As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we’re focused on how the U.S. Supreme Court’s Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) ruling could impact workplace diversity efforts:
Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) investment has been a strong strategy for success for many employers, but after the Supreme Court’s SFFA ruling, the outlook for employment DEI is unclear.
What’s next? Epstein Becker Green attorneys Carter M. DeLorme and Shawndra G. Jones tell us more.
Podcast: Amazon Music / Audible, Apple ...
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we look at two U.S. Supreme Court decisions and legislation in California with major implications for employers and health care providers.
The United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”), in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, has held that there is no constitutional right to abortion, overruling Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood.
Employment issues to consider while awaiting decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization
The United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) will imminently release its decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and if the final ruling is consistent with the recently-leaked draft opinion (overturning Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey), employers may soon need to contend with a variety of novel employment and benefits related issues. Some employers have already begun to consider and plan for a post-Roe workplace. Those who have not would be wise to do so now, to best ensure a well-coordinated and thoughtful approach.
For example, some employers have publicly announced plans to provide expanded healthcare benefits, travel, lodging and other benefits to employees who may seek abortion-related services in states where those medical services will be prohibited or limited. These benefits raise complex legal issues applicable to employers’ group health plans and fringe benefit plans, including conflicts between federal and state law, federal ERISA preemption and potential employer civil and/or criminal liability for providing these benefits.
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we look at how state and local COVID-19 requirements and new COVID-19 benefits are shifting employers’ policies once again.
On the evening of Wednesday, December 22, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that it will hold a special session on January 7, 2022, to hear oral argument in cases concerning whether two Biden administration vaccine mandates should be stayed. One is an interim final rule promulgated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”); the other is an Emergency Temporary Standard (“ETS”) issued by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”). The CMS interim final rule, presently stayed in 24 states, would require COVID-19 vaccination for staff employed at Medicare and Medicaid certified providers and suppliers. The OSHA ETS, which requires businesses with 100 or more employees to ensure that workers are vaccinated against the coronavirus or otherwise to undergo weekly COVID-19 testing, was allowed to take effect when a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, to which the consolidated challenges had been assigned by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, issued a ruling on December 17, 2021, lifting a stay that had been previously entered by the Fifth Circuit. Multiple private sector litigants and states immediately challenged the decision.
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: While some might expect U.S. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett to be a pro-employer judge, her record on labor and employment decisions could tell a different story. Attorney David Garland discusses Judge Barrett’s record and what it could mean for employers should she be confirmed to the High Court. Read more about Judge Barrett’s record (subscription required).
As featured on #WorkforceWednesday: Like many of you, this week, we are honoring Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and reflecting on her employment law legacy. See the video below.
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we saw a landmark employment law decision and received clarifications on return-to-work issues involving older workers.
Regarding the Supreme Court’s Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk opinion, issued today, our colleague Michael Kun at Epstein Becker Green has posted “Supreme Court Holds That Time Spent in Security Screening Is Not Compensable Time” on one of our sister blogs, Wage & Hour Defense.
Following is an excerpt:
In order to prevent employee theft, some employers require their employees to undergo security screenings before leaving the employers’ facilities. That is particularly so with employers involved in manufacturing and retail sales, who must be concerned with ...
Regarding the Supreme Court’s Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk opinion, issued today, our colleague Michael Kun at Epstein Becker Green has posted “Supreme Court Holds That Time Spent in Security Screening Is Not Compensable Time” on one of our sister blogs, Wage & Hour Defense.
Following is an excerpt:
In order to prevent employee theft, some employers require their employees to undergo security screenings before leaving the employers’ facilities. That is particularly so with employers involved in manufacturing and retail sales, who must be concerned with ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Podcast: Navigating Physician Non-Compete Litigation – Employment Law This Week
- Maryland Expected to Expand Pay Transparency Requirements in Fall 2024
- Video: Union Reps at OSHA Inspections, New COVID-19 Guidance, and Minimum Wage Updates - Employment Law This Week
- Fair Credit Reporting Act Preempts State Law Defamation Claim Over Background Check
- Video: New DOL Rules, U.S. Government Changes Race and Ethnicity Categorization - Employment Law This Week