employees

Subscribe to employees

As we have previously reported, several states, including New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Pennsylvania, now require employees, customers and/or the public to wear face coverings.  As we have also written about, in other states, like California, local governments are leading the way.  For example, Bay Area counties Sonoma, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, and Contra Costa all require face coverings to some degree.  Since then, additional California municipalities have also joined, including San Bernardino, Riverside, Beverly Hills, Burbank, Carson, Inglewood, Los Angeles, Long Beach and Pasadena.  Links to our prior publications on these location-specific mandates can be found below.

Other states and municipalities continue to follow suit.  As of April 17, employees of essential businesses in Hawaii must wear face coverings.  On April 18, Maryland established a similar requirement for employees, as well as customers over nine years of age. Like California, in states that are not currently requiring face coverings, some local governments have taken the initiative to establish their own requirements.  For example, in Illinois, Cicero, Glenview, Highland Park, Morton Grove, Niles, Skokie and Wilmette have each implemented some type of face covering requirement.  Municipalities in other states that have joined the movement include Laredo, Texas; Miami, Florida; Northampton, Massachusetts; and Chickasaw, Oklahoma.
Continue Reading Employers must face it: Face covering requirements growing across states and municipalities

In the recent case of Lorne Stewart plc v Hyde and others, the EAT made clear that it is important not to get side-tracked by the details of formal written contracts which are in place between the parties before and after a potential TUPE transfer, if such details do not reflect reality. Rather, it is essential to consider whether, in practice and on the facts, there is a service provision change and, if so, whether the employees in question are assigned to an organised grouping of employees which has as its principal purpose the carrying out of the activities concerned. Continue Reading TUPE service provision change – look at what is going on ‘on the ground’, as well as the contract

NLRB holds that employer’s practice of requesting employees to keep internal investigations confidential violates the NLRA.

The National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB" or "Board") is at it again, this time finding that an employer’s policy prohibiting employees from discussing ongoing investigations of employee misconduct infringes upon employees’ Section 7 rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act ("Act" or "NLRA"). Banner Health Sys. d/b/a Banner Estrella Med. Ctr., 358 NLRB No. 93 (July 30, 2012).Continue Reading NLRB Forbids “Do Not Discuss” Warnings to Employees During Confidential Investigations

In an April 20, 2012 decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) solidified its intended protection of transgender employees under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC made it clear that an employer that discriminates against an employee or applicant on the basis of that person’s gender identity violates Title VII’s sex discrimination prohibitions. Because transgender people lack protection from adverse employment decisions in 34 states, this EEOC decision is a watershed moment for the transgender community. It also highlights the broad range of protected categories that could subject employers to more liability for discrimination.
Continue Reading Transgender Protection Under Title VII Announced by EEOC

In the case of Eddie Stobart v Moreman & Others the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has provided welcome guidance on the meaning of “organised grouping of employees” for the purposes of a “service provision change” under regulation 3(3)(a)(i) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employees) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”). A group of employees who happened to work mainly for a particular client because they worked the day shift were found not to comprise an “organised grouping of employees” for “service provision change” purposes under TUPE. The EAT held that, when assessing whether employees will transfer to a new contractor following a service provision change, it is necessary to identify the existence of an “organised grouping of employees” the principal purpose of which is to carry out the relevant activities on behalf of the client, before analysing whether employees are assigned to that group. There will only be an “organised grouping” where the employees in question are “organised” for the purposes of the provision of services to the relevant client.
Continue Reading Service provision changes: UK EAT gives guidance on the meaning of an “organised grouping of employees”