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.

Q: I heard that companies entering into commercial contracts in Pennsylvania can no longer restrict each other from hiring their employees. Is that true?

A: On April 29, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held in Pittsburgh Logistics Systems, Inc. v. Beemac Trucking LLC, et. al. that a no-hire provision (commonly referred to as a “no-poach” provision) in a service contract between two business entities was unenforceable as an impermissible restraint of trade because it was overbroad and created a likelihood of harm to nonparties to the contract (i.e., affected employees and the general public). This decision comes at a time where there has been considerable concern that no-poach agreements violate federal and state antitrust laws. In this case, however, the Court did not conclude that all no-hire provisions found in commercial contracts are void as a matter of state law.

Q: Do Trump-era FLSA regulations governing independent contractor classification and joint employer status (still) apply?

A: The U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) announced its decision to reverse a Trump-era rule governing the employee/independent contractor distinction under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that was scheduled to go into effect on March 8. The decision comes on the heels of another recent announcement by the Biden administration that requested public comment about its intention to rescind the Trump-era regulations governing joint employment under the FLSA, which went into effect in March 2020. Both reversals have significant implications for whether a company is considered an employer under the FLSA and thus subject to minimum wage, overtime, and recordkeeping requirements under the statute.

Q: Is medical marijuana an expense reimbursable by the employer?

A: For New Jersey employers, the answer is likely yes. Weednews reports that as of January 9, New Jersey and 34 other states have legalized marijuana for medical use, although it remains a Schedule 1 controlled substance at the federal level. As a result, patients have had to pay out of pocket for medical marijuana, as insurers contend that covering the cost would violate the federal prohibition on marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Recently however, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the ruling in Hager v. M&K Construction, 462 N.J. Super. 146 (App. Div.), that an employee injured in the workplace is eligible to have medical marijuana costs reimbursed by his/her employer under New Jersey’s state workers’ compensation laws.