Subject: GEA Newsletter #27 December 09, 2022

Newsletter #27 December 09, 2022

TRAINING UPDATE

Update on 2022 training: We will announce our 2022 training schedule in the next few weeks. Please be looking for our training update email!!


- Thank you from GEA staff

EMPLOYMENT NEWS

HRDive.com Update

President Biden signs bill voiding NDAs in cases of sexual assault, harassment

The Speak Out Act will allow those who have experienced sexual assault or sexual harassment in the workplace — and who have signed NDAs — to talk about their experiences.

Published Nov. 16, 2022 • Updated 23 hours ago


UPDATE: Dec. 7, 2022: President Biden signed the Speak Out Act into law Wednesday afternoon. It will go into effect immediately.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Speak Out Act on Wednesday. The bill, which the Senate passed by unanimous consent Sept. 29, will head to President Joe Biden’s desk.

 

The White House released a letter in support of the Speak Out Act on Nov. 14. 

The Speak Out Act would render unenforceable workplace predispute nondisclosure and nondisparagement clauses involving sexual assault and sexual harassment. It follows a similar bill signed into law in February, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, which invalidated mandatory arbitration agreements in such cases.

 

The Senate bill, considered as a House resolution and sponsored by Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Penn., passed the House in a 315-109 vote.


Support for ending forced arbitration and nondisclosure agreements in workplace disputes has been on the rise — in a rare instance of bipartisan support in recent years.


Advocates of ending such workplace policies include former Fox News anchors Gretchen Carlson and Julie Roginsky and their organization Lift Our Voices. They have said they aim to broaden their focus to address using NDAs and mandatory arbitration agreements among other categories protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, such as age, disability and race...

Go to HRDive.com for more articles >>


Constangy.com Blog

New hipness in employment law

BY ROBIN SHEA ON 12.2.22
POSTED IN HARASSMENTRETALIATION


The right to bore, and not to be bored.


These two cases are not from the U.S.A. But they have some good lessons for U.S. employers.


Case One: "C'est cool d'être ringard.(English translation: "It's hip to be square.") A court in Paris, France, has ordered an employer to pay its former employee (terminated in 2015 for "professional inadequacy") the U.S. equivalent of $3,154.82, with the possibility of a further recovery of up to the U.S. equivalent of almost $500,000. The former employee, identified only as "Mr. T," alleged that his employer terminated him because he was too boring.


Specifically, the employer required Monsieur T to participate in team-building exercises that included "excessive alcohol intake" and sharing beds with co-workers. According to the court, "the company engaged in 'humiliating and intrusive practices regarding privacy such as simulated sexual acts, the obligation to share a bed with a colleague during seminars, the use of nicknames to designate people and hanging up deformed and made-up photos in offices."

Sounds like what we in the States would call a "hostile work environment." 

It is, of course, legal to fire a U.S. employee for being "boring," not to mention being "professionally inadequate." But if being "fun" and a "team player" requires one to get drunk, engage in "simulated sexual acts," share a bed with co-workers -- and I don't even want to know what the "nicknames" and "deformed and made-up photos" were about -- it is likely that a U.S. court would agree with the Parisian court. Only here, it would be called "harassment,""assault," or "intentional infliction of emotional distress." Or all three.

I wanted to post a video of Huey Lewis & The News here, but YouTube won't let me. :-(  Here's a link. 


Case Two: "Finnegans Asleep." Meanwhile, over in Dublin, a finance manager at Irish Rail has sued his employer because his job is too boring.

Dermot Alistair Mills contends that the railroad took away almost all of his job duties in retaliation for a whistleblower complaint that Mr. Mills made in 2014. He is still employed as we speak, and he's making the U.S. equivalent of roughly $130,000 a year to come to the office and do nothing all day. He alleges that he spends his "work" day "reading newspapers, taking long walks, and eating sandwiches."...Continue Reading >>>



SHRM.org EMPLOYMENT LAW

Impact of Equal Pay Transparency Laws on PERM Recruitment Practice

By Melanie C. Walker and Debra Amann

December 6, 2022


Employers that file Permanent Labor Certification (PERM) applications on behalf of the workers they are sponsoring for permanent residence need to prepare for changes in the recruitment process that will be driven by equal pay transparency (EPT) laws. Many states have enacted EPT laws that could have a significant impact on the PERM process.


The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) regulations do not require employers to include a wage or wage range in the required Sunday newspaper ads or the three additional recruitment steps for professional positions (e.g., job search website, local or ethnic newspaper, or employer's website), but the regulations do require employers to state a wage or wage range in the notice of filing posted at the employer's worksite. This wage disclosure and inclusion in all forms of recruitment during a labor certification process must now be considered through the lens of recently and soon-to-be-enacted EPT laws in various states...

Continue Reading >>


HRDIVE.com BRIEF

DOJ: Green cards aren’t the only way non-US citizens can show work eligibility

Published Dec. 6, 2022

By Laurel Kalser Contributor


Dive Brief:

  • New York-based boutique bakery Lady M Confections Co. and its West Coast affiliate Lady M West Third settled U.S. Department of Justice allegations the companies violated the Immigration and Nationality Act by discriminating against non-U.S. citizens when checking their permission to work in the U.S., the DOJ announced Nov. 29. Lady M will pay a civil penalty of $1,864, according to the settlement.

  • The DOJ began investigating Lady M after a non-U.S. citizen complained it refused to accept his valid documents and asked for additional and unnecessary documentation to verify his eligibility to work in the U.S., the announcement said. The DOJ determined that Lady M asked lawful permanent residents to show their permanent resident cards (“green cards”), instead of letting them choose from various acceptable documents — as the INA requires and as the company alleged did with U.S. citizens, according to the DOJ.

  • “Many non-U.S. citizens, including lawful permanent residents, refugees and asylees, are eligible for several of the same types of documents [as U.S. citizens] to prove their permission to work,” the DOJ explained. These documents include driver’s licenses and unrestricted Social Security cards, it said. Lady M did not respond to a request for a comment before press time.


Georgia Employers' Association

Phone: 478-722-8282


Powered by:
GetResponse