As the number of COVID-19 infections in certain states continues to rise, so does the number of states added to the tristate area travel advisory. Ten additional states were added to the existing list, including the following: Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. Travelers from these states, as well as Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas,
On Monday, July 20, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor published additional guidance, addressing questions arising from the COVID-19 pandemic under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”).
In this post, we highlight some of the guidance relating to wage and hour issues, and management of a remote workforce.
This guidance is particularly apropos, as more and more employers realize that the “new normal” is a world of remote work, with some employers extending telework on an indefinite basis.
Here are some interesting questions the DOL answered and our take-aways from the guidance.
On Tuesday July 21, 2020, Kelley Drye’s Labor and Employment Practice hosted a webinar focused on best practices for navigating challenges of the “not so normal” workplace of 2020. A workplace where employers are challenged with new rules, laws, risks, and social issues brought on by the pandemic and a supercharged social and political climate.
Two news stories since Tuesday made these challenges real.
As we discussed in our webinar, employers are clearly navigating uncharted waters, including (one we discussed at length) the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and employers approach to handling activism in the workplace.
Now with the pandemic – this includes ‘management’ of face masks – which have become part of workplace attire for virtually everyone.
As the number of COVID-19 infections in certain states continues to rise, so does the number of states added to the tristate area travel advisory. Ten additional states were added to the existing list, including the following: Alaska, Delaware, Indiana, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Virginia and Washington. Travelers from these states, as…
As New York employers struggle to reopen their workplaces, implement new workplace COVID-19 policies, manage remote workers, and deal with employees who are quarantined, afraid of contracting COVID-19, afraid of the subway, and requesting job accommodations – this is a good moment to remember that all of the ‘old’ employment laws are still alive and well and being enforced.
Earlier today the New York Attorney General reported a $1.5 million dollar settlement of a sexual harassment complaint against a Long Island construction company, claims made by 18 female former employees.
The company, Trade Off Construction, denied all of the allegations and did not admit any wrongdoing in the settlement.
Here’s the scenario – Your Ambulatory Clinic just reopened in May, and since then one of the RN’s, let’s call her Rita, has been late multiple times, and is often on her phone when she should be working. When she was called in by the Director, Rita said, “I have been late because I feel this place is unsafe. Patients are coming in without face masks, we don’t have sanitizer at the desk, and this is just not a safe work situation. I want to make a complaint.”
- Does Rita have a claim?
- Can Rita sue?
- Can you still give Rita the lateness warning?
The answer to all of these questions is YES. Rita may have a claim, she can sue, and finally, yes you should still give her the lateness warning. Healthcare providers beware, this type of complaint may well become more prevalent.
As the number of COVID-19 infections in certain states continues to rise, so does the number of states added to the tristate area travel advisory. Eight additional states were added to the existing list, including the following: California, Georgia, Iowa, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada and Tennessee. Travelers from these states, as well as Alabama, Arkansas,…
In a press conference earlier today, the Governors of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut announced that travelers to the tristate area from states with spikes in COVID-19 infection rates would be required to quarantine for 14 days. The joint travel advisory applies to individuals traveling to the tristate area from the following states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Washington, Utah, and Texas.
However, this list of states is subject to change based on the metrics set forth by the joint travel advisory. Any person arriving from a state with a positive test rate higher than 10 per 100,000 residents over a 7-day rolling average or a state with a 10% or higher positivity rate over a 7-day rolling average, will be required to quarantine.
In a long awaited landmark ruling by Justice M. Gorsuch, the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII protects gay and transgender workers. The Opinion provides:
Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear . . . An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.
Justice Gorsuch was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.
Today the EEOC updated its Technical Assistance Questions and Answers (Q&A), “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws.”
Among the updates, the EEOC provides Q&A guidance regarding: requests for accommodation (Q&A D.13, G.7); pandemic-related harassment in the context of telework (Q&A E.4); return to work guidance (Q&A G.6, G.7); and other questions related to age discrimination (Q&A H.1), pregnancy discrimination (Q&A J.1), and sex discrimination involving employees with caretaking or family responsibilities (Q&A I.1).
The EEOC also touches on an issue that all employers will undoubtedly face as employees return to work, namely, whether an accommodation is required for an employee who is not disabled, but whose family member may be at high risk for contracting COVID-19 due to an underlying condition. The EEOC’s June 11 Q&A D.13 states: