News & Analysis

A stick in the arm may be a bona fide job requirement

When does a medical provider's obligation to protect its patients trump the rights of disabled employees? The 8th Circuit recently addressed that issue when it considered a case in which an employee challenged a medical facility's requirement that employees be immunized.

DOL updates opinion on independent contractors for the gig economy

Under the Trump administration, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has taken a decidedly industry-friendly approach to the independent contractor analysis. If there was any doubt before, that was made clear by its recent issuance of a whopping 10-page opinion letter examining the nature of the relationship between a virtual marketplace company (think Uber) and the "gig" workers they employ (e.g., Uber drivers).

Umbrella of liability shields employee, trust fund

Workers' right to compensation for on-the-job injuries is enshrined in the Arizona Constitution. State laws are likewise protective of injured workers. A recent Arizona Court of Appeals case demonstrates the worker-friendly nature of the law in the common context of a construction worksite with many layers of contractors and subcontractors. The case, Menos Construction v. Reyes, is likely to rattle the Arizona workers' compensation insurance market for months to come as its implications become clear.

Court drops bombshell: FFD exam is OK for hazardous devices tech

Employers are responsible for their employees' on-the-job safety. That includes making sure an employee poses no danger to his coworkers or himself. But an employer that's worried about an employee's mental or physical condition must take care in how it addresses that concern. Some situations call for an employee to undergo a fitness-for-duty (FFD) examination, which is a medical exam to determine whether the employee is physically or psychologically able to perform his job.

Supreme Court will decide whether LGBT discrimination is unlawful

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide the long-unresolved question of whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. The issue has been percolating in the lower courts for quite a while. As it frequently does, the Court declined to consider the question until there was a conflict between several appellate courts. Let's take a look at the history of the Court's decisions, the arguments on both sides of the issue, and what we can expect next.

Employees—repping you to the world

I spent a lot of May in airports waiting on American Airlines flights. I blame the airline for stealing a day of my vacation in Greece. Five flights. All delayed or canceled because of mechanical issues.

Wait! What about me and what I bring to the job?

It may be time to "sharpen your knife" regarding reward systems. Organizational needs and employees' expectations about work and careers are changing, making traditional job-based pay systems less effective or, in some cases, even obsolete. In a recent article in WorkSpan titled "Refining Rewards for the Millennial Generation," Ken Abosch, a partner with AON, PLC, discusses some of the following insights:

Colorado Legislature passes numerous important employment-related bills

Led by Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate, the Colorado General Assembly passed multiple important employment-related bills during its 2019 legislative session. The state's new Democratic governor, Jared Polis, recently signed all the bills below into law.

DOL updates opinion on independent contractors for the gig economy

Under the Trump administration, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has taken a decidedly industry-friendly approach to the independent contractor analysis. If there was any doubt before, that was made clear by its recent issuance of a whopping 10-page opinion letter examining the nature of the relationship between a virtual marketplace company (think Uber) and the "gig" workers they employ (e.g., Uber drivers).

Supreme Court ruling raises stakes in Title VII claims

If an employee files a timely Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge, can she later raise new discrimination allegations after the filing deadline has passed? That's the issue addressed in a new decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. Spoiler alert: The answer is no, unless the employer—or more accurately, its attorney—doesn't notice. To understand the Court's ruling, it's helpful to understand the EEOC's role in discrimination claims.