Employment Law Observer

On April 29, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published a final version of its Enforcement Guidance on Workplace Harassment. The new guidance provides  updates and agency direction on workplace harassment in virtual or online work environments, as well as harassment related to sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, and religion.

Last December, this blog detailed SB1343 and the law's requirements for employers with five or more employees to provide anti-harassment training. SB1343 expands existing anti-harassment training requirements, and also covers seasonal and temporary workers. Employers are required to provide their non-supervisory employees with one hour of training, and supervisory employees are required to complete two hours of training. The training must then be repeated every two years thereafter. Originally, the deadline for completing the initial training was set at January 1, 2020.

As Illinois employers get into the swing of 2019, do not forget Illinois has a new and additional posting requirement that came about as a result of amendments to the Illinois Human Rights Act in the Fall of 2018. That posting requirement obligates employers to post the notice found here with your other postings to employees and to include the substance of the content in your employee handbooks. It reminds employees of their right to be free from discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation, as well as their right to a reasonable accommodation for pregnancy and disabilities.

It is the end of the year and while everyone is busy, employers in California should be aware of new laws and regulations that go into effect on January 1, 2019. In the spirit of the season, we have used the "12 days of the holidays" to blog about one California law a day and that law's impact on California employers. Without further ado, on the twelfth day of Christmas, my Labor and Employment attorney gave to me—twelve lords a leaping and SB 1300. We saved SB 1300 for the end because it is chock full of important changes for employers.

It's the end of the year and while everyone is busy, employers in California should be aware of new laws and regulations that go into effect on January 1, 2019. In the spirit of the season, we are using the next "12 days of the holidays" to blog about one California law a day and that law's impact on California employers. On the eighth day of Christmas, my Labor and Employment attorney gave to me—eight maids a milking and AB 3082 and AB 2338.

It's the end of the year and while everyone is busy, employers in California should be aware of new laws and regulations that go into effect on January 1, 2019. In the spirit of the season, we are using the next "12 days of the holidays" to blog about one California law a day and that law's impact on California employers. Without further adieu, on the second day of Christmas, my Labor and Employment attorney gave to me—two turtle doves and SB 1343.

Employers frequently raise failure to report harassment as a defense in Title VII and related state cases. After all, how can you end harassing behavior if you are not aware of it. As the Eleventh Circuit reminded us earlier this week, that defense breaks down if the employer is aware of the conduct.

Employers are equipped and know how to handle complaints of racial discrimination and harassment—or at least should be so prepared. However, facts have a funny way of developing into novel situations. What happens, for instance, if an employee is being called a racist by other employees?

In a milestone decision, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held discrimination based on an employee’s transgender or transitioning status violates Title VII. In addition, the court held as a matter of law that a religious employer “cannot rely on customers’ presumed biases to establish a substantial burden” under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Thus, the employer’s sincerely held religious beliefs did not free it from the proscriptions of Title VII.

Earlier this week, an NLRB attorney issued an advice memo concluding that software giant Google did not violate Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), when the company terminated software engineer James Damore, who penned a controversial memo criticizing Google’s diversity initiatives. The memo, and Google's swift reaction, were widely covered in the press and speculation followed questioning whether Google's response was appropriate or whether it would face a challenge.