Why are employers testing job applicants for prescription medications?

During a pre-employment medical examination and drug screen, an applicant tests positive for Alprazolam, the generic form of Xanax (a medication commonly prescribed for anxiety), a fact she had already disclosed during the examination. The doctor performing the medical exam and reviewing the drug screen concludes that the applicant is medically acceptable for work as an intake specialist at an inpatient mental health facility. The employer, however, has other ideas. It withdraws the job offer without providing the applicant any opportunity to discuss the results.

The applicant sues, claiming disability discrimination.

Who wins?

NLRB offers significant and important guidance on its new(ish) employee handbook rules

It’s been just over 18 months since the NLRB decided Boeing Co., perhaps its most significant decision in decades. It rewrote more than a decade of precedent by overturning its Lutheran Heritage standard regarding when facially neutral employment policies violate the rights of employees to engage in concerted activity protected by section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.

In Boeing, the Board scrapped Lutheran Heritage’s “reasonably construe” test (a work rule violates section 7 if an employee could “reasonably construe” an infringement of their section 7 rights) with a test that balances “asserted business justifications and the invasion of employee rights” by weighing “(i) the nature and extent of the potential impact on NLRA rights, and (ii) legitimate justifications associated with the requirement(s).” It was a huge win for employers drafting and issuing workplace policies.

Why, yesterday, in France was a stadium full of people chanting “EQUAL PAY?”

Indisputable fact no. 1: Women and men should earn the same pay for the same work.

Indisputable fact no. 2: The players on the United States women’s national soccer team earn substantially less than their counterparts on the men’s team.

The Equal Pay Act requires that an employer pay its male and female employees equal pay for equal work. The jobs need not be identical, but they must be substantially equal. Substantial equality is measured by job content, not job titles.

4 ways your employees are like a new puppy

We are on day 5 of new puppy in the Hyman household. Dante is adjusting well, as are we (including big sister Loula … more or less). It’s been 7 years since we last raised a puppy. And the thing I forgot the most is just how many rules there are.

There’s no such thing as “reverse” discrimination—it’s all just discrimination

According to the New York Post, a Caucasian 20-year veteran attorney for the Legal Aid Society is suing her former employer for race discrimination. Among other issues in her lawsuit, she claims that she was denied a lateral move “because of ‘diversity considerations.’”

Do you know that some courts impose a different, higher legal standard for discrimination against white employees than for discrimination against African-American employees?

Don’t forget about overtime pay when providing bonuses to non-exempt employees

Last week Chipotle announced a new bonus plan that could earn its employees up to an extra month of pay each year. Per the chain’s press release, the program is offered quarterly and can result in a bonus worth one week’s pay, calculated as an individual’s average weekly pay per quarter. To qualify for the quarterly bonus program, restaurant teams must meet certain sales and cash goals.

This bonus program has the potential to be a great way for the restaurant to break through in a tight labor market to attract talent. It also, however, has the potential to pose an FLSA nightmare. Bonus payments often count as part of a non-exempt employee’s regular rate of pay, thereby increasing the overtime premium owed to that employee.

Does an employer have a duty to protect the personal information of its employees? (Part 3)

Employees trust their employers with a whole bunch of personal information. Social security numbers, medical documents, insurance records, birth dates, criminal records, credit reports, family information, etc. And it’s not like employees have a choice over whether to disclose and entrust this information to their employer. These documents are all necessary if employees want to get hired, get paid, and obtain health insurance and other benefits. Thus, an employer’s personnel records are a treasure trove of PII (personally identifiable information — any data that could potentially identify a specific individual, which can be used to distinguish one person from another and de-anonymizing otherwise anonymous data).

For this reason, cyber-criminals target myriad businesses in an attempt to steal (and then sell on the dark web) this data.

If a company is hacked, and employees’ PII or other data is stolen, is their employer liable to its employees for any damages caused by the data breach?