Listen up, employers:  On August 1 — that’s two days ago! — the Department of Homeland Security increased the Form I-9 violation fines by approximately 96%.  Specifically, the range of fines for violations went from $110-$1,100 per Form I-9 to $216 -$2,156 per Form I-9.  This could be particularly problematic for larger companies, as an untrained staff person completing numerous I-9s incorrectly can lead to an exorbitant amount in fines.  On the other hand, smaller companies have less in volume but sometimes they can commit more substantive errors which can lead to fines on the higher-side of the range.  Both are bad results that your business should want to avoid.

Many employers today have implemented arbitration programs mandating that workplace-related disputes brought by or against their employees be decided by an arbitrator. Arbitration can provide for efficient resolution of disputes in a confidential setting.  It is also possible through the use of a carefully worded agreement to limit disputes to just one employee’s claims and prevent an employee from bringing claims on behalf of others in a class action.

Q: An employee has asked to work from home because of his disability. Do I have to provide him with that option?

A: With technology making it easier than ever for people to work remotely, more employers are seeing requests to offer telecommuting as a reasonable accommodation of a disability. But, depending on the job, telecommuting may not be the best option, or even an option at all.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines systemic discrimination as “pattern or practice, policy and/or class cases where the alleged discrimination has a broad impact on an industry, profession, company, or geographic area.” In 2005, the EEOC examined the state of its systemic discrimination program and issued numerous recommendations for changes in strategy, all of which resulted in the adoption of the Systemic Task Force (STF).   The STF has been a game changer for EEOC enforcement, setting priorities that have shaped the EEOC’s agenda and strategic vision over the last decade.  Among the STF’s primary recommendations was to make combating systemic discrimination a top priority. To do so, the STF advocated for the use of a national law firm model in litigating systemic cases by staffing systemic suits based on the needs of the suit, independent of the office where the case was developed.

Q.  I read somewhere that it is ok sometimes to choose employees of a particular sex, national origin or religion. Isn’t that discrimination?

A.  Federal, state and many local laws prohibit employers from basing employment decisions on any protected category, including an employee’s sex, national origin or religion. While there are certain exceptions, such as where a particular protected category is a bona fide occupational qualification, the exceptions are extremely narrow, as one Broadway show found out the hard way.

Q.  The world feels like a scary place these days. In light of current events, what are my obligations with respect to providing a safe workplace for employees.

A.  You are not alone in asking this important question. The sad and horrific string of mass shootings — from Sandy Hook to San Bernadino to Orlando to Dallas to Baton Rouge — is causing many employers to take a hard look at their workplace violence policies and programs.

Yesterday, the National Labor Relations Board issued yet another decision that makes it easier to unionize workers deemed “joint employees” of a staffing agency and its business customer.  In its July 11, 2016 decision in a case called Miller & Anderson, Inc. and Tradesmen International and Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union No. 19, AFL-CIO, the Board overturned a 2004 ruling known as Oakwood Care Center that required a business customer and a staffing agency to consent before a union election covering both jointly employed temporary workers and solely employed regular employees of the customer can occur.  Yesterday’s ruling reverses the consent requirement and takes us back to a prior ruling where consent was not required.  Now (as before 2004) a union election by regular and temporary workers together can occur simply where the Board finds that an employer’s workers and staffing agency employees working with it have an adequate “community of interest” to be part of one unit for unionization.

Q: An employee is asking to take medical leave. What sort of questions am I allowed to ask her?

A: Ask any HR generalist, and they will tell you that the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides up to 12 weeks of job protection and continuation of health insurance benefits to employees who have a serious health condition. HR practitioners also know that they are permitted to seek information about an employee’s serious health condition to determine whether the employee qualifies for leave. But, how much can they ask, and what kind of medical questions are allowed?

Estimates are that nearly 1 in 4 non-union employers require their employees to sign mandatory arbitration agreements as a condition of employment.  These agreements are designed to keep workplace disputes out of courthouses and avoid expensive and protracted litigation.  More and more, these arbitration agreements include clauses that bar employees from pursuing class or collective claims.  Among other perceived benefits, these waivers eliminate the risk associated with high exposure aggregate litigation that plagues many industries.  The enforceability of these agreements is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).  Generally speaking, under the FAA, an arbitration agreement can mandate the waiver of a procedural right but not a substantive one.  Until recently, federal courts have largely held that these waivers of class or collective actions were lawful because the right to pursue aggregate litigation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 was procedural, not substantive.