labor lawAdivision of labor law center

A recent Chicago case underscores the need for every employer to be familiar with local anti-discrimination ordinances, as well as state and federal law.

An Illinois employer was recently forced to pay more than $300,000 for parental discrimination against a working mother. The award included $87,000 in attorney fees and $100,000 in damages.

A local Chicago ordinance prohibits employment discrimination against parents. While many municipalities have such laws, employers have shown little concern for them in the past, because monetary awards under such laws were rare.

In the Chicago case, a 39-year-old working mother of two employed by a healthcare company was paid a lower (more…)

Effective November 21, 2009 employers are required to display a new federal poster. Employers must display a GINA poster in an area where all employees can see it.

This new federal posting requirement applies to virtually every employer, even if they never engage in genetic testing.

GINA, of course, is the Genetic Information Nondisclosure Act of 2008. Under GINA, employers are prohibited from gathering information on an employee’s genetic makeup. Employers are also prohibited from considering an employee’s genetic information in making employment decisions.

Health insurance providers cannot discriminate against consumers, based on genetic information under GINA. For example, a health insurance company could not refuse to cover an individual, simply because her mother, grandmother and aunt all had breast cancer. Even if genetic testing showed that the consumer had a gene for breast cancer, that alone would not be sufficient cause for the health insurance company to deny her coverage.

The GINA prohibition on gathering genetic information also includes taking information on an employee’s family medical history – especially hereditary illnesses like heart disease, breast cancer, diabetes, arthritis, Alzheimer’s, and other inherited conditions.

GINA covers a wide variety of mental health conditions including depression, (more…)

 Employers should be aware that GINA imposes even more stringent confidentiality laws than HIPAA does, regarding genetic information and an employee’s family medical history.

On November 21, 2009, Title II of GINA, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, will go into effect. This portion of the law prohibits employees from discrimination against an individual based on genetic testing. Title I of the law, which went into effect in May 2009, prohibits health insurance providers from discrimination against an individual based on genetic testing.

For example, a health insurance company could not refuse to cover an individual because he or she had a genetic predisposition for breast cancer, diabetes or heart disease. Nor could an employer refuse to hire an employee, based on that genetic information. In fact, it would be a violation of the law for the employer to even acquire information about an employee’s genetic profile.

More than 13 years in the making, GINA was signed into law by President George W. Bush on May 21, 2008.  The law was passed partly out of concern that individuals were refusing genetic testing, which might have improved their health care, because they feared discrimination from employers or health insurance providers.

The EEOC recently released GINA guidelines for employers to be in compliance with this new law.

Under Title II, GINA prohibits employers from intentionally (more…)

Effective February 1, 2009 every employer should have posted an OSHA 300A summary of work-related injuries, illnesses and accidents in 2008.

Employers are required to post only the summary, not the entire OSHA 300 log each year.

Some information on the OSHA 300A should be kept confidential by omitting the employees name or the nature of the injuries. If a female employee is sexually assulated in the workplace, for example, her name and the exact nature of the injury should not be listed. Any illness or injury that could potentially be embarrassing to the employee, should not be specified. For example, if a male employee suffered a serious injury to the groin area might only be listed as “laceration.”

The OSHA 300A summary of workplace injuries should remain posted until April 30, 2009. The record serves in part to remind employers and employees of potential hazards i (more…)

The U.S. Department of Labor or DOL announced on January 15, 2009 that Sandia Corp. has agreed to pay more than $2 million in back wages for unpaid overtime.

In an interesting wrinkle, the Albuquerque employer apparently tried to avoid overtime payments for non-exempt employees by setting no fixed payroll week.

Under the federal FLSA or Fair Labor Standards Act, employers must pay an employee overtime when the employee works more than 40 hours in the payroll week.

Information on the FLSA requirements for overtime are included on the federal minimum wage poster that every employer must prominently display in the workplace.

By not having a fixed payroll week, Sandia averaged the employees’ hours over two or more weeks. Under the FLSA, an employer can establish any fixed payroll week that the employer likes. The payroll week can run from Sunday to Saturday, or from Monday to Sunday, or from Thursday to Wednesday. Under some circumstances, an employer can change the payroll week, as long as employees are given advance notice.

However, the employee’s workweek must be a fixed and regularly recurring period of 168 hours, (more…)