In the last 9 months, I have twice posted on efforts by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and a number of private litigants to have federal courts construe federal statutory protections against certain forms of workplace discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for employers subject to the Act to discriminate against employees on account of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. . ..” During the last 40 years, a number of federal courts, including federal appellate courts, regularly rejected efforts to interpret the term “sex” as including sexual orientation and thereby refused to extend anti-discrimination protections to LGBT employees. This was often done on a perfunctory basis and without much reflection or debate on the question.
In Our Judgment
Providing insight on developments in labor and employment law affecting East Tennessee employers and employees.
I am regularly asked by employees to review various types of employment contracts, including employee non-competition agreements. More often than not these employees are Tennessee residents who work in a Tennessee-based office (or home office) and whose job duties are typically performed in Tennessee. Despite those factors, the contracts presented to them often contain two terms quite troubling to lawyers, but which go unnoticed by our clients.
Public and private employers throughout the United States received an early holiday gift from a United States district court in Texas on November 22, 2016. As I have discussed previously in this blog, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) issued new rules earlier this year substantially changing the federal law criteria for determining which employees can be deemed “exempt” from overtime requirements. Those new rules were to go into effect December 1, 2016. Currently, to be considered exempt from overtime requirements, an employee had to perform executive, administrative, or professional duties (the “duties test”); had to be paid a set weekly salary that did not change based upon the number of hours worked (the “salary level test”); and, pertinent to the current discussion, had to be paid at least $455.00 per week ($23,660 annually). This last criteria is referred to as the “minimum salary test.”
In August 2016, I discussed a recent decision of the United States 7th Circuit Court of Appeals which held “that Title VII does not redress sexual orientation discrimination.” As I mentioned in that post, the 7th Circuit’s decision was the first federal appeals court opinion on that subject since the United States Supreme Court decision guaranteeing same sex marriage rights under the United States constitution. It is also the first decision of a federal appeals court on that subject since the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced its intention to file federal court lawsuits seeking extension of Title VII protection to claims of sexual orientation discrimination.
As fall approaches, many employers are preparing to offer flu vaccinations to their employees. In most work settings, this is a voluntary benefit that employees may choose to accept or not, based on their own personal beliefs regarding such vaccinations. In the healthcare sector and more particularly within hospital settings, there has been a growing movement to require flu vaccinations of all hospital personnel.