Author Archives: Jami K. Suver

EMPLOYEES MAY BE ENTITLED TO TIME OFF FOR VOTING

Why do so many eligible voters stay home from the polls?  In the 2012 presidential race, depending upon the survey, it is estimated that only 54 – 58% of eligible voters cast ballots. There are a myriad of reasons people do not vote, but many voters complain that lines are too long, or they are too busy to vote. Read More »

RIGHTS OF HIV-POSITIVE JOB APPLICANTS AND EMPLOYEES

HIV infection is a disability under the ADA. What rights and responsibilities does an employer have in relation to HIV-positive applicants and employees? The EEOC recently clarified its position concerning HIV-positive individuals in the workplace in a press release, as well as documents addressing the rights of HIV-positive workers, including the right to be free from discrimination and harassment, and guidance to physicians in facilitating accommodations for those individuals. Read More »

EEOC ISSUES ADA AND GINA RULES APPLICABLE TO EMPLOYER WELLNESS PROGRAMS

On May 17, 2016, the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued an ADA Final Rule amending applicable regulations and interpretive guidance implementing Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and a GINA Final Rule, under Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), clarifying how the ADA and GINA Rules apply to employer wellness programs.  In addition, the EEOC issued a Q & A document for each new rule, ADA Rule Q & A and GINA Rule Q & A, addressing key questions about each rule’s applicability and implementation. Read More »

PAYROLL DEBIT CARDS COULD BE COSTLY TO EMPLOYERS

How do you pay your employees?  Although payroll debit cards can be attractive to employers and employees, employers should proceed with caution when utilizing them.  Employers cannot require their employees to receive wages on a payroll card; other alternatives, such as paper checks and direct deposit, must also be offered, and these requirements vary from state to state.-1x-1 Read More »

POST-EMPLOYMENT NON-COMPETES REQUIRE ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION IN PENNSYLVANIA

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently decided that restrictive covenants not to compete are unenforceable if entered into during employment and not supported by “new and valuable” consideration (which does not include continued employment).  Socko v. Mid-Atlantic Systems of CPA, Inc. held that a mid-employment non-compete agreement may be challenged for lack of consideration even if the agreement, by its express terms, indicates that the parties “intend to be legally bound” pursuant to the Uniform Written Obligations Act (“UWOA”), 33 P.S. § 6.  The UWOA provides that a written promise “shall not be invalid or unenforceable for lack of consideration, if the writing also contains an additional express statement, in any form of language, that the signer intends to be legally bound.” non-compete-agreement Read More »

ACCOMMODATION OF MENTAL IMPAIRMENTS UNDER THE ADA

According to a 2011 publication of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “Mental illnesses account for a larger proportion of disability in developed countries than any other group of illnesses, including cancer and heart disease.”  The study noted that an estimated 25% of adults self-reported a mental illness at a projected economic cost of $300 billion as of that date.url

Read More »

WEST VIRGINIA’S DELIBERATE INTENT AMENDMENTS

Workers’ compensation programs are a trade-off, providing participating employers with immunity from civil lawsuits by employees injured on the job, while compensating those employees without proof of fault.  Since its 1913 adoption, West Virginia’s Workers’ Compensation Act has contained an exception to employer immunity if an injured employee can show a “deliberate intent” by the employer to injure the employee.  Read More »

FOURTH CIRCUIT ADDRESSES ADA DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION AND FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE CLAIMS

In a recent decision, Jacobs v. N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”), the Fourth Circuit reinstated a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by a court clerk terminated three weeks after requesting an accommodation for her social anxiety disorder.

Generalised-Anxiety-Disorde Read More »

BUSINESS GROUPS CHALLENGE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF NLRB “AMBUSH” ELECTION RULE

On December 15, 2014, slightly less than three years after the NLRB’s first thwarted attempt, a final rule (the “2014 Final Rule”) reducing the time between the filing of an election petition and holding workplace union representation elections was published in the Federal Register. The 2014 Final Rule has an effective date of April 14, 2015.  The Board described the 2014 Final Rule as “in essence a reissuance of the [2011] rule,” which was invalidated by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on the ground that the Board lacked a statutory quorum when only two members voted to approve the rule. 9

Read More »