Townsend: Employers must heed rights of pregnant, breastfeeding workers
Federal laws passed at the close of 2022 have enhanced the rights of pregnant and breastfeeding workers.
Federal laws passed at the close of 2022 have enhanced the rights of pregnant and breastfeeding workers.
Employees who feel they’ve been “singled out” for termination or other workplace discipline are prime candidates to become plaintiffs in an employment discrimination suit. But inconsistent discipline — even discharge — isn’t necessarily unlawful.
Religious entities enjoy constitutional and statutory exemptions from a variety of employment laws. Recent cases in Indiana and across the country are challenging the applicability and scope of these exemptions.
An employer suing an employee union after the employees twice went on strike won’t be required to take its claims to arbitration.
A fired Indiana leasing consultant will continue to get unemployment benefits after the Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed she wasn’t let go for gross negligence.
The Federal Trade Commission proposed a rule Thursday that would ban U.S. employers from imposing noncompete clauses on workers.
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.
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.