The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced on Sept. 1, 2023, that its EEO-1 filing platform will open on Oct. 31, 2023. The deadline for employers to file their EEO-1 reports will be Tuesday, Dec. 5, 2023.

Read More >> EEO-1 Filing Opens on Oct. 31, 2023

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) continues to drastically change the law and tilt the playing field against employers and in favor of labor unions. Last week, the Biden NLRB issued new rules governing the unionization process that mark a return to the “quickie elections” from the Obama era. This week the NLRB issued a landmark decision in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific (372 NLRB No. 130) that seriously undermines both employer and employee rights by disfavoring secret ballot elections.

Read More >> NLRB Further Erodes Employer Rights and Promotes Unionization

On Aug. 25, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) published a final rule regarding election proceedings. In issuing the rule, the NLRB reinstated election procedures it issued in 2014. These procedures shorten the union election and certification processes and reinstate what have been termed “ambush” elections. In 2019 the NLRB issued a rule replacing many of the provisions of the 2014 rule, but several of the provisions of the 2019 rule were invalidated in AFL-CIO v. NLRB, 57 F.4th 1023 (D.C. Cir. 2023). The NLRB’s latest rule rescinded additional provisions of the 2019 rule. Specifically, the NLRB’s new rule implements the following:

Read More >> NLRB Restores Expedited Union Election Procedures

Can a New York employer be held liable for economic losses suffered by a party that has no business relationship with the employer based on an employee’s unauthorized fraudulent scheming? This issue was recently presented to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court recognized such liability on a claim of negligent supervision and retention notwithstanding a vigorous dissent.

Read More >> NY Employers Face Expanded Liability for Negligent Supervision

On Aug. 16, 2023, Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the Roadway Excavation Quality Assurance Act (the Act), S.4887/A.5608, into law. This new legislation guarantees prevailing wages to construction workers on roadway excavation projects. The law takes effect 13 days after its signing, i.e., Aug. 29, 2023.

Read More >> Governor Hochul Signs Roadway Excavation Quality Assurance Act Into Law

In a recent decision, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appeals court covering New York and adjacent states, sought to clarify the federal law standard for evaluating retaliation claims under the principal anti-discrimination statutes including, Title VII, the ADEA and the Reconstruction Era Civil Rights Act. Significantly, the court found that such retaliation claims are evaluated under a separate, more expansive standard than substantive discrimination (including hostile work environment) claims.

Read More >> Second Circuit Clarifies Federal Law on Employment Retaliation Claims

Today, an employee shares joyous news and says, “I’m expecting and due in 20 weeks!” You respond with congratulations, but then start thinking about all the new pregnancy-related legal protections you must comply with. Look no further, here are some highlights on what to expect when your employee is expecting…and beyond.

Read More >> What to Expect When Your Employee is Expecting…and Beyond!

On August 2, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) issued its decision in Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023), where it adopted a new legal standard to determine whether an employers’ work rules violate Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Board’s decision overrules existing precedent and establishes a more stringent test that is likely to render some existing work rules facially unlawful.

Read More >> NLRB Adopts New Legal Standard for Evaluating Employer Work Rules

The following article by Bond attorney Alice Stock was published by Law360

Can an employer give employees a wage increase or benefits improvement during a union organizing campaign or while negotiating a first collective bargaining agreement after a union has won an election? At present, in most situations, it will be unlawful for an employer to do so.

Read More >> Conflicting NLRB Stances Create Employer Compliance Plight

As an avid, albeit misguided, reader of breaking news alerts, I am increasingly feeling like the narrator in the old Tom Petty song, “Jammin Me.” If you are like me and are feeling truly exhausted from the daily bombardment of bad news on all fronts, any distraction can be of welcome relief, particularly when that distraction involves “man’s best friend” – dogs.

Now, before we go any further, a couple of disclaimers are in order: I have had dogs as pets my whole life, I view dogs as family members, I enjoy quoting one of my daughter’s theology professors who is keen to point out what the word dog spelled backwards reveals, and I will almost invariably take the side of a dog in a litigated controversy.

This brings us to the June 23, 2023 decision in the case of Meyer v. City of Chehalis, Case No. 3:22 -cv-05008 (W.D. Washington). In Meyers, a firefighter brought a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Washington Law Against Discrimination alleging that he was denied a reasonable accommodation in the form of a service dog to help him with his post-traumatic stress disorder.

Read More >> A Case Worthy of Ushering in the Dog Days of Summer

On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.[1] The Court considered the admissions practices of Harvard College and University of North Carolina (UNC) and found that neither could withstand the “strict scrutiny” demanded for race-based admissions decisions. Although nominally about these two particular admissions programs, the Court’s rationale for its ruling leaves virtually no possibility that race-based admissions practices will withstand judicial challenge.

Read More >> Race in Admissions after Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard

For the past 46 years, employers across the United States have understood that, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), they were permitted to deny an employee’s religious accommodation request based upon “undue hardship” so long as the burden of granting the accommodation would result in “more than a de minimis cost.” Employers based this understanding on the 1977 Supreme Court decision in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison,[1] where the Court first stated that requiring an employer to “bear more than a de minimis cost” in granting a religious accommodation would constitute “an undue hardship.”[2] This standard has been consistently upheld by courts throughout the country since Hardison was first decided.

Read More >> Supreme Court Increases Burden on Employers Seeking to Deny a Religious Accommodation Based upon Undue Hardship