Unlike Title VII, the federal Equal Pay Act shifts the burden of proof to employers to prove a nondiscriminatory reason for pay difference.
Appellate court’s ruling appears to have made it easier to bring employment discrimination claims under federal law.
In current legal landscape, employers may do well to continue including a contractual limitations period on employment applications and handbook acknowledgments.
New Memorandum of Understanding imposes “consultation” between federal agencies.
Inadvertent noncompliance with writs of garnishment can cost employers.
This published decision gives failing grade to university officials who apparently need summer school to learn employment and defense best practices.
Policies are great but employers must ensure manager and HR compliance in order to present a solid defense to employee discrimination claims.
Employers must file new Component 2 compensation data with the EEOC by Sept. 30.
This case is a good reminder to employers that just because employees have restrictions, it doesn’t mean they have disabilities requiring ADA accommodations.
New Supreme Court ruling again emphasizes that filing EEOC charge is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to bringing a Title VII claim in federal court.
Court allows class action case to proceed against Ford Motor over claim that company’s online job portal is too difficult for applicants with disabilities to navigate.
Rumor-based sexual harassment claim draws attention in the form of nearly 50 amicus curiae briefs from across the country. This post explains why.
Remaining flexible on religious accommodations could help employers stay off the naughty list with Michigan’s courts.
EEOC and Justice Department locked in clash of titans battle over discrimination protections for LGBTQ employees.
To avoid legal quagmires, employers must understand the differences between federal and Michigan law regarding employees claiming disabilities.
In a real game changer for employers and employees, a recent federal court ruling disavows application of the tender back rule to employment cases under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act.
Appellate court rules Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects transgender employees from discrimination by employers in the workplace.
Scheduling changes based on employer’s legitimate staffing concerns during upcoming leave of absence violated federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
The list of questions employers can’t ask applicants continues to grow!
Federal appellate court's ruling that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation sets stage for showdown in U.S. Supreme Court.
EEOC offers employers new tools for wellness programs and discouraging workplace retaliation.
EEOC publishes sample notice to help businesses offering employer-sponsored wellness plans to comply with employee notice rules.
The EEOC has issued a new Fact Sheet addressing bathroom access rights for transgender employees.
Check out the EEOC's new quick-read pamphlet for employers that provides helpful information and links to important Internet content.
Federal appellate court holds telecommuting was not a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.
EEOC's focus on harassment claims means the time is right for employers to review anti-harassment policies, training and procedures.
EEOC action emphasizes enforcement of Title VII protections for transgender employees allegedly discriminated against in the workplace.
EEOC’s new enforcement guidance clarifies the EEOC’s position on a number of issues involving pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions.
SubscribeRSS Plunkett Cooney LinkedIn Page Plunkett Cooney Twitter Page Plunkett Cooney Facebook Page
- Employment Liability
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- Wage & Hour
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- Labor Law
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Employment Discrimination
- Human Resources
- Employment Agreement
- Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- OSHA Issues
- Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
- Title VII
- National Labor Relations Act
- Workplace Harassment
- Sick Leave
- Unemployment Benefits
- Regulatory Law
- Workers' Compensation
- Minimum Wage
- Paid Medical Leave Act (PMLA)
- National Labor Relations Board
- Transgender Issues
- Sexual Harassment
- Whistleblower Protection Act
- Civil Rights
- Non-compete Agreements
- Social Media
- Retail Liability
- Class Actions
- Emergency Information
- Business Risk Management
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Hostile Work Environment
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Title IX
- Tax Law
- Medical Marijuana
- Right to Work
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
- Union Organizing & Relations
- The Challenge of Wage Claims Under the Equal Pay Act
- Was the bar for Actionable Federal Discrimination Claims Just Lowered?
- Poor Drafting Leads to Poor Results for Arbitration 'Agreement'
- One, Two, Three Strikes You’re OUT… When Dealing With Attendance Rules!
- Failure To Apply Duties Test Results in Ruling Against Employer in Wage Claim Appeal
- MIOSHA Suspends May 24 Rule, Makes COVID-19 Mitigation Measures Discretionary for Non-Health Care Employers
- ‘VACC To Normal’ Means Back to the Office for Michigan Starting May 24
- Michigan Pushes to Pandemic Finish Line by Promoting Double Vaccine Benefit
- Contractual Limitations Periods and Federal Civil Rights Claims
- Remote Work Still Required Amid Covid-19 Surge in Michigan