The Workplace Report with Ancel Glink

Usually, the U.S. Supreme Court makes headlines when it releases critical decisions on notable cases. However, on occasion, the high court makes headlines when they refuse to hear a case, which allows the lower court's opinion to stand. This occurred recently in a case about applying Title IX's equal protection provisions to school bathrooms for transgender students. You can read our post about the U.S. Department of Education's recent Notice of Interpretation , which applies Title IX's prohibition on discrimination to include a student's sexual orientation and gender identity here . In Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board , the 4th Circuit determined that a local county school board violated Title IX when it barred a transgender high school student from using the bathroom aligned with that student's gender identity. In 2014, a Gloucester County, Virginia high school allowed Gavin Grimm, a transgender student, to use the boy's bathroom. However, parents c...

On June 16, 2021, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), which enforces Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, released an official notice of interpretation regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County . The Court in Bostock held that employer’s prohibition against discriminating “on the basis of sex” applies to an employee’s sexual orientation or gender identity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. OCR’s notice extends protections afforded by Bostock to students falling under Title IX’s protection. Courts and administrative agencies often rely on interpretations of Title VII on how to interpret provisions in Title IX because of similarities in both laws. In its letter, OCR indicates that the “Department has determined that the interpretation of sex discrimination set out by the Supreme Court in Bostock . . . properly guides the Department’s interpretation of discrimination ‘on the basis of sex’ under Title IX . . . ...

The Illinois Second District Appellate Court recently issued a decision finding that holiday pay was not pensionable under the language of a collective bargaining agreement because it was not “fixed” and thus was not “salary under the Pension Code. In Village of Hanover Park v. Board of Trustees of the Village of Hanover Park Police Pension Fund , 2021 IL App (2d) 200380 (May 28, 2021), the Village of Hanover Park (the “Village” and Metropolitan Alliance of Police Chapter 102 (“MAP”), the union for the patrol officers of the Village, entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Several sections of the CBA set the terms for holiday pay.  Section 6.1 of the CBA established a list of nine days that  “[a]ll police patrol officers covered by [the CBA] shall have *** considered as holidays.”  Section 6.2 of the CBA governed how holiday pay was awarded to the patrol officers. Section 6.3 provided the eligibility requirements for police patrol officers to receive holiday...

In late May 2021, both houses of the Illinois General Assembly passed SJRCA0011 , a ballot measure that, if passed by voters, would amend the Illinois Constitution, creating a constitutional right for Illinois workers to unionize. The ballot measure would amend Section 25 of Article I of the Bill of Rights of the Illinois Constitution. The ballot measure states: Employees shall have a fundamental right to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing for the purpose of negotiating wages, hours, and working conditions, and to protect their economic welfare and safety at work. No law shall be passed that interferes with, negates, or diminishes the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively over their wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and workplace safety, including any law or ordinance that prohibits the execution or application of agreements between employers and labor organizations that represent employees requi...

Last month, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s decision in Vesey v. Envoy Air, Inc. , which ruled against an airline agent claiming she was harassed based on her race and fired in retaliation for reporting the harassment. To support her claims, the plaintiff, Ms. Ciara Vesey, pointed to a series of workplace-related complaints. She told Envoy’s human resources department that her superiors, Ms. McMurray and Ms. White, committed favoritism and were biased against her. In addition, Vesey claimed after she reported that her supervisors, McMurray and White, harassed and retaliated against her. Vesey also alleged that another employee, Mr. Masengarb, directed racist remarks towards her. Vesey also asserted in her appeal deposition evidence not considered by the lower court where White allegedly pressured another employee into filing complaints against Vesey. Envoy responded to Vesey’s complaints and found most of her accusations unfounded. However, they did fire Masen...

Many local governments with public safety employees have faced the challenge of containing costs of benefits granted pursuant to the  Public Safety Employee Benefits Act  (PSEBA), entitling employees and their dependants to lifetime health insurance benefits at no charge when an employee suffers a disabling line of duty injury or fatality. Identifying a “basic insurance plan” that PSEBA beneficiaries will receive was a statutory right for employers under PSEBA and one way that employers contained these costs. Often this meant that beneficiaries were transferred from a premium benefit level to a more affordable plan when the employer offered more than one level of coverage. The state legislature has changed that.  HB 2568  entitles unionized PSEBA beneficiaries to receive the health insurance coverage identified in the applicable collective bargaining agreement and makes the available plans a mandatory subject of bargaining. This change means that the coverage level f...

For the first time, a federal court has ruled on the legality of an employer mandate requiring employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. U.S. District Judge Lynn N. Hughes for the Southern District of Texas upheld Houston Methodist’s vaccine requirement for its existing employees and new hires. In March 2021, Houston Methodist, a major hospital system located in Houston, Texas, implemented a vaccine requirement for their employees. The hospital system employs over 26,000 people, and of those, 178 were suspended without pay for failing to comply with such requirement. The Plaintiffs in this lawsuit included 117 of Houston Methodist’s employees who challenged the requirement, contending that the vaccines are experimental and dangerous, comparing such a requirement to the Nazi medical experiments on concentration camp prisoners during the Holocaust. Among the other claims made by the Plaintiffs here include requiring vaccination would force employees to break the law, the employees wer...

Lately, many of us have heard the news of system hacks or data dumps where nefarious actors accessed sensitive information and exploited its use. Some may think that gaining access to private servers requires years of intense technical skill, unlimited resources, and an intention to steal ONLY YOUR information. In reality, many data hacks can be done relatively quickly and cheaply to obtain all types of information. Here are few tips employers can use to safeguard themselves and their employees. Adopt a Password Management Policy Employers should adopt a password management policy for all devices, web services, and applications. The policy should include rules for sharing user access to web services and applications, password construction, and multi-factor authentication requirements. Many web services and applications designed for business operations allow license holders to have multiple logins. Instead of creating a single account with one username and password, employers should con...

Since the federal government initiated emergency use authorization (EAU) for COVID-19 vaccines, employers have been chopping at the bit for more precise guidance on vaccinations for employees in the workplace. On May 28, 2021, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued that guidance . Below is a summary of that guidance provided from an EEOC press release on the new guidance: Federal EEO laws do not prevent an employer from requiring all employees physically entering the workplace to be vaccinated for COVID-19, so long as employers comply with the reasonable accommodation provisions of the ADA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other EEO considerations. Other laws, not in EEOC’s jurisdiction, may place additional restrictions on employers. From an EEO perspective, employers should keep in mind that because some individuals or demographic groups may face greater barriers to receiving a COVID-19 vaccination than others, some employees may be more likely to ...

During the pandemic, many employers were caught off guard as COVID-19 drastically changed the nature of the workplace. One area that has caused some confusion—especially for local governments—is the changes to premium benefits under COBRA after President Biden passed the American Rescue Plan (ARP) into law earlier this year. What is COBRA? The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) provides workers and their families with a temporary extension of health benefits through their (former) employer’s group health insurance plan. A qualifying individual can receive benefits under COBRA for various reasons, including a voluntary or involuntary loss of employment, forced reduction of work hours, temporary leave of absence, death, divorce, or other life events—this is called a “qualifying event.” Employers with 20 or more employees in the prior calendar year must offer a continuation of coverage where, typically, such a change in employment would prompt benefit coverage to end...