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.

On April 15, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published a Final Rule to implement regulations aimed at enforcing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).

On August 11, 2023, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to issue regulations that would support the implementation and enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).[1] Enacted in 2022, the PWFA requires covered entities (i.e., private and public sector employees with at least fifteen employees, Congress, federal agencies, employment agencies, and labor organizations)[2] to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees or applicants with known limitations relating to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the covered entities' business operations. The PFWA became effective on June 27, 2023.

Seven years after the Supreme Court's decision in Young v. UPS articulated the legal standard required to establish intentional discrimination in the context of pregnancy discrimination, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit unanimously affirmed summary judgment in favor of the employer and its light duty policy, which was limited only to employees injured on the job. If you initially scratched your head and wondered how such a decision could be reached post-Young, we'll help unpack the apparent discrepancy.

On November 5, 2021, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). It required employers of 100 or more employees to institute mandates requiring employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19—or require weekly testing of its employees. That same day, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) similarly issued an Interim Final Rule (IFR) requiring the workforces of Medicare- and Medicaid-certified providers and suppliers to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 in order for Medicare and Medicaid facilities to continue participation in those programs. Many employers have also instituted COVID-19 vaccination mandates for their employees separate from OSHA’s ETS and CMS’s IFR.

The 2021 regular session of the Texas Legislature produced two employee-friendly bills that found their way to the Governor's desk and were signed into law. Both laws will go into effect on September 1, 2021.

As businesses prepare to re-open, many employers will be concerned about the risk of workplace transmission of the COVID-19 disease. Testing employees before allowing them to enter the workplace is one preventative measure employers are considering. However, this measure has been clouded by uncertainty, because a test for COVID-19 could be considered a medical inquiry under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which is only permitted if the inquiry is job-related and consistent with business necessity.

The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently remanded a decision of the National Labor Relations Board (the "Board"), thus compelling the Board to revisit and clarify its position on the scope of Section 7 protection for speech or conduct which may subject an employer to liability under other statutes, including Title VII. The D.C. Circuit concluded that the Board failed to consider key arguments raised by the employer, namely, the conflict between the Board's interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and an employer's obligation to provide a workplace free of unlawful harassment under state and federal equal employment opportunity laws.

In response to an amicus brief submitted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has agreed to review General Motors LLC, a case which reveals a tension between the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 regarding employee racial outbursts during union activity. The EEOC requested the NLRB to change its test for determining whether or not an employee outburst is protected by the NLRA when it includes racially-charged language. The NLRB's decision could provide employers with more flexibility in disciplining employees for racial misconduct during union activity.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has issued another ruling regarding an obesity-related disability accommodation request under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Earlier this past summer, we reported on another Seventh Circuit case, in which the court held that obesity is not an ADA-protected disability unless it is caused by a physiological disorder or condition. In Ronald Shell v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company, the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court's decision, and ruled that an obese applicant for a safety-sensitive position—who was not hired due to his obesity—cannot claim discrimination under the "regarded as" prong of the ADA.

Regulators, judges and academics have all been vexed over the issue of whether obesity, not caused by an underlying physiological condition, is a disability covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Notwithstanding existing EEOC Enforcement Guidance that obesity is in and of itself protected under the ADA, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently weighed in on the issue and held obesity is not an ADA-protected disability unless it is caused by a physiological disorder or condition.

On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States made a ruling that employers and their legal counsel need to be aware of. In Fort Bend County v. Davis, the Supreme Court ruled that the charge-filing requirements for EEOC discrimination claims filed under Title VII, including that Act's scope of charge and filing rules, are not jurisdictional and instead are claims processing rules which can be waived by a defendant if not timely raised in federal court proceedings. This decision resolves a split among multiple federal Circuit Courts which have confronted the issue.

The EEOC is immediately reinstating the revised EEO-1 pay data survey previously put on hold by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), even as the U.S. Department of Labor seeks to challenge the court ruling that mandated the data collection. The deadline for filing Component 2 data for calendar years 2017 and 2018 will be September 30, 2019. The EEOC will begin collecting Component 2 data sometime in mid-July, but the precise date is still unknown. The EEOC will notify filers of the opening date "as soon as it is available."

In a move directed at addressing inequities in pay and preventing pay discrimination, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia rejected the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) decision to stay the collection of pay data by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Unclear from the Court's decision, however, is when the EEOC will begin implementation of the pay data collection. For employers subject to this requirement, organizing pay records and information will only help streamline their reporting process once it gets underway.

Many employers incorporate wellness programs into their group health plans. Studies indicate that such programs, which can provide incentives to employees to encourage healthy behaviors, are offered by more than half of all employers who sponsor a health plan.

The recent federal government shutdown left the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) mostly shuttered. As a result, the commission has announced an extension of the 2018 EEO-1 reporting period deadline to May 31, 2019. The online reporting period will begin in early March, although the exact opening date has yet to be announced. Employers can visit the EEOC website for updates.

Reminding employers of their obligation to accommodate pregnant employees in the same manner as non-pregnant employees, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently filed a sex discrimination lawsuit against a North Carolina nursing center. The complaint alleges the center violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (PDA) when it terminated two nursing assistants because of their pregnancy-related restrictions. In one case, the center placed the nursing assistant on unpaid leave when she asked the center to accommodate a pulling, lifting, and pushing restriction placed on her by her physician, then terminated her employment. The center terminated the second employee for similar reasons. The EEOC alleges the nursing center had the ability to accommodate such restrictions because they accommodated similar restrictions for non-pregnant employees who suffered work injuries.The EEOC is seeking declaratory and compensatory relief, as well as other monetary relief, for the terminated employees.

Last week the Seventh Circuit dealt a blow to the EEOC's continued position that medical leave is a reasonable accommodation when the leave is (1) of a definite, time-limited duration; (2) re-quested in advance; and (3) likely to enable the employee to perform the essential job functions upon return. The panel rejected that position, noting it glossed over the length of the requested leave, improperly transforming the ADA into "an open-ended extension of the FMLA."

The long-running efforts of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to provide guidance on what constitutes a “voluntary” wellness program were called into question by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in the case A.A.R.P. vs. U.S. E.E.O.C.

The EEOC issued Proposed Enforcement Guidance on Unlawful Harassment on January 10, 2017. It is designed to consolidate numerous agency guidelines into one document and addresses hostile work environment harassment prohibited by statutes enforced by the EEOC. The Guidance examines three primary elements of a harassment claim. First, is the conduct based on a legally protected status; second, is the conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment; and third, is there a basis for employer liability. The 75-page treatise covers key case law since the Supreme Court first recognized harassment as an actionable form of discrimination in 1986.