The DOL recently announced that it is sponsoring a contest to develop a smartphone app that would allow customers to determine whether a certain business is compliant with federal labor laws.

OSHA, EEOC and other DOL-managed agencies often insist on a condition that resolutions of matters include a public notice on that agency’s website that denotes the agency’s prowess in securing a penalty or fine.  If the DOL insists on such a condition as a means to provide data for this smartphone application, employers should consider the impact of this future recurring data affecting its scorecard on the app with its customers, clients or vendors.

After reconsidering it’s previous ruling – discussed here – the all-male Iowa Supreme Court issued a new opinion and affirmed that a boss could lawfully fire an attractive employee in order to allay his wife’s fear about potential adultery.

In its initial ruling, the court said that Dr. Knight terminated…

The Iowa Supreme Court will reconsider its ruling regarding whether it was unlawful sex discrimination for a dentist to fire his assistant because she was “irresistible” and because the dentist’s wife viewed the assistant as a threat to their marriage.  We previously reviewed the case and the Iowa Supreme Court’s…

It was a busy day for the Supreme Court, and, in particular, with regard to the employment context.   But, in its second decision of the day relating to Title VII, the Court issued another favorable ruling for employers.

In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, the Court was tasked with deciding the standard a plaintiff must meet to establish a retaliation claim under Title VII (e.g., a claim that the employer retaliated against the employee for engaging in protected activity — opposing an unlawful practice or participating in an investigation or filing an EEOC Charge).

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.