In House: HR & Employment Law Archives
In House - The FindLaw Corporate Counsel Blog

Recently in HR & Employment Law Category

Let's talk dress codes. Obviously, your company can't have a dress code requiring women to wear super-revealing clothes; this isn't Sterling Cooper Draper Price. But dress code discrimination in 2014 takes a different form, by presuming what men and women will wear and dividing them up accordingly or failing to take into account transgender employees or employees of a different religion.

What are the limitations of an employee dress code?

Most states have no employment protection for transgender discrimination; that is, an employee can be fired or not hired merely for being transgender. Last year, the U.S. Senate voted to extend the Employment Non-Discrimination Act's protections to gender identity or sexual orientation; the House hasn't acted yet.

Nevertheless, is transgender employment discrimination a thing? And can it subject your company to liability?

The NFL has announced that it will train league staff on recognizing and preventing domestic violence and sexual assault. The news comes after, well, a whole lot of players were allegedly involved in domestic violence: Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, Greg Hardy, and Jonathan Dwyer all received suspensions while investigations are pending.

More importantly, the news comes after sponsors pulled their deals when the league failed to act initially.

No matter what the true motivation was, the program is a good move for the league, which in the past, has been criticized for ignoring the problem. Should other companies follow suit?

A recent survey finds that 10 percent of U.S. workers have gone to work while high on marijuana.

In addition, 3 percent of respondents say they've gone to work under the influence of a drug other than marijuana, and 28 percent under the influence of a prescription drug, according to the Mashable/SurveyMonkey survey of 534 Americans.

While these self-reported figures aren't authoritative, they should give you pause. Does your company have a drug policy? What does it cover? And, importantly, does it comport with state laws?

Is this deja vu, or deja deja deja vu?

Back in April, Senate Republicans rejected the Paycheck Fairness Act of 2014. At the time, The Washington Post noted that it was the third attempt in recent years to pass the wage equality legislation. But hey, maybe the fourth time would be a charm?

No. Not at all. This time, according to The Hill, Wednesday's vote was 52-40, short of the 60-vote procedural hurdle needed to advance. The vote seems like more of a political move than an actual attempt to pass legislation -- it's not like a handful of senators swapped party affiliation since the 53-44 vote in the spring, after all. But more importantly, for businesses, this should cause more than a few GCs to utter a sigh of relief.

Gay marriage is a pretty divisive issue in this country, though it is becoming less so as more states legalize same-sex nuptials. And corporations, typically, steer far away from controversial topics, for obvious reasons.

It is refreshing then, to see Ben & Jerry's join 29 other companies in an "Employers' Amicus Brief" filed in support of same-sex marriage. The brief urges the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case, and to establish a uniform national rule that respects the rights of same-sex couples to tie the knot.

Who else joined them on the brief? And will there be any negative business consequences?

You've probably heard about the inevitable development of the Ray Rice saga. The NFL Pro Bowl running back, who was cut by the Ravens yesterday, was previously suspended for two games after he was charged with felony domestic violence. A video of the aftermath of the incident -- Ray dragging his unconscious fiancé (now wife) out of an elevator -- emerged, creating quite the public relations nightmare, but little in the way of actual consequences.

Ray Rice copped a plea for a pre-trial deterrence program, the NFL suspended him for two games, and the Ravens stood behind him -- until yesterday, when TMZ leaked a video of Ray beating Janay Rice inside the elevator. The incident has created a number of issues: public relations nightmares and collective bargaining/labor law questions.

The date is set. The witnesses are being prepped. And the lawyers are under more pressure than ever to come up with a reasonable settlement.

Have you been missing out on the real-life Silicon Valley drama (as opposed to the hilarious HBO dramedy)? Apple, Intel, Google, and Adobe allegedly agreed to not poach each others' talent, creating the sort of anticompetitive agreement that depresses salaries.

Though initial estimates of the companies' exposure were in the billions range, the companies settled for ... $324 million, a number that made us get our eyes checked, caused one plaintiff to file a formal rejection, and which U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh soundly rejected.

Will we see another settlement, or will his head to trial in early January?

Over the Labor Day Weekend, The New York Times published a front-page piece on the rise in "wage theft" claims.

As companies try to cut costs, some employees are being illegally encouraged -- or forced -- to alter their timesheets to reflect fewer hours worked. Such actions violate state and federal labor laws, and though some companies have engaged in the practice as a matter of course, believing that enforcement was scant, enforcement appears to be on the rise.

What should you know if you want to keep your company in compliance and out of court?

Independent contractor or actual employee? An employee gets Fair Labor Standards Act protections, including overtime and benefits. Independent contractors get, well, their salary. The appeal of contractors then, is obvious for big companies like FedEx.

Unfortunately, as FedEx just learned, often it's not the label that matters -- it's the substance of the relationship. The Ninth Circuit just held that FedEx drivers, which are labeled "independent contractors," aren't independent at all. FedEx determines their route, the color of their van, their uniform, and even their appearance -- a relationship that, in practice, looks a lot more like an employer-employee arrangement.