Hiring, Testing & Selection

By Katherine Mendez

Hot off the heels of the Supreme Court’s decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., recently, a bipartisan group of lawmakers declared their intent to reintroduce the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

You may recall that on March 25, 2015, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Young v. United

By Sam Schwartz-Fenwick and Craig B. Simonsen

Blog picIn another federal action that employers need take note of, last week the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) issued its “Commission Guidance Regarding the Definition of the Terms ‘Spouse’ and ‘Marriage’ Following the Supreme Court’s Decision in United States v. Windsor.” SEC Interpretive Release No. 33-9850 (IR)

By Dawn Solowey and Ariel Cudkowicz

On June 1, 2015, in a 8-1 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the religious-discrimination case of EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. We blogged about that opinion on the day of the decision.

But many employers are wondering: now what?

By Dawn Reddy Solowey and Ariel Cudkowicz

It’s the decision the employment bar has been waiting for: on June 1, 2015, in a 8-1 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the EEOC in the religious discrimination case of EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., which we’ve blogged about before.

Headlines

Justice

By Adam Vergne and Chuck Walters

Following a national trend, Montana and Virginia have become the nineteenth and twentieth states to enact laws restricting employer access to the social media accounts of applicants and employees.[1]

Virginia’s law, which takes effect on July 1, 2015, prohibits requesting (or requiring) the disclosure of usernames and/or passwords

By Sam Schwartz-Fenwick and Amanda Sonneborn

In last week’s oral argument on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans, Chief Justice Roberts asked the following question:

Counsel, I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case. I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and

By Brian A. Wadsworth

Employers are well aware that the protections provided by 42 U.S.C. § 1981 extend to both United States citizens and permanent residents, colloquially referred to as “green card holders.”

Some employers, however, may be unaware that lawfully present aliens who are not green card holders may also be protected by § 

By Lynn Kappelman, Laura Maechtlen, Sam Schwartz-Fenwick and Michael Stevens

Background

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on two questions regarding the Constitutionality of state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. In 2013, the Supreme Court side-stepped the issue when it dismissed Perry v Hollingsworth on standing grounds. In 2013, the

By Pamela Q. Devata, Cameron Smith, and Courtney S. Stieber

On April 16, 2015, the New York City Council passed Intro-261-A, a bill that would amend the New York City Human Rights Law to make it an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer to use an individual’s consumer credit history in making employment decisions.

By Sara Eber Fowler and Johanna T. Wise

Last week, an en banc panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals took a fresh look at whether Ford Motor Company’s decision to deny an employee’s request to telecommute four days a week violated the ADA. Reversing its prior ruling from last year (previously reported here