Laborsphere

State & Local Employment Law Developments: Q1/Q2 2020

State and local governments are increasingly regulating the workplace. In the first and second quarters of 2020 alone, legislatures were particularly active in passing laws addressing sexual harassment training, discrimination including hair discrimination, criminal background inquiries, salary history, and a variety of unpaid and paid leaves. Although it is not possible to discuss all state and local laws, this update provides an overview of recent and upcoming legislative developments to help you and your organization stay in compliance. (Please note that developments specifically related to COVID-19 are not included in this update.)

Continue reading “State & Local Employment Law Developments: Q1/Q2 2020”

Executive Order Restricts Employment-Based Immigration

On June 22, 2020, President Donald Trump issued an executive order suspending the entry of individuals to the U.S. from several nonimmigrant visa categories, effective 12:01 a.m. ET on June 24, 2020 and ending December 31, 2020. This order may be continued as deemed necessary and modifications may be made within 30 days and subsequently every 60 days.

For the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.

Returning to Work Post-Shutdown, Part II: Addressing the Economic Impact of COVID-19

In this second instalment in our series examining the challenges U.K. employers are likely to face in the coming months, Faegre Drinker’s London labor and employment attorneys consider how employers can manage the economic impact that COVID-19 will likely have on many workplaces.

The global media has reported widely on the substantial impact of COVID-19 on the global economy and businesses. In the U.K., many employers will likely be facing significant economic pressures as a result of COVID-19 for the foreseeable future, even as the U.K. lockdown begins to lift. As a result, many employers will unfortunately need to look to reduce their workforce costs and recalibrate their businesses for ‘the new normal.’ Whilst mass redundancies have been much talked about (and feared) in the U.K., we explore the options for employers looking to avoid redundancies, as well as an overview of redundancy options if such measures cannot be avoided.

For the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.

With Pennsylvania Non-Competes, As in Life, Timing is Everything

In Pennsylvania, it has long been known that waiting until after the start of employment to have an employee sign a non-competition agreement comes with the real risk that the agreement will be unenforceable for lack of consideration. Last week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court provided definitive guidance on the issue in Rullex Co., LLC v. Tel-Stream, Inc., et al., holding that a non-competition agreement entered into after an employee commences employment fails for lack of consideration unless the essential provisions of those restrictions were agreed to before the employee started work.

Continue reading “With Pennsylvania Non-Competes, As in Life, Timing is Everything”

Returning to Work Post-Shutdown, Part 1: U.K. Workplace Considerations

The COVID-19 pandemic and the resultant lockdown have caused a massive shift in the way we work, and as the U.K. prepares for the lockdown to ease, employers will continue to face a variety of challenges as the U.K. adapts to a new normal. In a three-part series, Faegre Drinker’s London labor and employment attorneys will be examining the challenges U.K. employers are likely to face in the coming months, including how employers can manage the transition back to the workplace, addressing the economic impacts of COVID-19, and the potential trends and changes to U.K. workplaces following the pandemic. This week, we will be starting the series with a look at how employers should manage the return to the workplace.

For the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.

Supreme Court Decides Bostock v. Clayton County, Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOC

On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided three cases, holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender identity.

In each of the three cases, an employee was fired shortly after revealing that he or she was homosexual or transgender. Each plaintiff brought suit under Title VII, alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex. The Eleventh Circuit held that Title VII does not protect against discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation, while the Second Circuit held that it did. The Sixth Circuit held that Title VII protects against discrimination on the basis of transgender identity.

For the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.