The Federal Trade Commission proposed a rule Thursday that would ban U.S. employers from imposing noncompete clauses on workers.
Web Exclusive: COVID-19 vaccine mandate concerns nearly ‘moot’ for Indiana employers
After more than two years of dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, Indianapolis employment attorney Melissa Macchia predicts that if the issue of vaccine mandates is not moot at this point for employers, it’s close.Read More
Workplace unrest: Uptick in union membership seen as reflecting shift in workers’ attitudes
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.Read More
In-house legal departments expecting labor and employment disputes to drive surge in class actions
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.Read More
Web Exclusive: Federal bill could remove arbitration requirement for sexual misconduct claims
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.Read More
The Indiana House of Representatives and Indiana Senate did not violate the Title VII rights of a trio of former employees who accused former Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill of sexual harassment, a federal judge has ruled.
Organizations considering adverse employment actions for their H-1B foreign national employees should take into account required actions and related issues to avoid an H-1B violation
With Americans heading to the polls for midterm voting, U.S. immigration policy remains a polarizing and divisive topic.
Form I-9 violations lurk in almost every employer’s filing cabinet.
A federal judge has dismissed FedEx from a lawsuit filed by relatives of five of the eight people who were fatally shot last year at an Indianapolis warehouse by a former employee of the shipping giant.
Eli Lilly and Co. illegally deducted millions of dollars from employee paychecks to pay for company vehicles and extra time off, a former sales representative claims in a federal lawsuit.
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.
Summary judgment for IWU affirmed on retaliation, age discrimination claims, but race discrimination claim remanded
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?
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?