By Eric B. Meyer
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on a number of protected classes. Sexual orientation isn’t one of those protected classes specifically listed in the statute.
So, if an employee complains about sexual-orientation harassment and is later fired because she complained, then that won’t create a claim under Title VII. Or does it?
In Bennefield v. Mid-Valley Healthcare, Inc., an employee allegedly complained to her supervisor that a co-worker was creating a hostile work environment by, among other things, calling the employee a “disgusting lesbian” and a “stupid lesbian.” Read more…
By Sara Richland
Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a “waiting period” is defined as the period that must pass before coverage for an individual who is otherwise eligible to enroll under the terms of a group health plan can become effective.
The ACA prohibits group health plans and group health insurance issuers from imposing a waiting period that exceeds 90 days after an employee is otherwise eligible for health coverage.
Generally, an individual is “eligible” to enroll in a health plan if he or she has met the plan’s substantive eligibility conditions, such as being in an eligible job classification, earning a certain level of commission, or satisfying a reasonable and bona fide employment-based orientation period. Read more…
By Eric B. Meyer
File this under: Duh!
Let’s assume that you have an employee who commits a terminable offense. For example, in Martins v. Rhode Island Hospital, surveillance cameras and the Hospital’s employee ID swipe system suggested that Martins left work for approximately four hours and, later, he could not account for his whereabouts.
So, you schedule a termination meeting, which is exactly what the Hospital did with Martins. However, at the meeting, Martins told the Hospital that he suffers from bipolar disorder. Read more…
What’s in a name? When it comes to health plans sold on the individual market, these days it’s often less than people think.
The lines that distinguish HMOs, PPOs, EPOs and POS plans from one another have blurred, making it hard to know what you’re buying by name alone – assuming you’re one of the few people who know what an EPO is in the first place.
“Now, there’s a lot of gray out there,” says Sabrina Corlette, project director at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. Read more…
A recent contest for people to submit their favorite interview questions yielded the interesting, the odd, the useful, the insightful, and the obscene.
They included such questions as: “What is your favorite palindrome?” and “Why did America stop selling War Bonds?”
And, there are some I can’t publish without washing my own mouth out with soap. Read more…
Question: What do you get when you combine “ban the box” compliance with utterly idiotic hiring practices? (I know I’m supposed to be diplomatic but no can do in this instance.)
Answer: Ask the city of Austin, Texas, who hired a six-time convict to work in their public library — and who just plead guilty to attempted indecency with a child.
Before we dig into the details, let me show you the resume (see: rap sheet) of said employee, Joe Heath, brought with him to the Austin Public library where he would come in regular contact with the public, including children. Read more…
By John E. Thompson
A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims underscores important propositions under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act to the effect that:
- Failing to pay non-exempt employees the FLSA-required minimum-wage or overtime compensation by the next regular payday for the workweek (or by the next regular payday for the longer pay-period in which the workweek ends) after they can be determined violates the FLSA, and
- Such violations give rise to claims under the FLSA for “liquidated damages,” even if the employee is later paid the underlying required wages. Read more…
By Eric B. Meyer
Come Jan. 1, 2015, most New Jersey employers will no longer be able to ask about an applicant’s criminal record during the initial employment application process.
Ban the box will be b-b-b-b-banned in the Garden State! Read more…
Nearly one company in six in a new survey from a major employer group plans to offer health coverage that doesn’t meet the Affordable Care Act’s requirements for value and affordability.
Many thought such low-benefit “skinny plans” would be history once the health law was fully implemented this year. Instead, 16 percent of large employers in a survey released Aug. 13 by the National Business Group on Health said they will offer in 2015 lower-benefit coverage along with at least one health plan that does qualify under ACA standards.
The results weren’t unexpected by benefits pros, who realized last year that ACA regulations would allow skinny plans and even make them attractive for some employers. But the new survey gives one of the first looks at how many companies will follow through and offer them. Read more…