Articles Posted in Employment law

by
New Employment Issues

Employment Discrimination issues explained by George Bellas Chicago Business Lawyer

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all areas of public life, including jobs, schools, transportation, and all other places that are open to the general public.[1]   When it comes to employment, the ADA provides that employers covered by the statute may not discriminate against “qualified individuals” with a disability with respect to employment matters.[2]  The ADA defines such individuals as applicants or employees who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the job.[3]    Thus, the most contested issue becomes the question of whether or not the employee has a disability, as that term is defined by the Act.

One type of claimed disability that is increasingly the subject of litigation is obesity.  Although courts initially were reluctant to recognize obesity as a qualifying disability for purposes of the ADA protections, courts are increasingly willing to consider obesity as a disability giving plaintiffs status to raise ADA claims.

Continue reading

by

Legal Marijuana Shouldn’t Mean Dazed and Confused Workers!

Starting on January 1 consumers will be able to buy marijuana for recreational use from licensed sellers.   Pot users will no longer need to worry about fines or jail time – but employees will need to pay attention to their employers’ policies about drug screenings and the use of cannabis at work.

Employers should consider how they want to handle the legalization of cannabis in terms of workplace policies, written guidelines and staff training on the many issues that employers will be facing.  Employers should take the time to review Section 10-50 of the “Illinois Cannabis Control Act” to see what protections they do and do not have.  Among these are:

Continue reading

by

Back in 2012, facing extreme reluctance from employers, the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (“EEOC”) published guidance on whether and when to hire workers with criminal backgrounds who had done their time and were, hopefully, ready to be productive citizens and workers.

But employer reluctance to consider hiring ex-cons has waned in the past seven years as the economy has improved, the population has continued to age, and at least in Illinois, the population size has fallen due to people leaving for faster-growing states and fewer immigrants coming into the state.  Meantime, more than 27,000 people got out of state prisons and more than 50,000 were released from Cook County Jail in 2018, and the National Employment Law Project estimates that 42 percent of Illinoisans have either criminal records or at least histories of arrest, which can include not only those found not guilty but those never formally charged in the first place.

It’s become somewhat easier for ex-cons (“the formerly incarcerated”) since the state legislature in 2014 prevented employers from asking on applications or early in the process about criminal history, making Illinois one of 23 states to take this step; private companies like Target had already done so.   Then in 2016 the state changed licensing laws to make more than 100 occupations more accessible to those with criminal records, including areas like healthcare, accounting and real estate, while expanding the types of convictions that can be sealed—and therefore invisible.

Continue reading

by

Employers:  Be cool with Pot Policies!

With Illinois adopting medical marijuana and looking to legalize recreational marijuana, lots of questions will be arise about what policies employers should adopt.  Imagine workers passing a joint (or a bag of spiked gummy bears) around the water cooler or sharing a joint after work.  Will employees be allowed to bring their baggie into work?  And what about refusing to hire people who test positive for weed.  These are murky waters we are wading into and it’s happening across the country.   For now, it’s probably wisest for most Illinois employers to take the high road when it comes to disciplining or refusing hire those who smoke marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Illinois employers are allowed to implement a drug-free workplace policy that prohibits employees from possessing or using marijuana in the workplace and/or being impaired during working hours. And those provisions can apply even to those who hold medical marijuana cards under the Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act, signed into law by former Governor Pat Quinn in 2013.    However, only those employers that risk losing either a federal contract or federal funding for hiring those who use marijuana are permitted to discipline, or refuse to hire, a person who has a medical marijuana card or fails a pre-employment drug test because they use medical marijuana. The latter provision addresses the fact that marijuana stays in a person’s system up to a month after use.

Continue reading

by

An arbitration agreement is a contract, in which two or more parties agree to settle a dispute outside of court.  Usually, an arbitration agreement is a clause in a larger contract. The arbitration clauses are often subjects to hotly disputed litigation, stemming from the vague verbiage and possible inconsistencies with other parts of the contract.  One of such issues – the admissibility of the “Wholly Groundless Exception” – was decided by the Supreme Court in January in the case of Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc , 586 U.S. __ (Jan. 8, 2019).  This is a tricky issue for those in the trucking industry who include arbitration clauses in their contracts with drivers.

What Is A Wholly Groundless Exception?

A “wholly groundless exception” was born out of the “delegation clauses” ordinarily found in arbitration agreements.  A delegation clause represents an agreement between parties that an arbitrator, not the court, will determine the threshold issues of enforceability of the arbitration clause and the scope of the arbitration agreement.  In other words, it is up to an arbitrator to decide whether, according to the contract or the rule of law, an issue may be decided by arbitration or needs to be determined by a judge.  These clauses were held to be valid by the Supreme Court in 2010 in Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 US 63 (2010). Since then, several circuits decided that this provision must be limited; thus creating a so-called “wholly groundless exception” to the delegation clause. This exception lets parties avoid compelling arbitration in cases where the claims are so obviously not within the scope of the agreement, that it would be a waste of time to go through arbitration before filing a lawsuit.

Continue reading

by

Employee expense reimbursement is now required by law in Illinois, at least under certain circumstances, making the Land of Lincoln the ninth U.S. jurisdiction to statutorily impose such a requirement.   In doing so, Illinois joins the company of other states with similar rules.   Employers of all shapes and sizes should get up to speed on the new law, an amendment to the Illinois Wage Payment Collection Act that took effect on January 1, which requires employers to reimburse all “necessary expenditures” directly related to the employer’s services.

The new law (820 ILCS 115/9.5) defines “necessary” as “all reasonable expenditures … required of the employee in the discharge of employment duties and that inure to the primary benefit of the employer.” This means that the employer must have either “authorized or required” the employee to purchase the product or service and must receive appropriate documentation within 30 days—unless the employer allows for a longer time frame.

Employers should have written expense reimbursement policies that lay out what they pay for and how much, along with what’s requested in terms of documentation; although if an employee cannot produce this documentation, such as a receipt, the employer must accept a “signed statement” from the employee instead.   This written policy can set caps for different categories of expenses and the employer does not need to reimburse more than the capped amount, provided the caps amount to more than “de minimis” reimbursement—a term the amendment does not define. In other words, the best guideline one can follow is: be reasonable, based on costs in your area.

Continue reading

by

Workers Classification – Employees or Independent Contractors

questions-1014060_1920-300x300

Independent Contractor or Employee?

As a business owner or an employer, when you hire a new worker, you will be reintroduced to the question – should you classify the worker as an employee or an independent contractor?  In order to make this huge business decision, you need to fully understand the difference between an employee and an independent contractor and the importance of classifying them correctly.

Continue reading

by

Generally speaking, illegal immigrants have the same protections under labor laws as American citizens, with some minor exceptions.

Minimum Wage Laws:  addition to federal laws, each state has its own minimum wage requirements; where federal and state laws differ, the higher wage applies.  Minimum wage laws apply to all workers the same, regardless of immigration status. Minimum wages in the U.S. are primarily set forth by the federal government, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).  But virtually every state has its own minimum wage law as well.  Though the federal law trumps the state law, if state law mandates greater benefits, the employer must pay the higher rate.

Importantly, the FLSA makes no exception for illegal immigrants.  They’re therefore entitled the same benefits as American citizens.   Currently, the FLSA minimum wage is $7.25 per hour for non-exempt employees, and the New York minimum is the same. The minimum under Illinois law is $8.25.

Continue reading

by

By: Jillian Tattersall

George Bellas Business AttorneyWill the #MeToo era herald a new day in court for women who file gender discrimination or sexual harassment lawsuits against prominent people or institutions?

The 2017 deposition of a former vice president of investment banking for a major Australian bank operating in 34 countries including the U.S., illustrates what women can face.  The woman, who worked in the bank’s New York office for two years, was one of two women in her department and one of four black people in the 100-person office. She sued for race and sex discrimination in federal court in 2016, two years after being let go. Her lawsuit alleges that her male colleagues constantly commented about the size of women’s breasts and their own physical assets in addition to asking the woman about her sex life. The woman also alleges that a former manager called her a “monkey” on numerous occasions.

Continue reading

by

By Misty J. Cygan, Attorney at Law

George Bellas Small Business Attorney

Aileron is a trained emotional support dog.

Business owners and their customers are perfectly used to service dogs who assist people with disabilities in getting around and performing daily tasks.

Continue reading