Will The OFCCP Survive Past 2018? Merger With EEOC Proposed

On May 23, 2017, the Department of Labor released its budget proposal for fiscal year 2018 (FY 2018).  The budget contains several cost-cutting measures that reflect the new priorities of the Trump administration.

A notable aspect of the proposed budget is a request to merge the EEOC and OFCCP.  The  proposal aims for “full integration” of the two agencies by the end of FY 2018.  To begin that transition, the proposal suggests sizable drops in the OFCCP’s current funding and staffing.  The OFCCP’s budget is proposed to drop from $105,275,000 to $88,000,000 (a reduction of $17.3 million).  The headcount is proposed to drop nearly 25%, from 571 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees to 440.

Continue Reading

Florida Legislation Establishes That Ride-Sharing Drivers Are Independent Contractors, Not Employees

The issue of whether workers are properly classified as independent contractors rather than employees is a common dispute in the gig economy, particularly in newer, technology-based industries, such as ride-sharing.

That issue just became a much simpler one in Florida: On May 9, 2017, Florida’s governor signed into law a bill that, among other things, establishes that drivers for companies such as Lyft and Uber—called “transportation network companies” or “TNCs” under the law—are independent contractors, not employees, as long as the company satisfies four conditions:

Continue Reading

Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Pursue Claim that Was Discovered After Bankruptcy Filing

Recently, we discussed a decision from the U.S. District Court for the District Columbia that considered whether a former employee’s failure to initially list an employment discrimination claim on her bankruptcy schedules barred her from pursuing the claim against her former employer under the doctrine of judicial estoppel.

Continue Reading

The American Health Care Act: What It May Mean for Employers

On May 4, the House of Representatives passed the American Health Care Act, (AHCA), which is aimed at repealing and replacing portions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). While many of the changes do not affect employer-sponsored coverage, there are several changes in the bill that are likely to be of interest to employers.

Continue Reading

I’ve Been CRA’d! What Happens Now? OSHA Formally Repeals Volks Rule

The effects of the regulatory reform initiatives of the Trump Administration are beginning to be felt at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) with the formal action by OSHA to finalize withdrawal of the “Volks Rule” regulation. On May 3, 2017, in response to a CRA resolution of disapproval, OSHA published a final rule removing amendments to OSHA’s recordkeeping regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations.

Continue Reading

Second Circuit Denies Needlephobic Pharmacist’s Rehearing Request

In a previous post, we discussed the Second Circuit’s opinion finding that Rite-Aid lawfully fired a long-tenured pharmacist after he refused to comply with the company’s new mandate that pharmacists administer immunizations.  The plaintiff requested that the Second Circuit rehear the case, arguing that it should consider additional evidence.  Without discussion, the Second Circuit denied the plaintiff’s request, upholding its prior decision.  The pharmacist was not protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act because he could not perform an essential function of the job—administering immunizations—and there were no accommodations that would have permitted him to perform that function.

Ninth Circuit Holds Prior Salary Is A “Factor Other Than Sex” Under Equal Pay Act

Imagine that you are a company with two openings for the same position.  After selecting the two most qualified candidates, you offer each candidate a salary equal to his or her prior salary, plus 5%, pursuant to your established policy for setting new hire salaries.  On its face, your policy has nothing to do with sex, but does it violate the Federal Equal Pay Act?  This was the issue addressed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the recent decision Rizo v. Yovino, No. 16-15372, slip op. at 11–12 (9th Cir. Apr. 27, 2017).

Continue Reading

New York Court Clarifies Who Can Be Liable For Discrimination On The Basis Of Criminal Convictions

At the request of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the New York Court of Appeals recently answered several questions regarding liability under the New York Human Rights Law Section 296(15)—which prohibits denying employment on the basis of criminal convictions when doing so violates New York Correction Law Article 23-A—and Section 296(6)—which prohibits aiding and abetting such discrimination.

Continue Reading

The Future of the H-1B Visa Program Under The Trump Administration

There has been a flurry of activity and uncertainty related to immigration issues since President Trump took office. Hunton & Williams partners Adam Rosser and Emily Burkhardt Vicente discuss the concerns faced by the business community and the future of the H-1B visa program in the US. View the 5-minute video here.

D.C. Court Rejects Judicial Estoppel Defense for Alleged Failure of Plaintiff to Schedule Employment Discrimination Claims in Bankruptcy Case

In an April 24, 2017 decision, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied a motion to dismiss filed by Bravo! Facility Services, Inc. (“Bravo!”) against a former employee who brought claims under the ADA, District of Columbia Human Rights Act, and the FMLA.  Bravo! asserted that the plaintiff should be barred under the doctrine of judicial estoppel from asserting her claims because she initially failed to disclose her employment discrimination claims in her chapter 7 bankruptcy case filed after her employment terminated.  The plaintiff had moved to reopen her bankruptcy case and amended her asset schedules to disclose the claims before filing suit against Bravo!  In denying Bravo!’s motion, the court distinguished these facts from other situations where a plaintiff fails to disclose a claim prior to filing suit or only after challenged by an adversary.

Continue Reading

LexBlog