As state and local economies reopen, employers across the country are cautiously welcoming employees back to their jobs, fearing a resurgence of the COVID-19 outbreak. For returning workers, the workplace will be different from before, including the extent to which their privacy will be protected, especially medical and health information.
In recent weeks, the White House released guidelines for reopening the nation's economy, largely punting to state and local officials to assess whether they are sufficiently prepared to stay ahead of the COVID-19 spread and when to reopen non-essential businesses. In anticipation of bringing employees back to the workplace, the administration has also instructed employers to "develop and implement appropriate policies" to keep workers and patrons safe from contagion. That may be easier said than done.
As the COVID-19 coronavirus crisis continues, many companies have arranged for significant portions of their workforce to perform their jobs remotely. The physical delineation between work and home has been blurred, and videoconferencing tools to virtually connect with coworkers and clients are a fact of work and home life. Unfortunately, giving managers and colleagues glimpses into your private world, images, messages, and even people in the background can lead to discrimination, harassment, and adverse treatment.
There is no shortage of heroes in California during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially among the doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals. They put themselves in harm's way every day to help others. Not only do healthcare workers put their own health at risk by doing their jobs, but they also increase the chances that they may expose their families and loved ones to the virus. Given these sacrifices, it isn't unreasonable for such workers to expect the safest possible environment for doing their critical work. In fact, California law demands it.
The laws in New York and elsewhere throughout the country have come a long way in recent years when it comes to protecting job applicants from employment discrimination based on criminal history. "Ban the box" laws and ordinances facilitate opportunities for tens of thousands of workers who used to pay an ongoing price for transgressions that they paid for long ago.
On Monday, The Supreme Court held that the ADEA allows federal employees to sue over any age bias that is part of an adverse employment action, not just in cases where that bias is the determining factor.
Over the last decade, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has received an average of 3,573 charges of religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Those are just the reported incidents; many more are suspected of going unreported, further highlighting the prevalence of religious-based discrimination in workplaces across the country.
By Mikael Rojas and Maria Malaver
Being the subject of malicious gossip or innuendo in the workplace can sabotage your relationships with coworkers and impede your career prospects. But can this behavior actually rise to the level of a hostile work environment under the law and provide the basis for a sexual harassment claim? According to several cases from around the country, the answer is yes - if adequately supported, evidence of rumors, innuendo, and gossip can demonstrate actionable gender-based discrimination.