You may know that federal law prohibits an employer or prospective employer from treating an employee or prospective employee differently because she is pregnant. But can an employer maintain a list of employees it knows to be pregnant? As with many other issues in employment law, the permissibility of such a practice likely depends on the circumstances, the intent, and the manner in which the list is maintained and distributed.
Johnson v. Halstead, No. 17-10223 (5th Cir. Dec. 19, 2018)
A reminder from the Fifth Circuit: a shift transfer can be a materially adverse action for retaliation purposes. "[A] retaliatory shift change that places a substantial burden on the plaintiff, such as significant interference with outside responsibilities or drastically and objectively less desirable hours, can dissuade an employee from reporting discrimination."
Biel v. St. James School, No. 17-55180 (9th Cir. Dec. 17, 2018)
The Ninth Circuit, substantially parting with the reasoning of the Seventh, holds (2-1) that a fifth-grade parochial school teacher did not fall within the ministerial exception articulated in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171 (2012).
AI Exposes Employees to Increased Security and Privacy Risks
For all of its ostensible benefits and efficiencies, widespread implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) poses significant danger to workers in the U.S. and elsewhere. As employers increase the amount of employee data they collect, so does the risk that the information will be abused, placing employee security and privacy in peril.
The Very Real Threat of AI in the Workplace
Science fiction movies and sensational headlines warn us that artificial intelligence (AI) is going to make our jobs obsolete, widen the chasm between the very rich and the barely-surviving poor, and even develop superior consciousness. Far-fetched fantasies aside, many of AI's applications pose some very real threats to the modern workplace.
What About the Employees Who Pick Up the Slack When Coworkers Take Parental Leave?
The United States is one of the few countries in the world that does not require employers to provide any paid time off for new parents. Employees who are covered by the federal Family & Medical Leave Act and meet its requirements may be entitled to up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave, however, and many states have additional leave laws that apply for recent parents.
Whether paid or unpaid, however, an employee's parental leave can cause logistical and economic complications for employers and the other members of the workforce. Creating further tension is the reality faced by workers who remain in the workforce and "pick up the slack" for the employees who are out on leave. However, recent research shows that employers can resolve these tensions with basic, practical solutions.
Wall Street Keeps #MeToo Under Wraps
As the #MeToo movement sweeps through popular culture, unseating powerhouses in industries from entertainment to politics to academia, the financial industry has been remarkably quiet. On Wall Street, complaints of sexism, gender discrimination, and sexual harassment have simmered for years, but there have been no significant personalities removed from their positions or otherwise dethroned from power.
How has this powerful social movement remained barely noticeable in the white-collar world of high-stakes finance?
Bullying in the Legal Profession
From the schoolyard to the workplace, bullying is an epidemic. Because mistreatment and abuse of employees can result in legal action and liability, one would think lawyers and law firms would be vigilant in stopping or preventing bullying in their offices. Surveys of workers in the legal profession show otherwise.
Mancini v. City of Providence, RI, No. 18-1011 (1st Cir. Nov. 21, 2018)
The First Circuit affirms that, in an ADA case, it is often not necessary to present expert medical testimony to prove a disability. Nevertheless, the panel affirms summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff - a police sergeant with a knee injury - failed to prove that his impairment substantially limited him in the major life activities of standing, walking, and bending.
Netter v. Guilford Cnty. Sheriff's Office, No. 18-1039 (4th Cir. Nov. 15, 2018)
The Fourth Circuit cautions employees (and their counsel) that taking actions to support an EEOC charge are not "protected activities" under the "participation" clause of Title VII's anti-retaliation section if they violate state law. Here, the court affirms summary judgment in a case where the employee copied and delivered confidential personnel files to the EEOC, in violation of North Carolina law.
