Employer Law Blog

The U.S. Supreme Court recently established a new standard for analyzing claims under the Federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act. In Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the divided court held that a pregnant worker can show that the employer’s legitimate, non-discriminatory justifications are pretextual under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework if its accommodation policies impose a "significant burden" on pregnant workers and its reasons are not "sufficiently strong." Over Justice Scalia scathing dissent, the Court vacated the Fourth Circuit's decision granting summary judgment to UPS, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of the Court’s new standard and interpretation of the statute.

On March 18, 2015, the General Counsel of the NLRB issued a report providing guidance to employers regarding handbook rules which violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA as well as specimen policies which don’t violate the Act in the General Counsel’s opinion.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a former hairdresser was entitled to have a jury decide whether an Illinois nursing home failed to offer her a reasonable accommodation when she was unable to push wheelchair-bound patients between their rooms and the salon

Employers are often faced with difficult decisions when a poorly performing employee takes FMLA leave. Any action against the employee following the leave may be closely scrutinized and result in a claim for retaliation. A recent 7th Circuit case provides some guidance on what is, and is not, a retaliatory act.

On April 15, 2014, in Templemire v. W & M Welding, Inc., the Missouri Supreme Court continued its pro employee interpretation of the employment at-will doctrine by significantly reducing the causality standard for a workers compensation retaliation claims. Prior to this ruling, Missouri law had long required an employee to prove that the alleged retaliatory motive was the “exclusive factor” for the adverse action, typically a termination.