The U.S. law firm of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is very pleased to announce that Chicago-based labor & employment partner Brette Bensinger was honored by Law Bulletin Media with a "2017 Forty Illinois Attorneys Under 40 to Watch" award. As recognized in a special supplement published by The Chicago Lawyer, recipients are selected for their "intelligence, passion, success in the office, and desire to help the community." More than 1,500 nominations were submitted for the award this year.

Chicago, IL. – Twenty-seven Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP lawyers are included on a new list of the up-and-coming lawyers who best exhibit “exceptional character” and “outstanding aptitude,” as determined by the top private practice lawyers in Illinois.

Boston; Chicago; Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Los Angeles; Rockford, Illinois – The national law firm of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is proud to announce the election of the following attorneys to partnership:

The Chicago Dental Society quoted Brette Bensinger at length in their November/December edition of CDS Review, discussing the City of Chicago's new employee paid time off ordinance. Bensinger explained how the ordinance will impact most Chicago businesses, including dental practices, because the legislation considers an employer to be anyone who "gainfully" employs at least one employee.

For more information, please visit Hinshaw's Annual Labor & Employment Seminar page.

For more information, please visit Hinshaw's 24th Annual Labor & Employment Seminar page.

Brette Bensinger, Leigh Bonsall, and Maryjo Pirages Reynolds will present a webinar titled "Employer Compliance and COVID-19: Paid Sick Leave, Furloughs and Layoffs," on April 23, 2020 from 2:00 – 3:00 p.m. Central.

On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Groff v. Dejoy, a ground-breaking decision that changes a long-recognized standard for religious accommodations in the workplace. This new interpretation effectively expands an employer's obligation to provide religious accommodations. For years, appellate courts recognized an employer's authority to reject a religious accommodation merely by showing it creates a de minimus burden on the employer or co-workers. With this decision, the Court rejected the routine application of the de minimus standard in favor of one where the employer must show the "accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business" if rejected. Now an employer must make an individualized assessment as to the impact of the accommodation, taking into account the employer’s nature, size, and resources. Even where the requested accommodation would result in substantially increased costs, the employer is obligated to evaluate the feasibility of alternative accommodations.

On January 20, 2021, President Biden announced the principal points of his American Rescue Plan (the Plan), a new COVID-19 relief package that would revive the federal mandate on employers to provide paid sick and paid FMLA leave for certain COVID-19-related absences. On February 1, 2021, Republican lawmakers responded with a competing relief package that does not include those paid leave mandates. As of now, neither side has released a draft of the actual proposed legislation. Much of what we know comes from the announcement released by the Biden administration and a chart from Republican Senators.

The U.S. Department of Labor issued a Temporary Rule on September 11, 2020, which revises regulations concerning paid sick leave and expanded family medical leave under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). The rule, which goes into effect on September 16, 2020, was issued in response to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's decision in State of New York v. Department of Labor on August 3, 2020, which struck down portions of the FFCRA regulations.

In a move that made headlines across the country, two federal government agencies issued a significant guidance document last week interpreting Title IX's requirements for protecting transgender students' rights.

On Thursday, November 9, 2023, the Chicago City Council voted to approve a new paid time off ordinance, the “Chicago Paid Leave and Paid Sick and Safe Leave Ordinance.” This new ordinance replaces the Chicago Paid Sick Leave Ordinance, and employees will begin accruing time under its requirements on January 1, 2024. We break down the new requirements in a question-and-answer format.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a Temporary Rule on September 11, 2020, regarding the paid sick leave and expanded family medical leave rules under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). Effective September 16, 2020, the Temporary Rule addresses the four main areas of the FFCRA that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York struck down in State of New York v. United States Department of Labor: (1) the FFCRA's "work-availability" requirement, (2) the FFCRA's definition of "health care provider," (3) the requirement that employees may only take intermittent leave where their employers consent, and (4) the FFCRA's requirement that employees provide their employers with the required documentation prior to taking their FFCRA leave.

On April 23, 2020, Brette Bensinger, Maryjo Pirages Reynolds, and Leigh Bonsall presented a webinar titled "Employer compliance and COVID-19: Paid sick Leave, Furloughs and Layoffs." Hosted by the Chicago Bar Association, the program provided an overview of the Federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) and its emergency FMLA and paid sick leave requirements, and unemployment relief provided by the CARES Act. The presentation also addressed the EEOC's guidance regarding COVID-19, including the interplay between CDC guidelines and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Welcome to the Labor & Employment Chronicle, our quarterly newsletter that reviews the top stories from Hinshaw's Employment Law Observer blog.

Download the hardcopy newsletter: The Report Card- June 2014 

Another Court Strikes Down NLRB Posting Rule The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) required employers who were subject to its jurisdiction to post a "Notification of Employee Rights under the National Labor Relations Act" on their properties and websites. The posting advised employees of their rights to: form, join or assist a union; bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing; discuss wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment with fellow employees or a union; take action to improve working conditions; strike and picket; or choose not to do any of those things. If an employer failed to post this information, it would be subject to an unfair labor practice charge. If the employer was found to have violated this rule, the NLRB was permitted to suspend the running of the six-month limitations period for filing any unfair labor practice charge, and to consider whether the employer knowingly and willfully refused to comply with the law. Various organizations and trade associations sued, claiming that the rule violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the First Amendment. The district court held that the NLRB had authority to promulgate the posting rule, and that it was reasonably related to the purposes of the NLRA, but that the NLRB had no authority to make a "blanket advance determination that a failure to post will always constitute an unfair labor practice." The district court also found invalid the section of the rule that tolled the limitations period. Notwithstanding the fact that two of the three means of enforcing the rule were held invalid, the district court held that the NLRB would have wanted the posting requirement to stand. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the notice rule as invalid. The court found that Section 8(c) of the NLRA "precludes the Board from finding noncoercive employer speech to be an unfair labor practice or evidence of an unfair labor practice," but that here, the NLRB's rule did both. The court then found that the NLRB's tolling rule was contrary to Section 10(b) of the NLRA and could not stand. Because all three of the means for enforcing the NLRB's posting requirement were ultimately held invalid, the court vacated the posting rule. Employers subject to the jurisdiction of the NLRA are not required to post the subject notification at this time under the circumstances. However, employers are cautioned to consult with counsel to ensure compliance with requirements under the NLRA. National Association of Manufacturers et al. v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 12-5068 (D.C. Cir. May 7, 2013)