Our retail and hospitality clients often ask whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requires their websites to be accessible for individuals with disabilities. Unfortunately, as we have previously explained, there are numerous reasons why there is no clear answer to this question: 
- While Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals on the basis of disability with regard to their participation and equal enjoyment in places of public accommodation, the statute does not explicitly define whether a place of public accommodation must be a physical place or facility;
- These types of issues historically have arisen in brick-and-mortar buildings such as lack of accessible parking stalls, insufficient ramps, and inaccessible bathrooms;
- No regulations on the issue of website accessibility currently exist, and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has pushed back the date on which it is supposed to issue such regulations until 2018 at the earliest;
- The DOJ has emphasized that businesses should make websites accessible to disabled individuals by relying on a set of private industry standards developed by the World Wide Web Consortium known as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”);
- Very few cases have reached a resolution on the merits.
As a result, the state of the law regarding the applicability of the ADA to company websites has been in flux the last several years. However, we now are starting to see some guidance from the courts, although there have been contrasting decisions that have not exactly clarified matters.
Traditionally, when a labor union begins an organizing campaign at a workplace, the federal agency that is the typical focal point is the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), whose purpose is to protect the right of workers to organize and to freely choose whether or not to be represented by a labor union. Indeed, the NLRB is an intrinsic part of the election process, and the NLRB may also become involved in a union organizing campaign if, for instance, the union asserts that the employer has committed an unfair labor practice. However, unions have also engaged with or depended on the regulations of other federal agencies as a tactic to gain leverage in organizing campaigns. There are a number of ways a union may influence the outcome of an organizing campaign by using federal agencies, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) or the Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) of the Department of Labor (“DOL”), to persuade employees or put pressure on employers to concede to union representation.
This week the Department of Labor (“DOL”) submitted a 
The rise in medical and recreational marijuana legislation poses many interesting questions for employers. State legislation of the lawful use of cannabis likely will require employers to change their perceptions of longstanding drug policies and practices. Legalized medical and recreational cannabis is a reality in many states, dispensaries are open for business, and state legislation on this topic has become a hot topic throughout the country.
Pro employee groups praised this law as a way to counter the pay discrimination that can follow a woman throughout her career when the salary bump she gets with each job move is based on pay that is already less than her male peers. Many advocates for women believe that by basing future salaries on previous wages, employers are perpetuating the long-standing gender based pay gap. Indeed, some argue that the widening of the gender pay gap as women age supports the theory that employers are relying too heavily on previous salaries. Companies and business groups, on the other hand, have expressed their views that this new law is misguided and represents yet another government-mandated intrusion into the way they conduct their businesses. Employers further argue that these laws could have a negative impact on job growth and, in addition, there is nothing unlawful or unfair about using salary history to set pay and manage their costs.
On Thursday, April 27, 2017, 