Employers face new challenges in navigating state and local pay equity laws. New York City joins a number of other jurisdictions that now require employers to disclose pay ranges when advertising job postings – including for incumbents as well as new hires. This law is set to take effect on May 15, 2022 (unless delayed by pending legislation discussed below). The New York City Commission on Human Rights (the “NYCCHR”) recently published a fact sheet providing guidance with regard to Local Law 32 of 2022 (the “NYC Law”). The NYC Law requires all covered employers to include a minimum and a maximum salary in any advertisement for a job, promotion, or transfer opportunity.
The first quarter of 2022 continued the trend of increasing regulation of the workplace by state and local governments. 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 related to issues such as minimum wage rates and COVID-19 are not included.)
California is among the first states to propose expressly regulating employers’ use of algorithms and artificial intelligence. In a March 25, 2022 virtual public meeting, the California Fair Employment and Housing Council discussed proposed regulatory changes that would address employers’ and third parties’ use of artificial intelligence in employment practices. While the proposed regulations remain a work in progress, they provide a glimpse into how policymakers are approaching these issues — and they could prove influential to other states (and even, potentially, the federal government) contemplating their own regulations in this space.
On March 14, 2022, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released a technical assistance document, the COVID-19 Pandemic and Caregiver Discrimination Under Federal Employment Discrimination Laws, which explains how discrimination against applicants and employees with caregiving responsibilities can violate federal equal employment opportunity (EEO) laws. Although EEO laws do not prohibit discrimination against caregivers specifically, there are some circumstances in which discrimination against caregivers may be unlawful. Because the COVID-19 pandemic has created — and exacerbated — competing job and caregiving demands for individuals as they navigate hybrid work schedules, unexpected closures of school and care facilities, and potential COVID-19 exposure, the EEOC’s updated information may inform employer decisions and actions as they adapt their workplaces to the evolving COVID-19 pandemic.
As more organizations use artificial intelligence and algorithms to drive decision-making processes, policymakers are beginning to address concerns about these tools — including their lack of transparency and potential for generating unintended bias and discrimination. In our inaugural artificial intelligence briefing, we provide a rundown of recent AI regulatory and legislative developments from across the U.S. that should be top of mind for any organization using AI or algorithms.
Recent Employment Tribunal (ET) decisions have shed light on the risks that can arise for employers where employees refuse to attend the workplace because of COVID-19 concerns. We consider below how ETs have dealt with claims of discrimination and automatic unfair dismissal related to COVID-19.
In X v. Y (ET 241947/2020), an employer withheld an employee’s wages after she refused to attend the workplace due to her fear that she would contract COVID-19 and pass it on to her vulnerable husband. The employee brought a claim for unlawful discrimination arguing that her opinion regarding the risk of COVID-19 and the need to protect herself amounted to a philosophical belief that was capable of constituting a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. The ET disagreed. It found that the employee’s view was not a philosophical belief protected under the Equality Act 2010 but “a widely held opinion based on the present state of information” and a “reaction to a threat of physical harm”. Her claim therefore failed.