The Supreme Court has just issued its decision in Vance v. Ball State holding that an employee is a “supervisor” for vicarious liability under Title VII only if she has the power given by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim.  The Court defines “tangible employment action” to include actions that have a “significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.” 

Name:  Josalyn Gibson
Title:  HR Director
Company:  Southern Community Newspapers, Inc. (“SCNI”)

1. How many years have you been working in HR?  20 years.

2.  Favorite thing about working in HR?  Every day is different.

3.  Best piece of advice you ever received about a career in HR?  Never bring personal belongings into your office that you can’t take out in your purse. 

As we previously discussed here, the National Labor Relations Board announced last month that it will seek U.S. Supreme Court review of the D.C. Circuit’s Noel Canning decision, which invalidated President Obama’s purported recess appointments to the Board, and held that the existing three-member Board lacks the quorum required for it to legally act. The Board’s deadline to request Supreme Court review (known as a petition for certiorari) is April 25, 2013, but even if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, this matter will not be resolved quickly and the Board’s refusal to curtail its activities pending that resolution continues to vex both employers and unions.

In the meantime, both the President and House Republicans are seeking ways to avoid ongoing action by the Board without the required quorum.

The media has been full of stories recently about efforts by the city councils in New York City and Philadelphia to pass laws requiring employers to provide employees with paid sick leave.  While it appears that the New York City law will come into effect, as it has enough support in the council to overcome the expected veto of Mayor Bloomberg, the Philadelphia city council does not have enough votes to override Mayor Nutter’s veto.

Over a year ago, I wrote our first blog post on HRLawMatters.com.  It was about a favorite phrase of labor and employment lawyers:  “No good deed goes unpunished.”  It discussed how employers doing “good deeds” for employees was often the right thing, but that if not done thoughtfully and carefully, doing good deeds can lead to regrets and “punishment.”

Who has not felt like they needed to take a few days off from work to regroup and clear their minds before tacking your job’s many challenges? I call these days off “mental health days.” While everyone needs to take some time off (whether it’s over a weekend, extended vacation, or holiday), a federal district court in Florida has confirmed that the need for mental health days does not count as a serious medical condition under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).

The EEOC just sued J.C. Penney claiming that it refused to hire a woman at a Brunswick, Georgia store because she was pregnant.  While that is not big news (except to perhaps the woman and the management at that J.C. Penney location), the lawsuit offers some good lessons.

Why?  Well, the case involves two interesting set of accusations. 

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (the “USCIS”) recently released the new Eligibility Verification Form, Form I-9 (Rev. 03/08/13), as well as a revised Handbook for Employers (M-274).  The revised form is longer—two pages, rather than one—and includes additional instructions for completing the form.  It also includes new fields for e-mail address, phone number, and foreign passport numbers in Section 1 of the Form.

The National Labor Relations Board (the “NLRB”) recently announced that it will seek U.S. Supreme Court review of the D.C. Circuit’s Noel Canning decision, which invalidated President Obama’s purported recess appointments of three of the Board’s five members.  As we previously discussed here, the D.C. Circuit held that because the Board members were not properly appointed, the Board lacked the quorum it needed to act.