In a decision released late in the day on Friday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit lifted a stay against the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (“OSHA”) rule requiring employers with 100+ employees either to require their employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or to submit to weekly COVID-19 testing and
Jim Dale, senior counsel in the firm’s Labor & Employment group, routinely advises and represents some of Idaho’s largest private employers on virtually every aspect of labor and employment law, including employment discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination, contract, wage and hour, and ERISA issues. He has also served as lead defense counsel on class and collective actions seeking recovery of unpaid wages. Jim has handled numerous labor arbitrations addressing discharge, discipline, scope of work and management rights. He regularly appears before administrative agencies charged with enforcing human resources issues, including the Idaho Human Rights Commission, EEOC, NLRB, U.S. Department of Labor, Idaho Department of Labor, and the Idaho Industrial Commission. Employers also seek his counsel on workplace policies and training for all levels of employees.
Please note: The information below is based on what we know today, and that rules and regulations are literally changing daily. Employers need to be nimble and flexible – check your local rules on a daily basis.
As more and more people receive the COVID-19 vaccine, employees are starting to ask questions about mask requirements. …
On April 23, 2020, Idaho’s Governor Little adopted “Guidelines” that constitute a “data-driven approach to opening up Idaho’s economy.” The proposed approach is intended to reduce the risk of COVID-19 to the State’s most vulnerable population and preserve capacity in the healthcare system, while opening up businesses safely. The Governor’s action readily acknowledges that employee…
At the direction of Governor Brad Little, the Director of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare has issued an Order to Self-Isolate for the State of Idaho that became effective on March 25, 2020. The Order is intended to respond to the ongoing COVID-19 public health emergency by ensuring the maximum number of people…
As 2019 comes to an end, employers should know about important new obligations that will ring in their new year. Our Labor & Employment experts offer some guidance on critical developments in Oregon, Washington, California, and Idaho that employers should be prepared for in 2020.
- The statute of limitations for discrimination and harassment claims
On June 28, 2018, the Idaho Supreme Court issued an opinion in a case entitled Lunneborg v. My Fun Life that outlines how cause will be defined in employment cases. Simply put, this case could be a real game changer for employers and particularly those that have employment agreements with senior management or other executives.…
In order to provide near certain relief for employees injured in the course of employment, the Idaho Worker’s Compensation Act withdrew the common law remedies workers traditionally held against their employers. This compromise limits employers’ liability in exchange for providing sure and speedy relief for injured workers and is encapsulated in Idaho Code § 72-209…
In the wake of the election results, the question on everyone’s mind now is: What impact will President-Elect Trump have on employers? Trump has thus far given few details on his thoughts on labor and employment. But with Republicans maintaining control of Congress, employers could see a lot of changes in the next couple of years. Our experts weighed in with their thoughts on how different areas of labor and employment law may be affected.
Continue Reading Labor & Employment Law Under President-Elect Trump
A November 27, 2013 opinion from the Idaho Supreme Court reinstated a former Assistant Vice Principal’s claim seeking damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress. This decision highlights that allegedly harassing workplace comments may subject employers to liability even though e the complaining employee cannot make out a traditional sexual harassment claim.
In Frogley v. Meridian Joint School Dist., 2013 opinion No. 124, the employee claimed that he had been the victim of sexual harassment based upon sexually-charged comments to and about him. Mr. Frogley claimed that the behavior continued despite making known that the behavior was offensive. The complaints came at approximately the same time his superiors began to question his work performance.
All of the claims, including sexual harassment under federal and state law, were dismissed before they were allowed to proceed to trial. The Supreme Court’s opinion does not detail the reason for the lower court’s decision in that regard and the employee chose not to appeal dismissal of the sexual harassment theories; pursuing instead his claims for retaliation and negligent infliction of emotional distress.Continue Reading No Harassment, No Problem: Idaho Court Holds Harassing Comments May Still Support Liability for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
Most employers grapple with the better-known aspects of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), such as determining whether an employee’s illness constitutes a serious medical condition, obtaining required certification or providing adequate coverage for workers on intermittent leave. All too often employers focus on the leave itself and breathe a sigh of relief when notice is provided confirming the dates of leave or when the employee has resumed his or her usual schedule. But an employer’s compliance with federal law includes the obligation to maintain adequate records related to the leave. Failure to do so can have significant consequences.
What Records Must You Keep?
FMLA recordkeeping requirements can be found in a single regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 825.500. That regulation requires employers to keep and preserve records in accordance with the recordkeeping requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Records must be retained for no less than three years. Although no particular order or form is required, the records must be capable of being reviewed or copied.
Covered employers with eligible employees must also maintain records that include basic payroll and data identifying the employee’s compensation. Failure to maintain accurate records can have significant consequences for employers, who have the burden of establishing eligibility for leave. Accuracy is important: for example, the regulations demand that records document hours of leave taken in cases of leave in increments less than a full day. Lack of suitable records documenting when leave was taken can also doom an employer’s defense to claims for leave. Special rules apply to joint employment and to employees who are not covered by or are exempt from the FLSA.Continue Reading Recordkeeping: The Often Overlooked Element of FMLA Compliance