COVID-19 vaccinations have been administered in the US for several months now. Employers are considering their available options in order to push employees to get vaccinated as quickly as possible, especially considering recent concerns around the variants of the virus. In our Mandatory Vaccinations in the Workplace 2.0: Spring 2021 Update video, we continue to
As a result of the pandemic, many companies have been forced to consider layoffs and furloughs. In this video, our Labor and Employment attorneys discuss how employers should approach such cost-cutting measures to ensure they are not discriminatory and to avoid allegations of differential treatment.
Click here to watch the video.
Employers are busy putting together return-to-work plans and deciding whether they should mandate employee vaccination or simply encourage it. Before creating a uniform vaccination policy, it’s imperative to understand the legislative landscape in each jurisdiction where the employer operates, especially regarding the freedom to mandate vaccines, require proof of vaccination, etc.
While most employers will not be surprised to hear that mandatory vaccination is permitted under the ADA, except for employees with disabilities or sincerely-held religious beliefs, a recent surge in state legislation may call this general rule into question. This pending legislation varies from requiring employers to use government-approved vaccines to outright bans of any consideration of vaccination status, as summarized below. (This information is current as of March 24, 2021.)
For the last year, employers have faced unprecedented challenges navigating the impact of the pandemic. Keeping up with scores of new laws, evolving standards, shelter-in-place orders (see our tracker here), quarantine restrictions and more has meant no rest for the weary. And, in the backdrop, there’s the looming threat of employment litigation arising from…
Government agencies are increasingly setting their sights on larger targets, ramping up enforcement efforts to root out systemic discrimination. This has important ramifications for employers who may suddenly find themselves defending a claim that, for all intents and purposes, feels like a class action, even though it started as an individual agency charge. With advancements in technology, large data sets on workforces are more common than ever, and government agencies are taking advantage of this and will not hesitate to request data on classes of individuals to search for trends indicating potential discrimination.
EEOC Intensifies Campaign against Systemic Discrimination
In her first public speech since being named as Chair of the EEOC, Charlotte Burrows pledged that the federal government’s workplace civil rights agency will emphasize enforcement of laws to combat systemic discrimination. This commitment to addressing systemic discrimination is consistent with President Biden’s plans to combat racism. (In January, Biden signed an executive order creating a government-wide “racial equity review” and underscoring enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. Read more here.)
As the country awaits confirmation of Judge Merrick Garland, President Joe Biden’s pick for attorney general to head the U.S. Department of Justice, employers in the U.S. should begin to consider what a Biden administration DOJ might mean for their workplace.
Biden has appointed…
President Biden did not waste any time after taking office on January 20, 2021. Shortly after the Presidential Oath of Office was administered, Biden signed 17 executive actions, which either impact the workplace or provide insight into what may be forthcoming under the new administration for employers.
A Flurry of Executive Orders on Day One
Biden issued a memorandum to agencies to freeze all last-minute regulations put in motion by the prior administration as President Trump was leaving office. Notably, these regulatory “freeze memos” are not uncommon for incoming administrations to issue. This pause on the prior administration’s last-minute regulations will give the Biden administration the opportunity to evaluate the so-called “midnight regulations” and determine if they will become final, be amended, or rescinded altogether.
He also issued an Executive Order reinforcing that Title VII prohibits the federal government from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The Order references the recent Supreme Court case of Bostock v. Clayton County (blogged about here). Specifically, the Order states “[i]t is the policy of my Administration to prevent and combat discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation, and to fully enforce Title VII and other laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.” The Order notes that laws that prohibit sex discrimination (specifically referencing Title IX, the Fair Housing Act, and section 412 of the Immigration and Nationality Act) also prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.
With special thanks to Bradford Newman for this post.
Ten U.S. senators sent a joint letter to Janet Dhillon, the chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on Dec. 8, 2020, urging the EEOC to use its powers under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to “investigate and/or enforce against discrimination related…
Listen to our discussion on what employers can do to keep a calm, cooperative workplace even with the stress of the current political climate. This quick chat takes into account recent political tensions that have been roiling for some time now and hit an all-time high last week when armed rioters stormed the Capitol Building…
On December 22, a California federal judge issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking President Donald Trump’s Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping (“Executive Order”). The controversial Executive Order restricted diversity training for federal contractors by prohibiting contractors from providing training covering “divisive topics.” U.S. District Court Judge Beth Labson Freeman’s preliminary injunction takes effect immediately, remains in place until further order of the court, and prohibits the federal government from implementing or enforcing key provisions of the Executive Order.
Continue Reading Trump’s Executive Order Limiting Diversity Training Put On Ice For The Holidays