In this past year (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court issued a number of important employment law decisions. Federal employment law agencies such as the Department of Labor, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) published rules and guidance that significantly impact employer compliance in a number of key areas.
In many instances, these positions go way beyond “cutting edge” and transcend into unprecedented interpretation of the “law.” Circuit Courts have begun to sharply criticize such interpretations of federal employment lawand to overrule administrative positions, at times awarding significant attorneys’ fees to employers that were vindicated on the appellate level.
To avoid unintended legal exposure and liability, employers should be sure to stay updated on all of the legal changes that took place in 2015. Below is a brief review on the issues we covered on our blog:
Sexual Orientation Discrimination:
In a novel ruling, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits sexual orientation employment discrimination in the workplace. Even though the courts have not yet sanctioned the EEOC’s position, the agency is likely to aggressively enforce its new interpretation.
Overtime Rules:
In July, the Department of Labor (DOL) published its highly anticipated proposals for updated overtime rules. The proposed rule would set the standard salary level at the 40th percentile of weekly earnings for full-time salaried workers ($921 per week, or $47,892 annually); increase the total annual compensation requirement needed to exempt highly compensated employees to the annualized value of the 90th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time salaried workers ($122,148 annually); and establish a mechanism for automatically updating the salary and compensation levels going forward to ensure that they will continue to provide a useful and effective test for exemption.
Worker Misclassification:
This summer, the Department of Labor (DOL) also published guidance on worker misclassification in which the agency suggested that “most” independent contractors should be legally classified as employees. The DOL’s broad interpretation of “employee” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) suggests that worker misclassification will continue to be a top compliance concern.
Religious Discrimination:
In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employer can be held liable for failing to accommodate a religious practice under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 even through the employee has not made an express request. Specifically, an applicant need only show that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision. The decision made it easier for employees to prove religious discrimination in the workplace.
Pregnancy Discrimination:
In Young v. UPS, the U.S. Supreme Court held that employees could establish a prima facie discrimination case under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act case by providing sufficient evidence that the employer’s policies impose a significant burden on pregnant workers. Plaintiffs must also show that an employer’s ‘legitimate, nondiscriminatory’ reasons are not sufficiently strong to justify the burden, but rather—when considered along with the burden imposed—give rise to an inference of intentional discrimination. In the wake of the decision, the EEOC published revised guidance.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Year in Review: Federal Employment Law Developments
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
In this past year (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court issued a number of important employment law decisions. Federal employment law agencies such as the Department of Labor, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) published rules and guidance that significantly impact employer compliance in a number of key areas.
In many instances, these positions go way beyond “cutting edge” and transcend into unprecedented interpretation of the “law.” Circuit Courts have begun to sharply criticize such interpretations of federal employment lawand to overrule administrative positions, at times awarding significant attorneys’ fees to employers that were vindicated on the appellate level.
To avoid unintended legal exposure and liability, employers should be sure to stay updated on all of the legal changes that took place in 2015. Below is a brief review on the issues we covered on our blog:
Sexual Orientation Discrimination:
In a novel ruling, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits sexual orientation employment discrimination in the workplace. Even though the courts have not yet sanctioned the EEOC’s position, the agency is likely to aggressively enforce its new interpretation.
Overtime Rules:
In July, the Department of Labor (DOL) published its highly anticipated proposals for updated overtime rules. The proposed rule would set the standard salary level at the 40th percentile of weekly earnings for full-time salaried workers ($921 per week, or $47,892 annually); increase the total annual compensation requirement needed to exempt highly compensated employees to the annualized value of the 90th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time salaried workers ($122,148 annually); and establish a mechanism for automatically updating the salary and compensation levels going forward to ensure that they will continue to provide a useful and effective test for exemption.
Worker Misclassification:
This summer, the Department of Labor (DOL) also published guidance on worker misclassification in which the agency suggested that “most” independent contractors should be legally classified as employees. The DOL’s broad interpretation of “employee” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) suggests that worker misclassification will continue to be a top compliance concern.
Religious Discrimination:
In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employer can be held liable for failing to accommodate a religious practice under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 even through the employee has not made an express request. Specifically, an applicant need only show that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision. The decision made it easier for employees to prove religious discrimination in the workplace.
Pregnancy Discrimination:
In Young v. UPS, the U.S. Supreme Court held that employees could establish a prima facie discrimination case under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act case by providing sufficient evidence that the employer’s policies impose a significant burden on pregnant workers. Plaintiffs must also show that an employer’s ‘legitimate, nondiscriminatory’ reasons are not sufficiently strong to justify the burden, but rather—when considered along with the burden imposed—give rise to an inference of intentional discrimination. In the wake of the decision, the EEOC published revised guidance.
