SimplyHR | Employment & Labor Blog 

Subscribe

Blog Editors

Topics

Archives

By Lauren Daming, Lauren Harris on January 31, 2019 at 11:50 AM

Work desk with dirty tissues, a coffee mug, and a sign on the computer that says "Sick Leave"For employers, flu season is a great time for a checkup – not with your doctor, but with your policies and procedures related to employee sick leave. Below are some common questions employers may have about how to handle employee sick leave during this flu season.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ Email
By Katherine Fechte, Lauren Daming, Lauren Harris on January 18, 2019 at 10:10 AM

"2018" written out with wooden blocks with a person rotating the "8" to a "9"2018 was a relatively quiet year in federal employment law developments, but the stage is set for a much more active 2019. Below is a summary of major federal employment law headlines and a look at what employers can expect in 2019.

For Missouri and Illinois employers, a review of 2018 state updates and a look forward at 2019 can be found here.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ Email
By Katherine Fechte, Lauren Daming, Lauren Harris on January 18, 2019 at 9:56 AM

Missouri & Illinois state capitals, side by side with the words "New laws Missouri and Illinois employers should know" overlayedEmployers in Missouri and Illinois saw the passage of several new employment-related laws in 2018. Below is a look at some legislative highlights of 2018 and how they might affect your business in 2019.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ Email
By Dennis Collins, Lauren Harris on June 29, 2018 at 11:40 AM

U.S. Supreme Court BuildingThe U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion June 27 in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), holding that nonunion members working in union positions for public employers are not obligated to pay agency fees, also known as “fair share” fees. This overturns Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977) which set the precedent that as long as the agency fees represent the percentage of the union’s expenditures for collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment purposes, then state governments can legislate that public employees employed in positions represented by unions, even though not union members, can be required to pay service charges or agency fees. In conjunction, unions are required to provide detailed notices of how the agency fees are being spent for “chargeable” activities (contract and bargaining based activities) and “non-chargeable” activities (political and lobbying activities). It should be noted that federal law prohibits unions that bargain for federal workers to charge agency fees to nonunion members, but according to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 27 percent of the federal workforce are union members.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ Email
By Lauren Harris on June 20, 2018 at 1:33 PM

Person filling out an employment application on a mobile phoneOn June 9, 2018, Kansas City, Missouri’s “ban-the-box” ordinance went into effect. The ordinance is applicable to private employers with six or more employees and is being touted as Ban-the-Box-PLUS, since it not only prohibits the use of questions about criminal background on the job application form but also requires employers to have additional justifiable reasons for using an applicant or employee’s criminal background as the basis for any employment decision.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ Email
By Lauren Harris, T. Christopher Bailey on June 7, 2018 at 2:50 PM

Person decorating a white wedding cakeOn June 4, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court released its long-awaited decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), which examined whether a Colorado bakery violated that state’s Anti-Discrimination Act by refusing to bake a wedding cake celebrating a same-sex marriage ceremony. While a 7-2 majority of the court sided with the bakery, the much-anticipated decision left more questions unanswered than answered. The decision and concurring and dissenting opinions can be read here.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ Email
By Katherine Fechte, Lauren Daming, Lauren Harris, Camille Toney, Audrie Howard on February 8, 2018 at 2:50 PM

"2017" and "2018" written on metal wheelsThe federal employment law landscape saw some interesting developments in 2017, as well as some anticipated changes that were ultimately halted or delayed. Below is a summary of major federal employment law headlines and a look at what employers can expect in 2018.

For Missouri and Illinois employers specifically, a review of 2017 updates and a look forward at 2018 can be found here.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ Email
By Katherine Fechte, Lauren Daming, Lauren Harris, Camille Toney, Audrie Howard on February 8, 2018 at 2:50 PM

Missouri and Illinois highlighted in red on a map.Employers in Missouri and Illinois saw the passage of several new employment-related laws in 2017. Below is a look at some legislative highlights of 2017 and how they might affect your business in 2018.

Missouri employment laws

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ Email
By Lauren Harris on January 26, 2018 at 1:38 PM

Female intern carrying coffees in a hallwayThe U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) this month issued its revised Fact Sheet #71 on “Internship Programs Under the Fair Labor Standards Act” outlining that the agency will rely on the court-approved “primary beneficiary test” to determine whether an intern should be considered an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). 

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ Email
By Lauren Harris on August 28, 2017 at 3:29 PM

Image of the words "What's next?" written on a piece of paperThis summer, Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens signed into law Senate Bill 43, which substantially changes the way the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) will be administered and interpreted. The MHRA’s core purpose is to prohibit employers from basing employment decisions on a person’s race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age or disability, and it prohibits retaliation for engaging in protected activities covered under the act.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ Email