As the use of artificial intelligence in employment decisions grows, regulations on the practice will increase as well. Illinois has kicked off these regulations with the Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act, which requires employers to disclose and job applicants’ consent before using artificial intelligence on candidate videos when used to assess an individual’s fitness
Reminder to New Jersey Employers: Shortening the Law Against Discrimination’s Statute of Limitations is Prohibited
Dana E. Feinstein, Reed Smith Summer Associate, contributed to this blog post.
Employers in New Jersey should be aware that a recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision invalidated a contractual provision that shortened the statute of limitations for bringing a claim for discrimination under the Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”). On June 15, 2016, the New Jersey Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s decision and held that employers cannot impose a contractual limit on the two-year time period allotted to an employee to file a claim of employment discrimination under LAD. See Rodriguez v. Raymours Furniture Co., 2016 N.J. LEXIS 566 (June 15, 2016).
Sergio Rodriguez, a non-native English speaker from Argentina, signed an employment application when applying for a job at Raymour & Flanigan Furniture Stores. The application stated in bold and capitalized letters that the undersigned agreed “that any claim or lawsuit relating to [his] service with Raymour & Flanigan must be filed no more than six (6) months after the date of the employment action that is the subject of the claim or lawsuit” and that he would waive any conflicting statute of limitations. This contractual six-month limit was far shorter than LAD’s two-year statute of limitations.Continue Reading Reminder to New Jersey Employers: Shortening the Law Against Discrimination’s Statute of Limitations is Prohibited
EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch: Do You Need to Ask Applicants Whether They Require Religious Accommodation?
This post was also written by Megan E. Farrell.
On June 1, 2015, the United States Supreme Court held that a job applicant can establish religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 without proof that the employer had “actual knowledge” of the applicant’s need for an accommodation; instead, the applicant “need only show that his [or her] need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision” (emphasis added). Writing for eight of the Court’s nine Justices, Justice Scalia explained that employers “may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions.” EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., No. 14-86, ___ S. Ct. ___ (2015).Continue Reading EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch: Do You Need to Ask Applicants Whether They Require Religious Accommodation?
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Proposed Regulation 21F: Implementation of Dodd-Frank’s Whistleblower Provisions
This post was also written by Amy Greer and Carl Krasik.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”) was enacted July 21, 2010. Among other things, it added new Section 21F to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). This Section establishes a whistleblower program that directs the SEC (the “Agency”)
Financial Regulators Set Out to Get Their Man: Federally Mandated Bounties and Anti-Retaliation Provisions Designed to Regulate the Financial Services Industry
As stated in our previous blog posting, President Barack Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank” or the “Act”) into law on July 21, 2010, with the objective of ushering in a new era of financial regulation and transparency. The Act’s range encompasses not only the usual group of
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act Requires Federal Financial Agencies To Address Diversity and Fair Inclusion of Minorities and Women
This post was also written by Daniel J. Moore.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, signed into law on July 21, 2010, created some of the most sweeping changes to the financial industry since the Great Depression. Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires federal financial agencies to create an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (“OMWI”), which is responsible for “all matters of the agency relating to diversity in management, employment, and business activities.” This provision could significantly impact the diversity practices of federal financial agencies, agency contractors, and other entities that do business with these agencies.Continue Reading Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act Requires Federal Financial Agencies To Address Diversity and Fair Inclusion of Minorities and Women
Disabling the ADAAA
On January 1, 2009, the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (the “ADAAA”) took effect, bringing with it what many expect to be sweeping reforms to the landscape of federal disability discrimination law. This Act, which was widely lauded by both members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, was signed into law by President