State Voting Laws Update

October 29th, 2010 Posted by Jolie

Thirty-two U.S. states have laws that require employers to give workers to . These include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, , Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

 

In every state, it is unlawful for the to try to unduly influence the ’s vote, or to threaten the with termination or discipline for for the wrong party or candidate.

 

The new Minnesota reported last week is just the most recent in a long series of state voting laws. That law requires that employers pay the employee for time off to vote, even when the employee has sufficient time to vote during off-duty hours.

 

Some states with voting laws require time off on election day to vote. In many cases, 2 hours is deemed sufficient time for the employee to travel to the polling place, vote and return to work, although some states require 3 hours. Some states require unpaid time off only if the employee’s schedule does not otherwise afford him or her sufficient time on to vote, while polls are open.

 

Some states including Alabama and Kentucky also require an employer to give unpaid time off to a to serve as an election official.

 

Employers are required to pay workers for voting time (more…)

No Comments >> Posted in Compliance Issues,Other
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

More Tennessee Discrimination Suits on Horizon

October 27th, 2010 Posted by Madison

A recent ruling by the Tennessee Supreme Court opens the door for more litigation by employees in the Volunteer State. This ruling means it will be much easier for an to sue an for in than in court.

 

On September 20, 2010, Tennessee’s highest court suddenly ruled that a different standard will apply to summary judgments from now on. Summary judgments are often used by employers to nip discrimination suits in the bud. When the employer wins an early summary judgment, the employee’s cannot go forward. This is often the first line of defense that an employer has against an employee’s claim of illegal discrimination.

 

In Gossett v. Tractor Supply Co., the Supreme Court ruled that an employee had the right to sue the employer for illegal discrimination simply because she was reassigned after filing a complaint of sexual harassment against her supervisor. This was true, no matter how reasonable and justified the employer’s reason for the reassignment was.

 

This groundbreaking decision authored by overturned the previous ruling in Allen v. McPhee, where a female employee was reassigned after complaining of harassment “to protect her from any further sexual harassment.”

 

Until now, Tennessee has used the McDonnell Douglas framework for determining summary judgments, the same legal test used by federal courts. In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that when an employer (more…)

No Comments >> Posted in State,Tennessee
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Doctor’s Release Trumps “Common Sense” in Court

October 22nd, 2010 Posted by Cara

Common sense is no match for a doctor’s fitness-for-duty in the workplace, especially when it comes to .

 

Employers should be aware that they cannot change a woman’s job duties simply because she is pregnant, even when the job is physically demanding. In fact, an cannot routinely require fitness-for-duty exams from women in early pregnancy. A doctor’s note can be required only when the has a reason to suspect that the is not fit for duty, because the has requested an accommodation, taken for pregnancy or verbally indicated that she is having problems related to pregnancy.

 

Now the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a doctor’s note allowing the pregnant employee to return to work trumps the employer’s “common sense” concerns about the safety of the mother and the unborn baby.

 

Failure to allow a pregnant woman to continue her job duties when she has a release from her doctor is illegal based on pregnancy. Current medical opinion is that most pregnant women can do anything they did before pregnancy, at least for the first 7 or 8 months. 

 

In Spees v. James Marine Inc., Heather Spees was hired as a by James Marine, Inc. Shortly after being hired, Spees became pregnant. Due to Spees’ verbal accounts of complications with previous pregnancies, the employer requested a release from her doctor. Spees saw her doctor and returned with a release specifically stating that she was fit for all her usual duties, (more…)

No Comments >> Posted in Other
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

New Minnesota Voter Leave Law

October 20th, 2010 Posted by Jolie

now requires that employees be given at any time of day to . legislators amended the leave statute in 2010, strengthening what was already one of the strongest leave laws in the country.

 

Under the new law, an in Minnesota must be allowed to be absent from work at any time of day to vote. This includes allowing time to travel to the polling place, cast a and return to work. The must grant this time off even if the employee has sufficient time when polls are open to vote outside work hours.

 

The previous version of the law required only that the employer allow time off in the morning. Under the newly amended law, the employer may be required to permit sufficient time off at any time of day, including afternoon, evening or night.

 

In addition, the Minnesota voting law requires that employees be paid to vote. The law specifies that the employee will not be penalized or have wages deducted (more…)

No Comments >> Posted in Employment Laws,Labor and Employment,Minnesota,Other
Tags: , , , , ,

Health Care Reform Resources for Employers

October 15th, 2010 Posted by Amelia

New Health Care Reform FAQs help employers understand coverage of children, out-of-network emergency services, grandfathered plans and other issues under the law passed earlier this year.

 

The Frequently Asked Questions on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act  or PPACA were issued jointly by the U.S. Department of Labor, the Department of the Treasury, and Health and Human Services.

 

Beginning September 23, 2010, new and renewed plans must:

  • Cover dependents up to age 26
  • Offer preventive (more…)
No Comments >> Posted in Other
Tags: , , , , , ,

1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   Next >>