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

Recently in HR & Employment Law Category

In a two-part series in Inside Counsel, Jeff Beemer of Dickinson Wright PPLC talked about transgender discrimination as one of the an up-and-coming issues for the EEOC.

Indeed it is, and even though you might not think about it, transgender discrimination most likely falls into Title VII's prohibition on gender discrimination. The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to say so, but the EEOC and two federal circuit courts agree that it does.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, the case about a Muslim teenager, Samantha Elauf, who interviewed for a job at an Abercrombie store while wearing a headscarf.

Abercrombie chose not to hire her explicitly because of the headscarf, assuming that she would need a religious accommodation, which it didn't want to grant, because Abercrombie's dress code policy prohibits head wear. The EEOC claimed that the employer discriminated based on its assumption that she would need an accommodation without ever asking Elauf.

While Walmart's in-house counsel may know all the rules regarding age and disability discrimination, some of Walmart's in-store employees clearly do not. The EEOC filed suit against Walmart on behalf of David Moorman, a former manager at a Walmart store in Keller, Texas, alleging age and disability discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Moorman claimed he was taunted and ridiculed by direct supervisors who called him "old man" and "old food guy." He was also allegedly denied reasonable accommodations for his diabetes (he requested a change in work duties) and was subsequently fired.

Walmart has agreed to settle the case, and to pay Moorman $150,000. Walmart also must train its employees on what conduct constitutes unlawful discrimination or harassment under the ADA and the ADEA.

It's sort of an open secret in Silicon Valley that the tech industry is a man's world. Data bear this out: Only 11 percent of executive positions are filled by women, reports Business Insider, compared with 16 percent in the S&P 100.

It gets worse when it comes to tech-specific jobs, where over 80 percent of Google's international tech jobs are staffed by men (non-tech jobs, on the other hand, are staffed by 52 percent staffed by men). With this huge gender disparity comes allegations of sexual harassment, as one venture capital firm is finding out.

The hot business news today: Walmart is raising the pay rates for its lowest-paid workers, its full-time and part-time "associates." Hourly full-time workers will earn at least $10 an hour by February 1, 2016, while hourly-part-time workers will earn at least $9 an hour starting this April, Reuters reports.

It's great that Walmart recognizes the need to increase wages, but the average hourly wages for full-timers and part-timers is going up by only 15 and 52 cents an hour, respectively. What should GCs keep in mind about raising wages?

Here's what's not interesting about this case brought by the EEOC: An employee was forced to retire because of his religious beliefs. A West Virginia jury found in favor of the employee, Beverly R. Butcher Jr., and awarded him $150,000.

Here's what is interesting about this case: Butcher's employer, Consol Energy, wanted to implement biometric hand scanning for time and attendance tracking. Butcher, an evangelical Christian, said such hand scanning would assign "the Mark of the Beast" referenced in the Bible.

Canadian Lawyer magazine suggested last month that lawyers should have emotional intelligence -- and especially corporate counsel. There's quite a debate going on about whether lawyers should even use their emotions (unrelated to a separate debate about whether lawyers have emotions).

Well, it's either a bunch of granola-and-Birkenstocks nonsense or it's something that we should have been paying attention to all along.

Back in 2011, we learned that several Silicon Valley companies agreed not to poach each other's employees, resulting in suppressed wages. The class ended up in federal court and looked close to a settlement by April of last year.

Judge Lucy Koh, however, rejected the proposed $324 million settlement, which would have resulted in $5,000 per employee in the class. Koh said the settlement wasn't reasonable, given that each employee would walk away with $3,750 after attorneys' fees and that an expert for the plaintiffs calculated damages in the billions.

Almost a year later, we have another proposed settlement.

With the National Labor Relations Board trying to push the envelope in making corporations jointly liable for labor violations of their franchisees, California has quietly pushed the envelope across the desk and into a mailbox. (Is that how that metaphor works?)

Last year, Gov. Jerry Brown signed AB 1897 into law. It took effect January 1, along with about 900 other new laws, but it promises to have a huge impact on how business is done.

It's no secret that America's workforce is getting older. The Baby Boomer generation is currently approaching the age where they qualify for the senior discount at Denny's.

While that's great for workers 65 and older who love cheap breakfast, it's not so good for companies that are losing employees to retirement. About a quarter of HR professionals who responded to a Society for Human Resource Management survey about older workers said the loss of talent due to retirement will be a problem within the next 10 years.

And with aging workers comes new legal challenges for your company that go beyond just losing people to retirement.