All immigration, all the time! Will Krasnow of our Boston Office has been working overtime in 

following the latest developments, and explaining what they mean for employers. Last Friday, he had this Immigration Dispatch on the end of the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals under President Trump. (But is the President now close to a DACA deal with the Dems? Could be.) And yesterday, Will had another on the Supreme Court’s temporary stay of an injunction against the Administration’s refugee ban. (A “stay of an injunction of a ban” — triple negative, yay! — means that the Administration can continue, for the time being, to block certain refugees from coming into the United States.) Oral argument on the legal challenge to the President’s March 6 revised travel ban is scheduled for October 10, with a final decision to follow.

Will, thank you for keeping us all up to speed!

Image Credit: From flickr, Creative Commons license, by Jelene Morris.

Happy Labor Day Weekend, y’all!

The month of August was not kind to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC’s wellness regulations were shot down by a federal court in the District of Columbia, and earlier this week the agency was told that it could not require employers to report compensation data on the new EEO-1 Reports.

But the EEOC also scored a big ...

(You've been warned.)

As I reported Tuesday, a federal judge has ruled that the wellness regulations issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission are invalid. Judge John D. Bates of the District of Columbia did not vacate the rules but remanded them to the EEOC to address the rules' "failings." Now that I've had a chance to read the decision, I ...

I've written about the AARP's challenge to the wellness rules issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission here, here, and here.

Today, the court granted the AARP's motion for summary judgment and denied the EEOC's motion. I have not had a chance to read the opinion, but here it is. I'll be back soon with some real analysis.

Although the court has declared that the rules ...

Two court decisions came out last week that ought to scare the heck out of employers.

Both involved employers who seem to have been aware of their legal obligations and tried to comply. The employers lost their cases because they either didn't go far enough, or didn't pay enough attention to "optics."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPwrodxghrw

I'd like to talk about each of these ...

Would you believe we have another ConstangyTV Close-Up on Workplace Law? We do! In our August show, host Leigh Tyson talks with Heather Owen of our Jacksonville Office (esteemed proprietor of FOCUS, our women's leadership blog) about coordinating reasonable accommodation obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act and leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act ...

(When I think out loud, beware.)

Ellen Kearns' discussion of last week's decision in Barbuto v. Advantage Sales and Marketing, in which the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that employers may have to accommodate employees who use medical marijuana, got me thinking about whether we need to revisit some of our assumptions about marijuana in the ...

Law360 reported this morning that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit refused to rehear the case of Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, in which two out of three judges on a panel of the court decided that Title VII did not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Here is a copy of the Court's order denying the rehearing.

According to the Law360 article, Lambda ...

Supreme Court agrees to review "travel ban" cases and partially stays injunctions on the ban pending a final decision. The Trump Administration won a partial victory this week when the U.S. Supreme Court decided that portions of the preliminary injunctions against the "travel ban" issued in March should be stayed. What that means is that the travel ban is now in effect for foreign ...

As our readers know, discrimination against transgender individuals is often treated as sex discrimination under Title VII, as a form of unlawful "sex stereotyping."

But is it also a "disability" within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act when an individual identifies with a gender other than his or her biological one?

Transgender individuals don't usually invoke the ...