Former Brownsburg music teacher John Kluge has joined a chorus of religious freedom advocates in urging the U.S. Supreme Court to use a Title VII employment case to overturn an “egregiously wrong” 45-year precedent that advocates claim prevents employees from obtaining accommodations for their religious practices.
In recent months, current and former employees of drugmaker Eli Lilly and Co., medical-equipment maker Roche Diagnostics and health care system Ascension St. Vincent have filed suit in federal district court, claiming their religious views and civil liberties were violated.
In recent years, there seems to be a growing litigation focus on employment discrimination against majority populations as protected classes.
While recent events have contributed to and exacerbated this problem, the presence of mental health issues in the workplace existed long before the beginning of a global pandemic. Despite that fact, employers still at times simply do not know how to confront and handle mental health issues.
In a tight labor market with diversity, equity and inclusion front of mind, some employers have expanded their outreach to prospective employees under the federal Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC).
Employers likely remember Bostock v. Clayton County, the landmark decision where the Supreme Court of the United States extended Title VII’s “because of sex” protections to sexual orientation and transgender status. In that case, the Supreme Court made clear that it is unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for employers to terminate employees for being gay or transgender but left open some questions.
Just as Indiana is marking 10 years since the passage of its “right-to-work” law, more Hoosiers are opting to join unions, and a Starbucks in Clarksville recently became the first in the coffeehouse chain to unionize in the Hoosier State.
The grant of summary judgment to Indiana Wesleyan University on a former employee’s retaliation and age discrimination claims has been upheld, but the issue of whether the employee’s termination was racially motivated has been remanded.
An Indiana University Kelley School of Business professor didn’t have his Title VII rights violated by his employer when the school didn’t provide him with an early promotion or when it paid one of his white colleagues more than him, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
The Supreme Court says it won’t review the case of a Seattle-based Christian organization that was sued after declining to hire a bisexual lawyer who applied for a job. A lower court let the case go forward, and the high court said Monday it wouldn’t intervene.
Small business owners often wear multiple hats for their companies. In many cases, “Mike” the owner is often “Mike” the employee, with little distinction between those two roles. However, when a dispute arises and “Mike” is squeezed out of the company, how do courts distinguish between Mike’s rights as an owner versus Mike’s rights as an employee?
Separate analytical reports from the law firms of Carlton Fields and Seyfarth Shaw both found work-related issues are continuing to convince employees to take their bosses to court. As a result, class action defense spending is anticipated to keep accelerating after crossing the $3 billion threshold for the first time in 2021.
Previous versions of HEA 1001 provided that any worker could be granted a religious exemption to a vaccine mandate without employers inquiring into the validity of the employees’ claims. Had that version of the bill passed through the General Assembly and been signed by Holcomb, Indiana employers would have clear marching orders when it came to religious exemptions from vaccine mandates. But that provision was hotly contested and, ultimately, removed from the version of the bill that is now law in Indiana. So the question remains: What should Indiana employers do when they receive a request for religious exemption from a COVID-19 vaccine mandate?
On March 3, President Biden signed into law the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, which will nullify forced arbitration clauses in sexual assault and sexual harassment cases. Following the #MeToo movement, many states have enacted legislation to limit the scope of claims covered in employment arbitration agreements, but the act is the first federal limitation.
Since FMLA leave is a legal entitlement for the employee and a corresponding legal obligation for the employer, that abstract concept implicates immediate questions: Who is responsible for telling whom about a need for leave? What do they need to say? When?
Noncompete agreements generally are treated the same whether analyzed under state law or antitrust principles. However, limited instances exist in which antitrust laws may be more restrictive than state noncompete laws are. Businesses with high market shares in their geographic and product markets should take special caution to ensure their restrictive covenants do not unlawfully restrain competition.
Businesses routinely use noncompete agreements to protect their most valuable assets, including trade secrets. However, noncompete agreements are increasingly under attack at both the state and federal level. This two-part series will first explain recent developments restricting the use of noncompetes, then Part II will focus on how that increased scrutiny on noncompete agreements may impact trade secret protection.
Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate last month came together in a bipartisan effort to push forward legislation that removes clauses in contracts that require arbitration of sexual assault and harassment claims. H.R. 4445, also known as the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, essentially puts the ball in the court of individuals who allege sexual misconduct in the workplace or elsewhere, rather than their accused perpetrators.
A federal court didn’t err when it awarded summary judgment to a major steel producer who rescinded a job offer to a man with an uncontrolled seizure disorder, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
Congress on Thursday gave final approval to legislation guaranteeing that people who experience sexual harassment at work can seek recourse in the courts, a milestone for the #MeToo movement that prompted a national reckoning on the way sexual misconduct claims are handled.