Employers

Subscribe to Employers via RSS

An Election Primer for Private-Sector Employers

As the 2024 general election draws near, employers can anticipate a rise in political expression from employees both inside and outside of the workplace. Political speech encompasses a broad array of activities, extending far beyond verbal or written communication on political topics. For example, wearing clothing or accessories that endorse or oppose certain issues (N.L.R.B. v. Mead Corp.); wearing wrist bands in support of political causes (Tinker v. Des Moines); displaying bumper stickers, campaign buttons or political posters (Ferguson Police Officers Ass’n v. City of Ferguson); donning insignia such as buttons or decals (Home Depot USA, Inc. and Antonio Morales Jr.); and even “liking” a social media post can be viewed as protected speech (Bland v. Roberts).

Late yesterday, August 20, 2024, a Federal Court in Texas issued a decision which enjoins – on a nationwide basis – the FTC’s final rule which would effectively ban all non-competes with limited exceptions. While we expect the FTC to appeal this decision, the rule will not go into effect on September 4, 2024, or…

From Congress’ recently proposed “Dismantle DEI Act of 2024” to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit’s decision permitting mandatory diversity training by employers, diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) programs remain a contentious issue in U.S. politics. In June 2024, attorneys general from 40 states joined one of two dueling letters, reflecting the inconsistent sentiments on this topic across state lines.

While properly implemented DEI programs remain permissible under Title VII and other applicable laws, recent legislation proposed by Senate and House Republicans would seek to eliminate any such programs sponsored or supported by the federal government. On June 12, 2024, twenty-two members of Congress, led by Ohio Senator J.D. Vance (Donald Trump’s vice-presidential candidate in the 2024 election) introduced the Dismantle DEI Act of 2024 (the “Act”). With respect to the Act, Senator Vance stated, “The DEI agenda is a destructive ideology that breeds hatred and racial division. It has no place in our federal government or anywhere else in our society.” The proposed legislation seeks to eliminate all federal DEI programs and funding for federal agencies, contractors which receive federal funding, organizations which receive federal grants, and educational accreditation agencies. Although the Act would not apply to the private sector, the federal government remains the nation’s largest employer and the Act would impact a workforce of over four million employees.

Colorado recently became the first state to regulate the use of high-risk artificial intelligence (AI) systems to prevent algorithmic discrimination by developers and deployers of AI systems. The Colorado AI Act is broad in scope and will apply to businesses using AI for certain employment purposes, imposing numerous compliance obligations and potential liability for algorithmic discrimination.

In the complex tapestry of workplace dynamics, there exists an often unspoken advantage known as the beauty premium or “pretty privilege.” This phenomenon refers to the societal bias toward individuals who are perceived as conventionally attractive. Over twenty years of scholarly articles show an unconscious preference to interact with people we may find attractive, even in the employment context during the hiring process and throughout employment. While it may seem superficial, pretty privilege can significantly impact one’s career trajectory, opportunities, and overall experience in the professional world.

In 2021, there was a mass shooting at a high school in Michigan in which four students were killed. As a result of this shooting, not only was the shooter prosecuted, but the parents of the shooter were charged with criminal liability by their failure to take ordinary care to act appropriately, and are, therefore, being tried for four counts of involuntary manslaughter. The mother was recently convicted.

Other parents in the last few months have pled guilty to charges of reckless conduct or neglect in these situations. Given this pattern, it is reasonably foreseeable that employers—if such shootings take place in the workplace—may also be prosecuted or subject to stiff personal injury claims due to shootings in the workplace, if they do not follow at least the minimum standards as set out in state law regarding restrictions on weapons in the workplace.

Democrats and Republicans within the House Committee on Education and the Workforce have recently expressed bipartisan interest in raising or eliminating the statutory caps on damages for claims brought under Title VII and the ADA. While the plan is still in its very early stages, any revisions to statutory damages caps would have significant implications for employers.