.
PolsinelliAtWork.com was recently recognized as one of the top employment blogs in the nation by Feedspot.
On May 12, 2017, a divided Tenth Circuit addressed the level of detail that must be contained in an EEOC charge when a plaintiff alleges quid pro quo harassment. In Jones v. Needham, No. 16-6156 (10th Cir. May 2, 2017), the plaintiff alleged he was fired because he would not have sex with his direct supervisor, who was also a shareholder of the business. The plaintiff completed an EEOC intake questionnaire, checking the boxes for “Sex” and “Retaliation” as the basis for his discrimination claims and also writing out “sex har[as]sment.” In response to questions seeking further details on his claims, the plaintiff wrote: “[s]ee attached.” The referenced document included a six-paragraph statement, which concluded with the following: “I was terminated because I refused to agree to [the supervisor]’s sexual advances and I rejected all such efforts by her.”Read More
On May 4 and May 13, 2017, the New York Times published an op-ed and article in which the authors asserted—in support of arguments disfavoring non-competition agreements—that California voids all non-competition agreements.* This is an overstatement of California law, which generally prohibits non-competition agreements in the employment context, but narrow exceptions do exist.Read More
On May 8, 2017, the California Supreme Court provided clarification on three important issues related to California’s mandatory day of rest that have long been murky under existing California law:
- The seven-day period for determining the “Day of Rest” is calculated by the workweek and not a rolling seven-consecutive-day period.
- Labor Code §556 exemption for workers employed six hours or less only applies to employees who never exceed six hours of work on any day of the workweek.
- An employer must not “cause” an employee to go without a day of rest.
On May 8, 2017, the Missouri House gave final approval to a much anticipated, heavily debated, and still highly controversial bill that will significantly modify the law applicable to “unlawful employment practices” in the state. Governor Eric Greitens has until July 14, 2017, to sign or veto the bill. So long as he does not veto, the bill will become law on August 28, 2017.Read More