Dress codes and grooming policies, Race discrimination

The Legality of Employee Dress Codes and Grooming Policies

Leave a comment

Work­place dress codes and groom­ing poli­cies are a com­mon part of employ­ment, but they can also cre­ate legal chal­lenges. Employ­ers want pro­fes­sion­al-look­ing employ­ees, while work­ers want to express them­selves and avoid unnec­es­sary restric­tions. So, where’s the legal line? Let’s break down the do’s and don’ts of work­place appear­ance policies.

Can Employers Legally Enforce Dress Codes?

Yes, employ­ers gen­er­al­ly have the right to enforce dress codes and groom­ing poli­cies, as long as they are job-relat­ed and applied fair­ly. The key legal con­sid­er­a­tions include:

  • Anti-Dis­crim­i­na­tion Laws: Poli­cies can­not dis­crim­i­nate based on race, sex, reli­gion, dis­abil­i­ty, or oth­er pro­tect­ed cat­e­gories under Title VII of the Civ­il Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e‑2).
  • Dis­abil­i­ty Accom­mo­da­tions: Employ­ers must pro­vide rea­son­able accom­mo­da­tions for employ­ees with dis­abil­i­ties under the Amer­i­cans with Dis­abil­i­ties Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)).
  • Reli­gious Accom­mo­da­tions: Employ­ees must be allowed to wear reli­gious attire (such as hijabs or yarmulkes) unless the employ­er can show an undue hard­ship (EEOC v. Aber­crom­bie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S. 768 (2015)).
  • Gen­der and Hair Dis­crim­i­na­tion: Some courts and states have ruled that poli­cies restrict­ing nat­ur­al hair­styles (such as afros, braids, and dread­locks) can be racial­ly dis­crim­i­na­to­ry (CROWN Act laws are gain­ing momen­tum nation­wide, though not yet in West Virginia).
Con­tin­ue read­ing The Legal­i­ty of Employ­ee Dress Codes and Groom­ing Poli­cies →
National Labor Relations Act, Social networking

The Legal Implications of Employee Social Media Use

Leave a comment

Social media has trans­formed how peo­ple com­mu­ni­cate, but it has also cre­at­ed legal chal­lenges in the work­place. Employ­ers want to pro­tect their rep­u­ta­tion and con­fi­den­tial infor­ma­tion, while employ­ees want to express them­selves freely. The big ques­tion is: how much con­trol can an employ­er legal­ly exert over an employee’s social media activ­i­ty? Let’s break it down.

Can Employers Restrict Employee Social Media Use?

Yes, but with lim­i­ta­tions. Employ­ers can imple­ment social media poli­cies to safe­guard their busi­ness inter­ests, pre­vent work­place harass­ment, and main­tain pro­duc­tiv­i­ty. How­ev­er, they must ensure these poli­cies do not vio­late employ­ee rights under fed­er­al and state law.

For exam­ple, the Nation­al Labor Rela­tions Act (NLRA) (29 U.S.C. § 157) pro­tects employ­ees who engage in “con­cert­ed activity”—discussions about wages, work­ing con­di­tions, or union­iz­ing efforts. The Nation­al Labor Rela­tions Board (NLRB) has ruled that employ­ers can­not dis­ci­pline work­ers for social media posts that fall under this pro­tec­tion (NLRB v. Pier Six­ty, LLC, 855 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2017)).

Employ­ers can take action against employ­ees for social media posts that:

  • Vio­late com­pa­ny poli­cies (e.g., harass­ment, dis­crim­i­na­tion, or con­fi­den­tial­i­ty rules).
  • Con­tain threats, hate speech, or defam­a­to­ry statements.
  • Cause sig­nif­i­cant rep­u­ta­tion­al harm to the employer.

How­ev­er, a blan­ket ban on work-relat­ed social media dis­cus­sions could vio­late fed­er­al labor laws.

Con­tin­ue read­ing The Legal Impli­ca­tions of Employ­ee Social Media Use →
Religious discrimination

The Ministerial Exception for Religion Discrimination Claims

Leave a comment

I gen­er­al­ly addressed reli­gion dis­crim­i­na­tion claims in a sep­a­rate arti­cle today. This par­ti­cle address­es a very impor­tant aspect of those types of cas­es, the “min­is­te­r­i­al excep­tion” which effec­tive­ly pre­cludes claims of dis­crim­i­na­tion against reli­gious orga­ni­za­tions where the role of the plain­tiff involves “min­is­te­r­i­al duties”. More about what that means below.

What is the ministerial exception?

The min­is­te­r­i­al excep­tion is a judi­cial­ly cre­at­ed doc­trine under U.S. law that exempts cer­tain employ­ment deci­sions made by reli­gious orga­ni­za­tions from scruti­ny under employ­ment dis­crim­i­na­tion statutes. Root­ed in the First Amendment’s guar­an­tees of the free exer­cise of reli­gion and the pro­hi­bi­tion against gov­ern­men­tal estab­lish­ment of reli­gion, the min­is­te­r­i­al excep­tion rec­og­nizes that reli­gious insti­tu­tions have a con­sti­tu­tion­al right to choose their min­is­ters with­out gov­ern­ment interference.

In essence, the doc­trine pre­vents courts from adju­di­cat­ing claims that would require them to eval­u­ate the qual­i­fi­ca­tions of reli­gious lead­ers, the duties they per­form, or the valid­i­ty of reli­gious doc­trines. As a result, when an employee’s role with­in a reli­gious orga­ni­za­tion is deemed to be min­is­te­r­i­al, courts gen­er­al­ly decline to apply employ­ment dis­crim­i­na­tion laws—such as Title VII of the Civ­il Rights Act of 1964, the Amer­i­cans with Dis­abil­i­ties Act (ADA), or the Age Dis­crim­i­na­tion in Employ­ment Act (ADEA)—to dis­putes over that individual’s employment.

Con­tin­ue read­ing The Min­is­te­r­i­al Excep­tion for Reli­gion Dis­crim­i­na­tion Claims →
Religious discrimination

Religious Discrimination in the Workplace: Rights and Responsibilities

Leave a comment

Reli­gious dis­crim­i­na­tion in the work­place is a grow­ing issue in employ­ment law, affect­ing both employ­ers and employ­ees. With an increas­ing­ly diverse work­force, under­stand­ing legal pro­tec­tions and oblig­a­tions regard­ing reli­gious beliefs and prac­tices is essen­tial. Let’s dive into how fed­er­al and state laws han­dle reli­gious dis­crim­i­na­tion and what both employ­ers and employ­ees should know.

What Is Religious Discrimination?

Reli­gious dis­crim­i­na­tion occurs when an employ­er treats an employ­ee unfa­vor­ably because of their reli­gious beliefs or prac­tices. This includes:

  • Hir­ing and fir­ing deci­sions based on religion.
  • Deny­ing pro­mo­tions, rais­es, or job assign­ments due to reli­gious beliefs.
  • Harass­ment relat­ed to an employee’s faith.
  • Fail­ure to pro­vide rea­son­able accom­mo­da­tions for reli­gious practices.

Fed­er­al law pro­hibits reli­gious dis­crim­i­na­tion under Title VII of the Civ­il Rights Act of 1964, which applies to employ­ers with 15 or more employ­ees (42 U.S.C. § 2000e‑2). West Virginia’s Human Rights Act pro­vides sim­i­lar pro­tec­tions at the state lev­el and applies to employ­ers with 12 or more employ­ees with­in West Vir­ginia (W. Va. Code § 16B-17–9).

Con­tin­ue read­ing Reli­gious Dis­crim­i­na­tion in the Work­place: Rights and Respon­si­bil­i­ties →
Pregnancy discrimination, Sex Discrimination

Legal protections for pregnant employees

Leave a comment

A preg­nant employ­ee in West Vir­ginia is pro­tect­ed under fed­er­al and state laws that pro­vide work­place rights, pro­hib­it dis­crim­i­na­tion, and require rea­son­able accom­mo­da­tions, par­tic­u­lar­ly for med­ical com­pli­ca­tions relat­ed to preg­nan­cy. Below is an overview of the key legal pro­tec­tions and employ­er obligations.

Federal Legal Protections for Pregnant Employees

1. Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) – 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k)

The Preg­nan­cy Dis­crim­i­na­tion Act (PDA) is an amend­ment to Title VII of the Civ­il Rights Act of 1964 and pro­hibits dis­crim­i­na­tion based on preg­nan­cy, child­birth, or relat­ed med­ical con­di­tions. Under the PDA:

  • Employ­ers can­not fire, refuse to hire, demote, or oth­er­wise dis­crim­i­nate against a woman because of pregnancy.
  • Preg­nant employ­ees must be treat­ed the same as oth­er employ­ees who are sim­i­lar in their abil­i­ty or inabil­i­ty to work.
  • If an employ­er pro­vides accom­mo­da­tions for tem­porar­i­ly dis­abled employ­ees, it must pro­vide sim­i­lar accom­mo­da­tions for preg­nant employ­ees with work restrictions.
Con­tin­ue read­ing Legal pro­tec­tions for preg­nant employ­ees →
Americans with Disabilities Act, Disability discrimination

The ADA Amendments Act of 2008

Leave a comment

This arti­cle accom­pa­nies my gen­er­al arti­cle from today on dis­abil­i­ty dis­crim­i­na­tion law. On the impor­tant thresh­old issue of whether an employ­ee is even pro­tect­ed by the ADA, that is con­trolled by whether the employ­ee has a dis­abil­i­ty as defined by the ADA. The fed­er­al law on that issue is dra­mat­i­cal­ly dif­fer­ent before and after 2008, as I explain below, so every­one has to be very care­ful about rely­ing on law before 2008 for the ADA.

The ADA Amend­ments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) was enact­ed to restore and expand pro­tec­tions under the Amer­i­cans with Dis­abil­i­ties Act of 1990 (ADA) after Supreme Court deci­sions had sig­nif­i­cant­ly nar­rowed the scope of what qual­i­fied as a “dis­abil­i­ty.” The law took effect on Jan­u­ary 1, 2009.

Key Changes Made by the ADAAA

The ADAAA made sev­er­al crit­i­cal amend­ments to the ADA, pri­mar­i­ly by broad­en­ing the def­i­n­i­tion of dis­abil­i­ty and reject­ing pre­vi­ous restric­tive judi­cial inter­pre­ta­tions. Here are the main changes:

Con­tin­ue read­ing The ADA Amend­ments Act of 2008 →
Americans with Disabilities Act, Disability discrimination, WV Human Rights Act

Workplace Disability Discrimination: Understanding Rights and Employer Obligations

1 Comment

Dis­abil­i­ty dis­crim­i­na­tion in the work­place is an issue that affects both employ­ees and employ­ers. With the Amer­i­cans with Dis­abil­i­ties Act (ADA) set­ting the legal frame­work, busi­ness­es must nav­i­gate rea­son­able accom­mo­da­tions while ensur­ing com­pli­ance. Employ­ees, on the oth­er hand, need to under­stand their rights and what steps to take if they expe­ri­ence dis­crim­i­na­tion. Let’s break it down.

What Is Disability Discrimination?

Dis­abil­i­ty dis­crim­i­na­tion occurs when an employ­er treats an employ­ee or job appli­cant unfa­vor­ably because of a dis­abil­i­ty. This can include:

  • Refus­ing to hire a qual­i­fied appli­cant due to a disability.
  • Fail­ing to pro­vide rea­son­able accom­mo­da­tions that would enable an employ­ee to per­form essen­tial job functions.
  • Wrong­ful­ly ter­mi­nat­ing or demot­ing an employ­ee based on their disability.
  • Harass­ing an employ­ee due to their dis­abil­i­ty or med­ical condition.

The ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12112) pro­hibits dis­crim­i­na­tion against qual­i­fied indi­vid­u­als with dis­abil­i­ties in all aspects of employ­ment, includ­ing hir­ing, fir­ing, pro­mo­tions, and job assignments.

Con­tin­ue read­ing Work­place Dis­abil­i­ty Dis­crim­i­na­tion: Under­stand­ing Rights and Employ­er Oblig­a­tions →
Americans with Disabilities Act, Disability discrimination, Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA): What Employers and Employees Need to Know

Leave a comment

Life happens—whether it’s the birth of a child, a seri­ous health con­di­tion, or the need to care for a sick fam­i­ly mem­ber. The Fam­i­ly and Med­ical Leave Act (FMLA) pro­vides eli­gi­ble employ­ees with the right to take unpaid, job-pro­tect­ed leave in these sit­u­a­tions. But FMLA can be tricky, and both employ­ers and employ­ees need to under­stand their rights and responsibilities.

What Is FMLA?

The FMLA is a fed­er­al law that requires cov­ered employ­ers to pro­vide eli­gi­ble employ­ees with up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year for spe­cif­ic med­ical and fam­i­ly-relat­ed rea­sons (29 U.S.C. §2612). Dur­ing this time, employ­ees’ jobs and health ben­e­fits are protected.

Cov­ered rea­sons for FMLA leave include:

  • The birth, adop­tion, or fos­ter place­ment of a child.
  • A seri­ous health con­di­tion that pre­vents an employ­ee from per­form­ing essen­tial job duties.
  • The need to care for a spouse, child, or par­ent with a seri­ous health condition.
  • Qual­i­fy­ing exi­gen­cies relat­ed to a fam­i­ly member’s mil­i­tary service.

Addi­tion­al­ly, the FMLA pro­vides up to 26 weeks of leave for employ­ees car­ing for a cov­ered ser­vice­mem­ber with a seri­ous injury or ill­ness (29 U.S.C. §2619).

Con­tin­ue read­ing The Fam­i­ly and Med­ical Leave Act (FMLA): What Employ­ers and Employ­ees Need to Know →
Age Discrimination, Americans with Disabilities Act, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, WV Human Rights Act, WV Human Rights Commission

The Roles of the EEOC and the West Virginia Human Rights Commission in Workplace Discrimination Claims

Leave a comment

Work­place dis­crim­i­na­tion is a seri­ous issue, and employ­ees who believe they’ve been treat­ed unfair­ly often turn to the Equal Employ­ment Oppor­tu­ni­ty Com­mis­sion (“EEOC”) or the West Vir­ginia Human Rights Com­mis­sion (“HRC”) for help. But what exact­ly do the EEOC and HRC do, and how does the com­plaint process work? Whether you’re an employ­er try­ing to stay com­pli­ant or an employ­ee con­sid­er­ing fil­ing a claim, it is impor­tant to under­stand the EEOC’s and HRC’s roles.

What Is the EEOC?

The EEOC is the fed­er­al agency respon­si­ble for enforc­ing anti-dis­crim­i­na­tion laws in the work­place. It inves­ti­gates com­plaints of dis­crim­i­na­tion based on race, sex, age, dis­abil­i­ty, nation­al ori­gin, reli­gion, and oth­er pro­tect­ed char­ac­ter­is­tics under laws like:

  • Title VII of the Civ­il Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e‑2)
  • The Age Dis­crim­i­na­tion in Employ­ment Act (ADEA) (29 U.S.C. § 623)
  • The Amer­i­cans with Dis­abil­i­ties Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 12112)

The agency also enforces laws pro­hibit­ing retal­i­a­tion, mean­ing an employ­er can’t pun­ish an employ­ee for fil­ing a com­plaint or par­tic­i­pat­ing in an investigation.

Con­tin­ue read­ing The Roles of the EEOC and the West Vir­ginia Human Rights Com­mis­sion in Work­place Dis­crim­i­na­tion Claims →
WARN (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act)

The WARN Act: What Employers and Employees Need to Know About Mass Layoffs

Leave a comment

Mass lay­offs and plant clo­sures are tough for every­one involved. Employ­ees lose their jobs, and busi­ness­es face finan­cial and legal con­se­quences. The Work­er Adjust­ment and Retrain­ing Noti­fi­ca­tion (WARN) Act is a fed­er­al law that pro­tects work­ers by requir­ing advance notice of large-scale lay­offs. If you’re an employ­er plan­ning work­force reduc­tions or an employ­ee won­der­ing about your rights, here’s what you need to know.

What Is the WARN Act?

The WARN Act, passed in 1988, requires cer­tain employ­ers to pro­vide 60 days’ notice before a mass lay­off or plant clos­ing. The goal is to give employ­ees time to pre­pare for job loss, seek new employ­ment, and access retrain­ing oppor­tu­ni­ties (29 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq.).

This law applies to pri­vate employ­ers with 100 or more full-time employ­ees. It cov­ers two main scenarios:

  1. Plant Clo­sures – A full shut­down of a work­site that affects at least 50 full-time employees.
  2. Mass Lay­offs – A work­force reduc­tion affect­ing at least 50 employ­ees and one-third of the work­force at a sin­gle loca­tion, or any lay­off of 500 or more employ­ees regard­less of per­cent­age (29 U.S.C. § 2101(a)(2)-(3)).
Con­tin­ue read­ing The WARN Act: What Employ­ers and Employ­ees Need to Know About Mass Lay­offs →

Employment Law News and Analysis