Workforce Bulletin

Is the developer of an AI resume-screening tool an “employment agency” or “agent” subject to liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for its customers’ allegedly discriminatory employment decisions? According to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the answer is yes. On April 9, 2024, the EEOC filed a motion for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae, together with a brief, in Mobley v. Workday, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL, to support plaintiff Derek Mobley’s (“Mobley”) motion to dismiss.

The EEOC’s action is ...

In an earlier article (found here), we discussed how a federal district court’s decision that mere 501(c)(3) status can trigger obligations under Title IX created shock waves throughout the private independent school community. A recent ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has reversed that decision, holding that tax-exempt status is not federal financial assistance for Title IX purposes.

The plaintiff in Buettner-Hartsoe v. Baltimore Lutheran High Sch. Ass’n (4^th Cir., Mar. 27, 2024) was a student who alleged that she was sexually harassed at ...

With the potential “tendency of many to ‘overshare,’ documenting everything from their breakfast to their favorite Marvel™ villain” on social media, as recognized in at least one court opinion[1], perhaps unsurprisingly, some employers might consider social media to be a valuable source for insight about applicants or employees.  Assembly Bill A836/Senate Bill S2518A (the “Personal Accounts Law”), signed into law by Governor Kathy Hochul on September 14, 2023, however, will soon place new limits on New York employers that seek access to an employee’s or ...

As previously noted, the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) has invited a great deal of litigation, often resulting in interpretations favorable toward plaintiffs. As a result, we advise employers who use biometric technology in Illinois workplaces to adhere carefully to their obligations under BIPA. While that advice won’t change, employers operating in the health care sector can take some – though not too much – comfort in a recent ruling that limits their exposure under this law.

In Mosby v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital, the Illinois Supreme Court delved ...

As we previously reported, on May 8, 2023, the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (“NJDOL”) published a web page providing guidance in the form of Frequently Asked Questions (the “FAQs”) to assist employers in complying  with the provisions of the Temporary Workers’ Bill of Rights (the “Law”). Recently the NJDOL released proposed regulations to implement the Law (the “Proposed Regulations”) that elaborate on many of the Law’s provisions, including its pay equity requirement.  Public comment on the Proposed Regulations will be accepted until October 20, 2023.

In addition to the Proposed Regulations, the NJDOL has also updated its FAQs.

The Supreme Court delivered its highly anticipated consolidated decision yesterday in the two affirmative action cases on its docket, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (collectively, the “SFFA” cases). At issue in the SFFA cases is whether Harvard and the University of North Carolina (“UNC”) violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (and, in turn, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) in their consideration of race in their admissions processes. In answering this question in the affirmative, the Court’s majority opinion significantly restricts – and, some would argue, eliminates – affirmative action programs in higher education.

New Yorkers who employ of domestic workers should note two recent amendments to the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) that went into effect on December 31, 2021, which together extend full protection of the NYSHRL to individuals employed in domestic service in New York.  In addition, beginning on March 12, 2022, employment protections afforded by the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) will apply to all domestic workers.

The first amendment to the state law removed language from the definition of “employee” under section 292(6), which had previously excluded domestic workers from most of the NYSHRL’s protections. Now, the only category of persons excluded from the definition of “employee” are those individuals employed by their parents, spouse, or child. The second amendment repealed section 296-b, which had protected domestic workers from harassment, but not other types of discrimination.