By: John P. McLaughlin, Esq. and Joshua C. Hausman, Esq.
Published on: Tue 26th Mar, 2024 By: Campbell Durrant, P.C.
The United States Supreme Court has established a new, two-part test for determining whether a public official violates the First Amendment when the official blocks or deletes comments on the public official’s social media account. In this pair of unanimous decisions, the Court brought clarity to the question of when such action by the public official constitutes “state action” which could create liability under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
Resolving that question requires a fact-intensive analysis. The Court stated that if the public official: (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the s...
View entire article
By: Joshua C. Hausman, Esq.
Published on: Mon 19th Feb, 2024 By: Campbell Durrant, P.C.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on a protected classification. It also prohibits discrimination which occurs as a result of a facially neutral policy or practice that has a disproportionate adverse effect on the members of a protected class. Physical abilities testing for job applicants has been a common source of Title VII litigation under this “disparate impact” theory. A recent Seventh Circuit decision emphasizes the importance of ensuring that abilities testing truly measures the applicant’s ability to perform the job in quest...
View entire article
By: Peter J. Halesey, Esq.
Published on: Mon 19th Feb, 2024 By: Campbell Durrant, P.C.
If your municipality has ever been a party to litigation, then it is likely that it received a letter instructing it to preserve documents pertaining to the litigation. These letters, commonly known as litigation hold letters, are routinely sent to parties in litigation and provide instructions as to the types of documents that must be preserved and instructions for doing so. Normally, these letters will caution that failure to preserve pertinent documents may result in negative consequences.
A recent employment discrimination case in the Northern District of Texas serves as a warning to...
View entire article
By: Gabrielle D. Campbell, Esq.
Published on: Fri 5th Jan, 2024 By: Campbell Durrant, P.C.
The EEOC recognizes that the use of employment tests can be an effective means for determining the qualification of job applicants or employees for a particular job. In fact, many employers routinely use employment tests to screen applicants for hire and employees for promotion. So, what’s the problem? Well, the EEOC cautions that the use of employment tests can violate federal anti-discrimination laws if not properly assessed and validated.
In a recent lawsuit initiated by the EEOC against Walmart, the EEOC challenged the use of an employment test because of its disparate impact on d...
View entire article
By: Allison N. Genard, Esq.
Published on: Fri 5th Jan, 2024 By: Campbell Durrant, P.C.
On October 2, 2023, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) released its updated Proposed Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace. When the proposed guidance becomes final, it will supersede several of the EEOC’s previous guidance documents including, Compliance Manual Section 615: Harassment (1987); Policy Guidance on Current Issues of Sexual Harassment (1990); Policy Guidance on Employer Liability under Title VII for Sexual Favoritism (1990); Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc. (1994); and Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious Liability for Unla...
View entire article
By: Jonathan F. Whalen, Esq.
Published on: Fri 5th Jan, 2024 By: Campbell Durrant, P.C.
Federal Courts Weigh in on Post-Pandemic Requests for Remote Work as a “Reasonable Accommodation” -
Recent federal court decisions provide insight on when employees’ physical presence at the job represents an “essential function,” and how pandemic-era policies might be viewed moving forward.
Although the days of widespread uncertainty, strict lockdowns and mask mandates seem to be behind us, it is evident that remote work is here to stay, at least in some form. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, many employers have moved to “hybrid” systems involving both in-office and re...
View entire article
Published on: Thu 4th Jan, 2024 By: Joshua C. Hausman
Employer Pays $365,000 Where Automated Screening Software Excludes Older Applicants
The recent settlement serves as a cautionary tale for employers making use of artificial intelligence, as such tools may cause employers to run afoul of nondiscrimination law based on a disparate impact theory.
By: Joshua C. Hausman, Esq.
Artificial intelligence (“AI”) has been a hot topic since the release of “ChatGPT” late last year. While use cases of this technology are often flippant and silly—a recent AI-produced example of Frank Sinatra singing a song by the band ‘Green Day’ comes to...
View entire article
By: Allison Genard, Esq.
Published on: Thu 28th Sep, 2023 By: Campbell Durrant, P.C.
Summary Deck:
• Pennsylvania Supreme Court holds that a township may not have to pay for an employee’s off duty misconduct, even if the employee is found to be acting under color of law.
• Pennsylvania Supreme Court clarifies the difference between acting under the color of law for the purposes of civil rights lawsuits and acting within the scope of an employee’s duties under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act.
• Townships need to act promptly and appropriately when an employee engages in off duty misconduct that could result in potential liability for the township....
View entire article
By: Richard D. Miller, Esquire and Ben R. Patchen, Esquire
Published on: Tue 12th Sep, 2023 By: Campbell Durrant, P.C.
On August 30, 2023, the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would significantly increase the minimum salary required to qualify for one of the three Fair Labor Standards Act’s white-collar exemptions (executive, administrative, and professional). The proposed rule would require employees to make more than $55,068 in order to qualify for one of the white-collar exemptions. As such, any employee who is making less than $55,068 and not otherwise exempt from the FLSA must be paid overtime for all hours worked over 40 hours per week.
Gen...
View entire article
by Tiffany R. Allen, Esquire
Published on: Mon 7th Aug, 2023 By: Campbell Durrant, P.C.
Fluctuations in employment trends is a story as old as time. However, current shifts in the employment landscape resulting from employees’ desire for greater flexibility have had a longer lasting impact than expected. In response, employers have been revamping their recruitment efforts to answer for a shrinking workforce. However, just as employers are finding innovative methods to recruit qualified candidates, there is a demographic of prospective employees that remains overlooked: neurodivergent individuals.
Neurodivergence is more commonly associated with individuals on the autism spec...
View entire article
Paul N. Lalley, Esquire
Published on: Mon 7th Aug, 2023 By: Campbell Durrant, P.C.
The need to fully investigate all inappropriate employee misconduct -- even those involving the most blatantly discriminatory and abhorrent communications -- before taking disciplinary action was recently highlighted in a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The failure to do so could lead not only to prolonged and costly litigation but even monetary liability.
In Fenico v. City of Philadelphia, the City disciplined several police officers after they posted comments and images on Facebook which were revealed by the Plain View Project. The Plain View Projec...
View entire article
Patrick J. Harvey, Esq. and Joshua C. Hausman, Esq.
Published on: Thu 6th Jul, 2023 By: Campbell Durrant, P.C.
The US Supreme Court in Groff v. DeJoy has tightened the undue hardship standard for reviewing religious accommodation requests. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of protected classifications, including sincerely held religious observances and practices. The law requires an employer to reasonably accommodate such observances or practices that do not create an “undue hardship” on the conduct of the employer’s business. Many courts and employers had interpreted a 1977 United States Supreme Court Case (Hardison) as standing for the...
View entire article
By Michael A. Palombo, Esquire Paul N. Lalley, Esquire and Rebeca R. Chieffallo
Published on: Tue 20th Jun, 2023 By: Campbell Durrant, P.C.
Following the termination of the COVID-19 public health emergency on May 11, 2023, the EEOC released updated COVID-19 guidance. These updated guidelines continue to allow some employer practices regarding COVID-19 inquiries that were permitted during the public health emergency. Overall, the EEOC emphasizes that the guidelines are subject to change based on the findings and determinations of health agencies like the CDC.
Employers are still expected to comply with ADA requirements, such as keeping employee medical information confidential and meeting the “business necessity” standard...
View entire article
By: Joshua C. Hausman, Esquire
Published on: Tue 20th Jun, 2023 By: Campbell Durrant, P.C.
On May 2, 2023, the U.S. Department of Transportation ( "DOT ") published a notice of final rulemaking which should be of great interest to all employers with DOT-regulated drug testing programs. Effective June 1 of this year, the final rule adds "oral fluid testing "—i.e., saliva testing—as an alternative drug testing method. With this new rule, a more modernized and less intrusive form of workplace drug testing is now in spitting distance.
Previously, the only form of drug testing authorized under the DOT’s workplace d...
View entire article
By Allison N. Genard, Esquire
Published on: Tue 20th Jun, 2023 By: Campbell Durrant, P.C.
Dealing with difficult elected officials (and in particular those that create employment-based liability) is challenging and there is no magic cure to solve this circumstance. The Commonwealth Court recently confirmed this obstacle in a case that involved a referendum passed by the community electorate. In April, the Commonwealth Court ruled that Section 402(e) of the Second Class Township Code violated Article VI, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution when it was used to prematurely end the term of two (2) Township Supervisors. Martin v. Donegal Township, --...
View entire article
By: Ben Patchen, Esquire
Published on: Mon 17th Apr, 2023 By: Campbell Durrant, P.C.
On March 17, 2023, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court issued a precedential decision holding that workers’ compensation carriers must reimburse claimants for out-of-pocket costs of medical marijuana. Fegley v. Firestone Tire & Rubber (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board) (Pa. Commw. Ct. March 17, 2023).
The Fegley, case involved an employee who suffered a work-related injury in 1977 and has been treating that injury since then. The employee was prescribed opiates and narcotics for approximately 30 years. In 2019, the claimant’s doctor prescribed him medical marijuana with the hope o...
View entire article
By: Peter J. Halesey, Esquire
Published on: Mon 17th Apr, 2023 By: Campbell Durrant, P.C.
As part of the remote work trend, questions have arisen as to the responsibilities of employers in providing certain benefits (e.g. Family and Medical Leave Act benefits) to their employees. Entitlement to these benefits become murkier when the benefits are tied to work time making it critically important for employers to capture all work time, including remote time. Recently, in an attempt to provide guidance to employers, the United States Department of Labor issued a Field Assistance Bulletin outlining its position on several of these matters. While the Department’s Bulletins do not ha...
View entire article
By: Tiffany R. Allen, Esquire
Published on: Mon 17th Apr, 2023 By: Campbell Durrant, P.C.
On February 9, 2023, the U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division (“DOL”) released an opinion letter in response to an inquiry from an employer concerned about their employee’s use of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) for a chronic serious medical condition. The employer at issue requires 24-hour coverage and the scheduled shifts are longer than 8-hours. The employer sought guidance from the DOL as to whether it was “better suited” to treat the employee’s need for a reduced schedule as an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“...
View entire article