Q: What new employment laws impact Oregon employers?

A. The employment law landscape is shifting in Oregon, with this year’s legislative session bringing several noteworthy changes to the state’s employment laws. In this blog post, we explore some of the more significant changes passed in 2021 and forecast what may come our way in the months ahead.

* Faith Simms is a 2021 summer associate at Troutman Pepper. She is not admitted to practice law.

Q: Can an employer be found liable for terminating an employee for misconduct after an investigation initiated by a biased supervisor?

A: In a recent decision issued by the Seventh Circuit, Vesey v. Envoy Air, Inc., the court held that the employer was not liable under the cat’s paw theory even though the investigation leading to the employee’s termination was initiated by a biased manager. The cat’s paw theory of liability applies to circumstances where a biased individual, who lacks decision-making power, influences the decision-maker into taking adverse employment action against the employee.

Q: I understand the NY DOL recently released model plans for the NY HERO Act. What do employers need to do to comply?

A: The New York Health and Essential Rights Act (NY HERO Act or Act) requires employers to implement workplace health and safety measures to protect employees during a future airborne infectious disease outbreak. The Act applies to all private employers and to all worksites.

Q. My company wants to improve our hiring process to help avoid costly errors that may lead to potential discrimination claims. What best hiring practices do you recommend?

A. Hiring new employees — whether high school and college students looking for part-time work or recent graduates entering the workforce — can be challenging. One possible risk is that a job applicant could claim unlawful discrimination based on your decision not to hire that applicant, even if the claim is not valid. We offer the following helpful tips to consider as you conduct the hiring process:

Q: What are the risks to a company when making a public statement about ongoing employment litigation?

A: A federal judge in Washington, DC recently allowed a pair of married former law firm associates, suing the firm for sex discrimination, to add retaliation claims to their lawsuit for allegedly “false and malicious” statements the firm made about them in an August 2019 press release. See Savignac, et al v. Jones Day, et al, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 19-cv-02443.

By way of background, plaintiffs Julia Sheketoff and Mark Savignac sued Jones Day over a parental leave policy they claimed illegally discriminates against men by offering biological mothers eight more weeks of leave than biological fathers. They also accused the firm of firing Savignac because he challenged the firm’s policy and underpaying Sheketoff because of her sex. After they filed the highly publicized lawsuit in August 2019, the firm circulated a press release about the lawsuit.

Register Here
Thursday, July 15 • 2:00 – 3:30 p.m. ET

Please join members of the Troutman Pepper Labor and Employment and Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation Teams, along with guest Steve Kapper, Associate Client Partner at Korn Ferry, as they discuss the “new” workplace and how to prepare for…

Q: Are there any state laws employers should think about when implementing COVID-19 vaccine policies?

A: Yes, multiple states have passed or are considering laws related to COVID-19 vaccine policies.

Savvy employers tracking the latest guidance likely know the many sources of federal guidance pertaining to COVID-19 vaccines in the workplace. For instance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) made headlines with its May 13 guidance loosening face mask and distancing restrictions for fully vaccinated individuals, as did the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) with its updated COVID-19 vaccine Q&As. Just recently, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced an emergency temporary standard for health care employers and updated guidance for employers in other sectors. As if that wasn’t enough, multiple states also have passed laws impacting employers looking to implement a COVID-19 vaccination program.

* Michael T. Byrne is a 2021 summer associate at Troutman Pepper. He is not admitted to practice law.

Q: Are California employers required to rehire employees they laid off for reasons related to the COVID-19 pandemic?

A: Yes, but only if the employer falls within certain industries and establishes an open job position for which one of its laid-off employees is qualified. Under California’s Senate Bill No. 93 (SB 93), if a covered employer opens a job position and has previously laid off workers due to reasons related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the employer must first offer the position to eligible laid-off employees within five days of establishing the position.

* Sean M. Craig is a 2021 summer associate at Troutman Pepper. He is not admitted to practice law.

Q: Does Philadelphia have any laws regulating drug testing for marijuana? 

A: Philadelphia recently passed an ordinance that prohibits employers from requiring “a prospective employee to submit to testing for the presence of marijuana in such prospective employee’s system as a condition of employment.” The ordinance will take effect on January 1, 2022, and applies to any person doing business in the city who employs one or more employees.

The ordinance does not prohibit pre-employment testing of certain types of employees, including police and other law enforcement positions, any position requiring a commercial driver’s license, and any position that requires the supervision or care of children, medical patients, disabled people, and other vulnerable persons. Also, there are exceptions from the pre-employment testing prohibition, for instance, where drug testing would otherwise be required by applicable law, including a federal or state statute or regulation; where the federal government requires testing as a condition of the receipt of a contract or grant; or where testing is pursuant to a valid collective bargaining agreement.