SP&F Attorneys

FMLA Amended Definition of Spouse to Include Same Sex Spouses

SP&F Team — Fri, 27 Feb 2015 20:42:30 +0000

On February 25, 2015 the DOL issued a final rule amending the definition of spouse under the rules implementing FMLA to be consistent with the US Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor which struck down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)as unconstitutional. The amended regulatory definition for spouse was in order “that eligible employees in legal same-sex marriages will be able to care for their spouse or family member, regardless of where they live.” The Final Rule is effective on March 27, 2015.

The Wage and Hour Fact Sheet can be found at FMLA

If you have questions regarding FMLA, please contact Dina Atwood .

Education Law Session Vermont Principals’ Association- January 13, 2015

SP&F Team — Mon, 01 Dec 2014 20:10:19 +0000

On January 13, 2015 Steve Stitzel and Dina Atwood will be presenting: Current Issues in Labor and Personnel Law: a Workshop for Public School Administrators and Legislative Update for the Vermont Principals’ Association.

The workshop is designed to help school administrators, human resource professionals and business managers stay up to date and compliant with the myriad of labor and employment laws which affect school districts and supervisory unions. Topics covered will be: labor negotiations and collective bargaining; Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Americans with Disabilities Acts (as amended), FLSA Wage and Hour compliance; how to hire, evaluate, discipline and fire personnel; what to cover in an exit interview; how to craft effective performance plans; and, relevant legislative updates to employment laws.

Registration is through the VPA and the deadline is January 7, 2015

If you have questions about the seminar or general labor, human resources, collective bargaining negotiations, or personnel matters contact Dina Atwood or Steven Stitzel.

EEOC GUIDANCE ON PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION ACT

SP&F Team — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 18:48:08 +0000

For the first time since 1983, The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has updated their guidance on the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. The new guidance document, along with an associated fact sheet and FAQ, incorporates the last thirty years of developments to legal protections based on an individual’s potential, current, or past pregnancy, as well as medical conditions related to pregnancy and childbirth. The PDA identifies each of the following activities as unlawful employment practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and,
Failure to treat women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions the same as others not so affected but having a similar ability or inability to work.

Courts applying the PDA have clarified that employers cannot treat pregnant employees differently from non-pregnant employees based on stereotypes and assumptions, including that a pregnant employee will have attendance problems, be otherwise unable to work, or will not return to work following the birth of her child.

For more information on the Pregnancy Discrimination Act or personnel matters in general, please contact the attorneys at SP&F mailto:inquiry@firmspf.com

To review the EEOC Guidance Documents:

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/pregnancy_guidance.cfm

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/pregnancy_qa.cfm

U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies When an Employer is Strictly Liable for Workplace Harassment

SP&F Team — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 15:33:40 +0000

It is well established that, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer may be vicariously liable for actions of an employee serving in a supervisory role that create a hostile work environment for a subordinate employee. If the harassing employee has a co-worker relationship to the target employee (rather than a supervisory relationship), the employer may only be held liable if the employer was negligent in addressing the hostile work environment (i.e., the employer knew or should have known about the hostile work environment and did not respond accordingly).

The definition of “supervisor” does not appear in Title VII itself — the statute is focused on describing discrimination, not identifying when an employer may be liable for such discrimination. While the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has attempted to provide guidance on the term’s meaning, federal circuit courts have interpreted “supervisor” slightly differently, leading to different standards of employer liability being applied in different parts of the country.

In a decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in June of 2013, a majority of the justices adopted a definition of supervisor that establishes a more uniform standard nationwide: a supervisor is one whom is “empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim,” that is, “to effect a ‘significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.’” Vance v. Ball State Univ., 133 S.Ct. 2434, 2439, 2443 (2013) (quoting Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth,524 U.S. 572, 761 (1998)). The majority opinion endorses this definition as providing a clear description of the level of authority an employee must have over a subordinate in order for the employer to be found vicariously liable for the supervising employee’s harassment of the subordinate in the workplace.

The full text of Vance v. Ball State University can be found here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-556_11o2.pdf

For more information on harassment claims and questions about labor matters generally, please contact SP&F.