In a closely watched case, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that an employer could lawfully terminate an employee who tested positive for marijuana in a random drug test, even though the employee’s use of marijuana was off-duty and prescribed under Colorado’s Medical Marijuana Amendment. Coats v. Dish Network, LLC, 2015 CO 44 (2015).
Brandon Coats
Continue Reading Colorado Supreme Court Upholds Firing For Medical Marijuana Use
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 Parcel Service, Inc. The Court
Continue Reading What to Expect When The Legislature Is Expecting (To Reintroduce The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act)
By Sam Schwartz-Fenwick and Craig B. Simonsen
In 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) (June 19, 2015), 80 Fed.
Continue Reading SEC Interpretive Release on the Terms “Spouse” and “Marriage”
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? Read on for some practical,
Continue Reading You Can’t Stick Your Head in the Sand: Dos and Don’ts for Religious Accommodation in Hiring After EEOC v. Abercrombie
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 Scalia — despite having expressed
Continue Reading Wait, I Thought We Couldn’t Ask About Religion in Hiring? The Impact of the Supreme Court’s Ruling in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch
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 to an individual’s social media
Continue Reading Don’t Tweet On Me!
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 Tom can’t. And the difference
Continue Reading Same-Sex Marriage Bans As Sex Discrimination: The Potential Impact On Plan Sponsors And Employers
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 § 1981. In Ruben Juarez v.
Continue Reading Lawfully Present And Protected
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 Court also ruled in United
Continue Reading The Supreme Court Weighs The Constitutionality Of Restricting Marriage To Opposite Sex Couples, And The Impact Their Decision May Have For Employers
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. In particular, the bill makes
Continue Reading New York City To Prohibit Use of Credit History in Employment Decisions