What happens when the religious beliefs of an applicant conflict with your grooming and appearance policy? What if the applicant is seeking a public-facing position in which they will be the first (and only) representative of your organization with whom most members of the public interact? While some employers may believe that “image is everything” when it comes to the appearance of their public-facing employees, a 4.9 million-dollar settlement of a religious discrimination lawsuit announced recently by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) serves as a stark reminder to employers that even your most straightforward policies may need to be modified in certain situations. As detailed in our June 7, 2018 blog post, the EEOC has been aggressively making good on the promise made in the agency’s Strategic Enforcement Plan for Fiscal Years 2017 – 2021 to focus on “class-based recruitment and hiring practices” that discriminate against people with disabilities by filing a series of lawsuits accusing employers of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by inquiring about prior medical histories, subjecting applicants to physical capacity tests and refusing to hire individuals who disclosed certain conditions. The agency’s Strategic Enforcement Plan similarly committed to rooting out religious barriers to employment. This is important because while many employers readily understand the need to reasonably accommodate disabled applicants and employees, it seems that some employers fail to grasp that they may also have to accommodate religious beliefs and practices of applicants and employees.
What the Law Requires
Title VII requires that employers, once informed that a religious accommodation is needed, accommodate an employee whose sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance conflicts with a work requirement, unless doing so would pose an undue hardship. If an employer’s dress and grooming policy conflicts with an employee’s known religious beliefs or practices, the EEOC expects Continue reading
Cybersecurity and digital threats were a hot topic at ALIS Law, a conference for hotel owners and operators, in Los Angeles last month. I had a pleasure of moderating a session on “threats in a digital world” with senior executives from national hotel management and ownership groups. In our session, we discussed what were some of the pressing and most concerning digital threats that kept the hospitality industry up at night. Here are some highlights and take-aways from the session:
- Cybersecurity and hacks from foreign and domestic threats remain a top concern. Many hotels have been engaging in surveillance as one method of cyber protection. It was noted how much the investment in technology to prevent, address, and respond to cybersecurity issues has increased for both owners and operators. While owners may bear the cost on their profit & loss statement, and management companies are putting in policies, owners are adding property specific monitoring. It was discussed that one global hotel company, Hyatt Hotels, recently announced a bug bounty program whereby they will be paying ethical hackers to monitor their systems, including mobile applications, for potential risks and where credible risks or threats are found – the hackers will be compensated – which is a novel approach in the hospitality industry.
- While cybersecurity threats have been a focus, one repeated concern is the threat of harm to a hotel’s reputation due to guests and third parties spreading false information on social media sites, such as LinkedIn, Yelp, and Trip Advisor. To address these concerns, hotel operators talk with their teams daily about the consequences of false information or a bad review and take steps to remove false reviews if possible. Others noted that removing a false review from a site like Trip Advisor can be challenging unless the company is able to prove that the review was posted for criminal reasons or demonstratively false.
- One consequence of a cybersecurity hack beyond the disclosure of guest information is if a hacker was able to secure personal identifiable information of a hotel company’s investors and borrowers. If investors are concerned that a hotel company is not protecting their highly confidential and personal financial information, that would have a significant impact on the reputational harm to the company.
- Some of the best practices that owner and operators have put into place is an incident response plan to respond to a threat. In doing so, a key question is who you need at the table to decide how to move forward (IT / GC / PR / Owner) and what elements do you need to put into place. In addition, implementing policies and procedures on the front end is critical. For example, from an accounting perspective, having controls in place that can protect where the money is going and where it is coming from and ensuring that there are multiple approvals before money is sent out electronically. Finally, training staff on the policies and procedures so that the right people are getting the right information. Managers need to judge and reward staff for compliance with the policies because while a company continue to monitor and audit, training is only effective if compliance is monitored. For example, one company reported conducting more secret shoppers to determine whether someone can drop a flash drive into a front desk computer to tap into the network.
Unfortunately, cybersecurity risks and threats are not going away anytime soon, but with planning and focus on this important issue, hotel owners and operators can get ahead of some of the threats and take control and strong action if a risk materializes.
On October 31, 2018, roughly one year after the beginning of the #MeToo movement, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) held a public meeting at agency headquarters in Washington, D.C. entitled “Revamping Workplace Culture to Prevent Harassment.” The purpose of this meeting was to hear various approaches that different industries are implementing to prevent harassment and provide employers the skills, resources, and knowledge to respond workplace harassment.
Acting Chair Victoria Lipnic began the meeting by noting that the nation is at the apex of a cultural awakening that the EEOC has been tracking for years. Since the #MeToo movement went viral, hits on the EEOC website Continue reading
Join Conn Maciel Carey Labor & Employment Practice Group partner, Mark Trapp, on November 14, 2018 when he presents an interactive workshop to help unionized employers understand and analyze what is often the most critical challenge facing their business – multiemployer pension withdrawal liability. Attendees will learn innovative and aggressive techniques and strategies to address this issue and proactively secure the future of their company.
This workshop will also discuss the current legislative environment for multiemployer pension plans and issues, particularly the work of the Joint Select Committee on Solvency of Multiemployer Pension Plans, charged with preparing a report and recommended legislative language by November 30 to “significantly improve the solvency” of multiemployer pension plans and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Workshop attendees will:
Gain a broad understanding of the challenges facing employers who participate in a multiemployer pension plan
Discover strategies for assessing and minimizing their withdrawal liability risks through collective bargaining and business planning
Examine the status and possibility of legislative relief from the Joint Select Committee on Solvency of Multiemployer Pension Plans
Click here to register.
It has been about a year since the #MeToo movement went viral, spreading greater awareness about sexual misconduct and harassment, and, more generally, the role of women, in the workplace. So, where are we now, and has anything changed? Was it just an awareness movement? Or, have things actually started to shift in the legal landscape with respect to the way employers are required to handle sexual misconduct and harassment? And what about with the way women are represented at work? Even if #MeToo may have started out as an awareness movement, states like New York and California are implementing changes in the law that are now imposing, or will soon impose, new requirements on employers, in hopes of giving #MeToo a significant, lasting effect. So, what should employers in New York and California do now? And, given that these states are often at the forefront of labor and employment issues, how should employers outside New York and California prepare in case new laws are passed in their states?
New York’s New Anti-Sexual Harassment Laws
On April 12, 2018, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law the 2019 New York State Budget, updating the state’s sexual harassment laws. Among other changes, there are two key components under these laws. First, every employer in New York must establish a sexual harassment prevention policy. These policies should have already been adopted and provided to all employees by October 9, 2018. The New York Department of Labor and New York Division of Human Rights have established a model sexual harassment prevention policy for employers to adopt. But employers are not required to use this model, so long as their policy meets or exceeds the minimum standards of the model and set forth in the laws. Employers must distribute the policy to all employees in writing or electronically, and must ensure that all future employees receive the policy before they start work. Additionally, employers are encouraged to post a copy where employees can easily access it.
By: Aaron R. Gelb
Until last week, the US Department of Labor (the “DOL”) had not issued an Opinion Letter regarding the Family and Medical Leave Act (the “FMLA”) since George W. Bush was packing up and preparing to leave the White House in January 2009. On August 28, 2018, Bryan Jarrett, the Acting Administrator of the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (the “WHD”) issued two Opinion Letters—one addressing an important consideration facing employers with no-fault attendance policies and another that addresses whether organ donation surgery can qualify as a “serious health condition” under the FMLA for the purposes of taking leave. While the answer to the latter question will likely not surprise anyone who regularly deals with employee requests for leave under the FMLA, the WHD’s opinion regarding whether and how points should be removed from an individual’s record while they are on protected leave does indeed provide much needed clarity on that topic.
But first, a bit of background regarding why the mere issuance of these letters is significant. An opinion letter is an official, written opinion issued by the Wage and Hour Division of the DOL explaining how a certain law applies in specific circumstances described by an employer, employee, or other entity requesting the opinion. The DOL noted in a June 2017 press release that the Wage and Hour Division had been issuing opinion letters for more than 70 years until the Obama administration replaced them with general guidance memoranda in 2010. “Reinstating opinion letters will benefit employees and employers as they provide a means by which both can develop a clearer understanding of the Fair Labor Standards Act and other statutes,” said Secretary Acosta in the press release. “The U.S. Department of Labor is committed to helping employers and employees clearly understand their labor responsibilities,” said Secretary Acosta, explaining that such letters would enable employers to “concentrate on doing what they do best: growing their businesses and creating jobs.”
Turning to the two opinion letters issued on August 28, 2018, we will first address the leave for organ donation, then consider no-fault attendance policy rules. Continue reading