On August 14, we wrote a blog post that discussed the impact of a New York court case which invalidated several features of the Final Rule issued by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to implement the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). At that time, it was unclear whether the court’s decision applied throughout
The Minnesota Employer’s Guide to Navigating Workplace Issues During COVID-19
When COVID-19 began its pernicious spread, causing Americans to lock down and employers to close or curtail their workplaces, lawyers were busy advising clients on required leaves of absence, the eligibility of laid-off employees for unemployment compensation and other paid benefits, as well as other legal issues associated with closing a business or sending a
To Require Vaccines or Not: That is the Question
We are all waiting for a COVID-19 vaccine. When we have a vaccine, can an employer require that applicants and employees be vaccinated against COVID-19? Employers have a legitimate desire to keep their workplaces safe and to protect their employees from contracting COVID-19 in the workplace. Phyllis Karasov and Dan Ballintine discuss the practical and legal issues associated with an employer mandatory vaccination program.
Continue Reading To Require Vaccines or Not: That is the Question
Recommendations in Light of New Ambiguity in the Families First Coronavirus Response Act
Effective April 1, 2020, Congress passed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) obligating employers to provide Emergency Paid Sick Leave (EPSL) and Emergency Family Leave (EFL) to employees who are unable to work because of the pandemic. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a Final Rule effective April 6, 2020, expanding on the
Preparedness Plan Requirements Guidance for Construction Revised with Little Real Change
This post is co-written by Phyllis Karasov and Mike Schechter.
On Wednesday, June 24, we wrote an article on the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry’s guidance that requires a preparedness plan for the construction industry. The guidance was confusing and placed onerous responsibilities on contractors, owners and public entities, including ensuring that plans among
Manufacturing Guidelines: New or the Same?
OSHA has been criticized for failing to promulgate a new standard for COVID-19. The AFL-CIO sued OSHA in U.S. federal court, requesting a court to order OSHA to publish an emergency temporary standard covering COVID-19. Last week the D.C. Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuit and the AFL-CIO has appealed.
Meanwhile in Minnesota, the State
Required COVID-19 Preparedness Plan for the Construction Industry
This post is co-written by Phyllis Karasov and Mike Schechter
In his recent Executive Order 20-74, Governor Walz’s ordered critical sector businesses to create and adopt a COVID-19 plan to make workplaces safe from the spread of the coronavirus, and his administration subsequently published guidance for specific industries that pose higher risks of transmission
Supreme Court Holds that Employers May Not Discriminate Against Workers on the Basis of LGBTQ Status
In October 2019, we published a blog post covering a series of three cases taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court that addressed the question of whether discrimination based upon sexual orientation and gender identity is illegal under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”). Today, we follow up with this post
Minnesota Supreme Court Holds Minneapolis Paid Sick and Safe Time Ordinance Applies to Employers Outside of Minneapolis
On June 10, 2020, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a decision affirming the Court of Appeals and upholding the determination that the Minneapolis Paid Sick and Safe Time Ordinance (“Ordinance”) applies to employers outside of Minneapolis, finding that the Ordinance was not preempted by state law and did not violate the extraterritoriality doctrine.
In 2016,
“Severe or Pervasive” Standard Still the Law of the Land for MHRA Sexual Harassment Claims
In the June 3, 2020 decision of Kenneh v. Homeward Bound, Inc., the Minnesota Supreme Court declined to abandon the severe or pervasive standard for sexual harassment claims arising under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”). By U.S. Supreme Court caselaw under Title VII, a hostile work environment sexual harassment claim requires a plaintiff