If you noticed headlines last week that the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation prohibiting employer from discriminating against job applicants because of their age, you might have wondered: does that mean it’s currently permissible to do so?
Estimating, reporting, and mitigating risk concerning environmental justice (“EJ”) has increasingly become a complex undertaking. The EPA defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.”
Perhaps I should not have been surprised that my clients who have mandated COVID-19 vaccines have seen far more objections to their mandates based on religious grounds than on medical conditions or disabilities.
September 1st is coming. And with it a change to Texas’ employment discrimination law arguably making supervisors or managers liable for sexual harassment. Now is a great time to dust off that sexual harassment training.
A new report by economists from The University of Chicago (“Chicago”) and the University of California, Berkeley (“Berkeley”) is grabbing headlines for claiming it will show a number of Fortune 500 companies discriminate based upon whether names on applications are more traditionally associated with white applicants or with black applicants.
Employers who have been nervous about implementing or enforcing new vaccination policies should be relieved to see the updated technical guidance issued on May 28, 2021, by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).
Companies looking to cut costs will consider potential savings in all parts of their businesses, including at the top of the organization. But before proceeding with any proposals to trim the size of the leadership team or to reduce compensation costs, there are two key areas that every employer should consider first.
In its COVID-19 Q&A guidance, the EEOC has concluded that, while an employer may require reliable virus testing as part of its workplace screening procedures, COVID-19 antibody tests are not similarly permissible, at least for the time being.
We have all seen the data: Eighty percent of the people who have died of COVID-19 in the United States have been 65 or older.
Nearly five years ago, I was driving south on Highway 59 to visit a client’s facility. At 9 a.m., I pulled over on the shoulder near Edna, Texas, got out my phone and went to https://www.scotusblog.com/ to check if the Supreme Court had issued its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.
The guiding principle for employers to follow when asking or talking about individual employees’ health concerns is “data minimization.” In other words, employers should collect and share employee health information only to the extent necessary to protect the workforce from COVID-19 exposure and should keep those records confidential.