With rapid developments in local, state and federal guidance and law, the appropriate approach for each employer in relation to COVID-19 will vary depending on the nature of their work, the industries served and their location and size, among other considerations. This article outlines what employers need to know about employees experiencing symptoms and employee absences.
A growing number of medical organizations, courts and administrative bodies have stated that transition-related medical care is medically necessary and should be covered by employer-sponsored medical plans. Access to employer-sponsored healthcare coverage for transgender workers has become an issue of focus for civil rights advocacy groups such as Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union, and there has been an uptick in discrimination lawsuits filed against health plans and insurers denying such care.
These trends highlight the importance of weighing the legal and business considerations that come with providing (or not providing) comprehensive health benefits for transgender workers. Health plan sponsors and insurers should consider how the decision to provide or exclude transition-related medical coverage will affect their legal compliance, overall costs and workplace culture—all of which are discussed in this article.
Originally published in Benefits Magazine, August 2019.
The federal government’s focus on pay equity and pay data, and the passage of groundbreaking equal pay laws in a number of states, has been one of the biggest employment law developments of 2016. Litigation involving pay equity claims has also risen in the past year. Given the increased focus on pay equity from these multiple sources, employers are well-advised to examine their compensation policies and practices. Understanding and applying the varying tests for pay equity under federal and state statutes can pose a challenge, however.
To learn more, please join us for an in-depth webinar on Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 12:00-1:00pm EST.
On December 30, 2015, a federal judge in the Western District of Wisconsin ruled in favor of Flambeau, Inc. and against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in holding that Flambeau’s medical exams as part of its wellness program and self-insured medical plan did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
On October, 30, 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a proposed rule that would amend regulations implementing Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), as they relate to employer wellness programs. Title II of GINA protects employees from employment discrimination based on their genetic information, including the health status of workers’ families.
Susan M. Nash wrote this bylined article about the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) long-awaited guidance on when it will enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against employers who sponsor certain types of employee wellness programs. “Although still in proposed form, the proposed rule provides insight into EEOC’s approach toward regulating employer wellness programs,” Ms. Nash wrote.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released a long-awaited proposed rule amending regulations implementing Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act to provide guidance regarding the extent to which employers may use incentives to encourage employees to participate in wellness programs that include disability-related inquiries and/or medical examinations. The proposed rule provides insight into the EEOC’s approach to regulating employer wellness programs, so employers should consider reviewing their wellness programs for consistency with the proposed rule.
Last month, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued joint guidance addressing the use of background checks in employment decisions. The guidance does not offer new requirements related to background checks, but rather serves as a reminder to employers of their obligations under federal law when they use background checks, and creates a user-friendly guide to applicants and employees regarding their rights with respect to background checks.
The guidance consists of two documents – one for employers, “Background Checks: What Employers Need to Know,” and one for applicants and employees, “Background Checks: What Job Applicants and Employees Should Know.” The first document, “What Employers Need to Know,” offers guidance to employers on their existing legal obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FRCA), a federal law enforced by the FTC, and federal non-discrimination laws enforced by the EEOC. The document reminds employers that under FCRA employers must obtain written permission from job applicants and employees before conducting a background check, and must notify applicants and employees that background reports may be used to make decisions about employment. In addition, the agencies reaffirm that employers must not discriminate based on a person’s race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age (40 or older) or disability when requesting or using background information for employment. Finally, the guidance discusses the requirements related to the retention, preservation and disposal of personnel or employment records.
The second document, “What Job Applicants and Employees Should Know,” describes applicants’ and employees’ rights under federal law when an employer conducts background checks. The agencies remind applicants and employees that it is lawful for potential employers to ask about applicants’ or employees’ backgrounds or require a background check, as long as the employer does not unlawfully discriminate. The guidance also states that employers must not ask for medical information until they offer an applicant a job, and can only ask for genetic information under limited circumstances (for example, when an employer offers health or genetic services as part of a voluntary wellness program, or if the information is required to comply with the Family and Medical Leave Act). Finally, the guidance explains that when applicants have been turned down for a job or denied a promotion based on information in their background reports, they have the right to review the report for accuracy.
This marks the first time the two agencies have jointly issued guidance, which seems to indicate that both agencies have a vested interest in enforcing the laws related to employer use of background checks, and perhaps serves as a signal to employers that both agencies consider this topic a priority. Employers should consider reviewing the new guidance, and ensure that their policies and practices with respect to background checks comply with federal law, as well as applicable state and local law.
by Stephen D. Erf, Chris C. Scheithauer and Heather Egan Sussman.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently amended its regulations under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) concerning disparate impact claims. The final rule, which became effective on April 30, 2012, is likely to impose significant administrative burdens on employers as well as increase potential litigation exposure and costs of ADEA claims.
To read the full article, click here.
by Heather Egan Sussman, Stephen D. Erf and Sabrina Dunlap
On April 25, 2012, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued new guidance for employers on using arrest and conviction records when making employment decisions. The guidance, which is available here, passed by a 4-1 vote of EEOC commissioners, and consolidates and supersedes the EEOC’s prior policies on this topic.
The agency decided to re-evaluate its policy on the use of criminal background checks in employment decisions after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit suggested to the EEOC in a 2007 case that the agency provide analysis and updated research on the use of background checks in employment. Since 2007 the EEOC has examined social science and criminological research, as well as court decisions and state and federal laws, to assess the effect of the use of criminal records and background checks in employment decisions. Of particular concern to the EEOC are the arrest and incarceration rates for certain minority groups, and the potential that the use of criminal records and background checks in employment decisions could have a disparate impact on people in those groups.
While the new guidance does not change the EEOC’s fundamental position on applying principles of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (the federal law prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, etc.) to an employer’s use of criminal records in the workplace, it does offer more in-depth analysis of disparate treatment and disparate impact, and provides employers with clearer rules on the proper use of criminal records and background checks. In particular, the guidance explains in detail how employers can establish a defense to claims of disparate impact by showing that employment decisions based on criminal records or background checks are job-related and consistent with business necessity.
In addition to the guidance, the EEOC issued a Q&A, available here. (Note that certain states have further restrictions regarding how such information is gathered and used.) Please stay tuned for a more detailed discussion of the guidance and its implications for employers.
Subscribe
