As we outlined more fully in our earlier post, Ohio’s new medical marijuana law takes effect next month. Employers should be reminded that business groups lobbied for an exception allowing employers with drug-free workplace policies to take adverse action against applicants and employees for medical marijuana use.
Special thanks to summer associate Sara Schiavone for her work on this blog post.
Human resource professionals who are managing the immigration processing for Indian nonimmigrant employees should be aware of the increased processing times for the visa application at consulates in India. The extraordinary increase in routine processing for nonimmigrant visas requires significantly more planning to avoid long periods of non-productivity while employees are stranded abroad waiting for a visa appointment.
It was not that long ago that one week was seen as a standard timeframe to receive an interview appointment. However, applicants now experience wait times as long as four months. As of July 2016, current wait times for nonimmigrant visa (NIV) interview appointments other than B (visitor), F (student) and J (exchange visitor) at the following consular posts are: Continue Reading
As we reported last year, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) planned to issue a Final Rule updating its sex discrimination regulations for federal contractors and subcontractors for the first time since the 1970s. In doing so, sex discrimination prohibitions for federal contractors have been modernized to include discrimination on the bases of sex, pregnancy, childbirth, pregnancy-related medical conditions, gender identity, transgender status and sex stereotyping. Notably, sexual orientation was excluded from the definition.
The Final Rule amends regulations implementing Executive Order 11246, which prohibits discrimination by federal contractors on sever bases, including sex. The Final Rule applies only to companies that are contractors and subcontractors of a covered federal contract (totaling $10,000 or more over a 12-month period). The Final Rule includes mandatory provisions targeted at prohibiting modern issues of sex discrimination, as well as some advisory “best practices.” Continue Reading
A special thanks to summer clerk Arslan Sheikh for his assistance with this article
On June 27th, 2016, a federal district court in Texas issued a preliminary injunction, temporarily blocking the Department of Labor’s (DOL) new interpretation of the “Persuader Rule.” This injunction, which is national in scope, is a big win for employers and attorneys alike as it provides both parties more latitude to discuss union avoidance issues without being subject to reporting requirements. The Texas court’s decision means that the DOL must continue to exempt an attorney from reporting to the DOL on advice given to clients pertaining to union avoidance and employee relations, as long as the attorney does not communicate directly with non-supervisory employees. For example, this injunction means that an attorney may lawfully, without reporting, prepare documents and speeches for an employer’s use during union organizing, train managers and supervisors through seminars, and develop personnel policies and practices for an employer to implement.
As we previously reported, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) new “Persuader Rule” is set to take effect July 1, 2016. The rule is highly controversial because it requires employers and labor relations consultants, including attorneys, to file reports with the DOL regarding any arrangements to assist the employer in “persuading” employees regarding their rights to engage in, or refrain from engaging in, union organizing activities or to collectively bargain. Under the new Persuader Rule, many legal services that labor consultants and lawyers typically provide to employers will have to be reported to the federal government effective July 1, 2016. Examples of activities that will have to be reported under the new rule include:
- Planning, directing or coordinating activities undertaken by supervisors or other employer representatives, including meetings and interactions with employees
- Providing material or communication for dissemination to employees
- Conducting a union avoidance seminar for supervisors and other employer representations
- Develop or implement personnel policies, practices, or actions for the employer that are intended to influence or persuade employees regarding their rights to engage or abstain from engaging in union organizing activities
A special thanks to one of our summer clerks, Abigail Chin, for her assistance with this article.
In the wake of Ohio’s new medical marijuana law, you may be thinking, what does it mean for your drug-free workplace policy? Ohio’s new medical marijuana law, H.B. 523, provides targeted exceptions for employers.
Ohio’s law goes into effect in approximately 90 days; however, it is expected that full implementation could take up to two years before the Ohio Department of Commerce, State Medical Board and Board of Pharmacy can establish licensing requirements for growers, processors, testing laboratories, dispensaries and physicians. H.B. 523 allows people with the following qualified medical conditions to receive a physician’s recommendation for medical marijuana: HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer’s disease, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), cancer, chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), Crohn’s disease, epilepsy or another seizure disorder, fibromyalgia, glaucoma, hepatitis C, inflammatory bowel disease, multiple sclerosis, pain that is chronic, severe and intractable, Parkinson’s disease, post-traumatic stress disorder, sickle cell anemia, spinal cord disease or injury, Tourette’s syndrome, traumatic brain injury and ulcerative colitis. Marijuana is only permitted in certain forms, like edibles and vaporizers; as smoking it is prohibited under the new law. Continue Reading
As our sister blog, Technology Law Source has reported, on May 11, 2016, President Obama signed into law the Defending Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), which creates a federal trade secret misappropriation cause of action. As noted, businesses have a lot to consider in deciding whether to pursue this new cause of action in federal court when the security of their trade secrets are threatened. Because the DTSA does not pre-empt state laws protecting trade secrets, however, if a federal forum is otherwise appealing, there really is no reason not to pursue a DTSA cause of action.
Employers will be particularly interested in knowing that the DTSA includes an immunity from criminal and civil liability for employees who disclose their employers’ trade secrets if:
- the disclosure is made in confidence to a federal, state, or local government official, directly or indirectly, or to an attorney solely for the purpose of reporting a violation of law;
- it is made in a complaint or other document filed under seal in a lawsuit or other proceeding.
The DTSA also permits an individual who files a lawsuit against his or her employer alleging retaliation for reporting a suspected violation of law to disclose the employer’s trade secret to an attorney and use it in a court proceeding if the document containing the trade secret is filed under seal and in response to a court order. Continue Reading
On May 11, 2016, OSHA issued a final rule requiring electronic reporting of illnesses and injuries. The new rules apply to establishments with 250 or more employees. The rules require electronic submission of the 2016 OSHA form 300A summary report by July 1, 2017, and the 2017 300 log, 300A summary and 301 incident report for 2017 by July 1, 2018. In each subsequent year, all reports for every establishment must be submitted by March 2 of the following year. The new rules also require employers in high-risk industries (construction, manufacturing, furniture stores, waste collection and nursing care facilities) with 20-249 employees to electronically submit their 300A summary. OSHA has stated that no exceptions will be granted to employers who file the required reports in paper format. The information electronically submitted by employers will then be posted on OSHA’s website. OSHA has stated that it will post establishment-specific data but not post any data that would identify any employee. However, in major injury incidents (especially those where there is publicity), it would not be difficult to determine the identity of the employee(s).
OSHA has stated that it believes that publishing the data will encourage safer workplaces. In addition, OSHA has said that it intends to use the data to determine the employers and industries on which to focus its enforcement efforts.
This is a major change from the current injury and illness recording requirements. Presently, employers are required to maintain the 300 logs, 301 incident reports and 300A annual summary and to post the 300A summary in the workplace each year. There is no requirement to submit the records to OSHA. Generally, OSHA only reviews them in the event of an onsite inspection. The only current obligation to report to OSHA is the requirement to report fatalities, amputations, hospitalizations or the loss of an eye. Continue Reading
Today the Department of Labor (DOL) issued information about the final rules increasing the salary minimum for employees covered by the white-collar FLSA exemptions. While the official rules have not been published yet, here are the key points you need to know:
- The new minimum salary level will rise to $47,476 or $913 per week
- The annual compensation for highly compensated employees will rise to $134,004
- The effective date of the changes is Dec. 1, 2016
- The salary and compensation levels will automatically rise every three years
- Employers may use nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) to satisfy up to 10 percent of the new minimum salary level
- The rules make no changes to the duties tests
- The DOL has a webpage with additional details and fact sheets, which is where the officially-published rules will be posted when available
We will keep you posted on further developments.
Earlier this week, the EEOC issued new guidance addressing what it described as common issues it continues to see in discrimination charges filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act. This new guidance provides nothing new that has not already been included in its Revised Enforcement Guidance: Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, but does highlight, among other issues, the EEOC’s view that the ADA requires employers to: Continue Reading