SimplyHR | Employment & Labor Blog 

In a groundbreaking ruling released recently, Unknown v. Anthony Foxx, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission confirmed that allegations of sexual orientation discrimination necessarily state a claim of sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).

In a decision reversing 30 years of precedent, the Missouri Supreme Court recently abandoned the “exclusive causation” standard previously applied to workers’ compensation retaliation claims in favor of the considerably more lenient “contributing factor” standard. See Templemire v. W & M Welding, Inc., SC93132, 2014 WL 1464574 (Mo. Apr. 15, 2014) (en banc).

The EEOC’s April 2012 Enforcement Guidance on employers’ use of criminal record screens has led many employers to question, or at least revisit, their background review procedures. This guidance not only urges employers to conduct “targeted” background screens (which consider the nature of each crime reported by prospective employees, the nature of the job in question, and the time elapsed after each crime reported), but further calls employers to engage in individualized assessments of those individuals screened out because of a background review.

Job dislocations, mass layoffs, plant closings. News of these events has become more and more prevalent in recent years, leaving many employers grappling with how to handle complicated PR and legal issues in today’s changing job market.

One issue often overlooked by employers is whether they must “WARN” affected employees in such situations. The failure to consider this question or the failure to reach the “right” conclusion can have devastating consequences for an employer – particularly when an affected employee opts to file a class action challenging the employer’s decision.

In today’s economy, employers are receiving orders to garnish employee wages on an increasingly frequent basis. Causing even bigger headaches are situations in which multiple garnishments are received for the same employee. For example, it is not unusual for an employee to be subject to both a defaulted student loan and a child support order at the same time. And, if a garnishment order is ignored or interpreted incorrectly, your Company could be liable for your employee’s debt, in addition to legal fees and sometimes penalties! On the other hand, you could be obligated to repay your employee if you withhold too much!

So what’s an employer to do to minimize liability and ensure compliance? 

The use of medical marijuana is currently authorized in 18 states and the District of Columbia. Two of these states—Colorado and Washington—have also legalized the recreational use of marijuana. Despite these recent changes in state law, marijuana remains illegal under federal law, creating confusion as to how the passage of these laws will affect employers’ rights in the workplace.

The simple answer is that state laws legalizing marijuana (whether for medicinal or recreational use), do not change an employer’s rights. Federal law still prohibits the use of marijuana, even for medicinal purposes.