About

As employment law constantly changes, the attorneys at Bean, Kinney & Korman stay up to date on the law as it develops. Our blog topics focus on those changes and what you need to know about them, ranging from severance agreements and the FLSA to social media in the workplace and recent court decisions. If you are interested in having us cover a specific topic, please let us know.

Contact Us

Topics

Archives

Select Month:

Contributors

Posts in HR Policies.
Virginia Adds a "Ban the Box" Law for Pot Possession

Ban-the-box restrictions have increased in popularity among U.S. states and localities during the last decade. “Ban the box” refers to laws that variously prohibit or restrict employers from requiring applicants for employment to divulge their criminal history through a check box on an application for employment. The theory behind “ban the box” statutes is that they promote hiring practices that give applicants a fair chance and require employers to judge individual job candidates on their merits, instead of automatically disqualifying those who have a criminal history.

Employees in Virginia are Heading Back to the Workplace. What Can Employers Ask or Do?

On May 8, 2020, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam issued an Executive Order implementing Phase One of his plan to ease many of the current COVID-19-related restrictions on businesses and public activities for most jurisdictions in the Commonwealth, effective as of May 15, 2020. But not in Northern Virginia, where the region has yet to achieve the COVID-19 benchmarks that led to Northam’s easing of business and public activity restrictions elsewhere in Virginia. 

OFCCP Final Rule Prohibits Pay Secrecy Policies by Federal Contractors

Federal contractors, take notice: did you know that it is now illegal as a federal contractor to prevent your employees from discussing their compensation? The Department of Labor’s recent ruling may significantly impact your business and necessitate changes to your policies and practices. Continue reading to determine whether your business will be affected and how.

In a landmark decision on Thursday, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”), by a 3-2 vote, determined that its long-standing “joint-employment jurisprudence” had grown “increasingly out of step with changing economic circumstances, particularly the recent dramatic growth in contingent employment relationships, i.e., shift work, contract workers, and temporary employee relationships[,]” across the U.S.

Virginia Employers’ Liability for Armed Security Guards and Workplace Violence

Workplace violence has become a growing concern for businesses across the country. In Virginia, employers of all sizes are actively considering, many for the first time, whether it would be prudent to have extra security personnel on hand and wondering whether they can be held liable for actions taken by security guards on their premises. The good news for employers in the Commonwealth is that such liability can be mitigated with the right policies in place.

Employer Risks in Using Employment-Related Criminal Background Checks, Part 2

Part 1 of this article can be found here.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act

Having considering the perils summarized above, an employer who still decides to use employee criminal background checks faces additional restrictions under other federal statutory provisions, namely the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). An employer who uses consumer reports to make employment decisions, including hiring, retention, promotion or reassignment, must comply with the FCRA. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) enforces the FCRA.

Employer Risks in Using Employment-Related Criminal Background Checks, Part I

Use of employment-related background checks by employers to discover information about the work history, education, criminal record and financial history of job applicants has become ubiquitous. In one recent survey of employers, 92% of those responding stated that they subjected all or some of their job candidates to criminal background checks. The reasons for increased employer reliance on criminal background checks are straightforward - to control theft and fraud and address heightened concerns about potential liability for workplace violence and negligent hiring. It is not illegal for an employer to ask questions about an applicant’s or employee’s background, or to require a background check. However, anytime an employer uses that information to make an employment decision, irrespective of how the employer has obtained the information, the employer must comply with federal anti-discrimination and credit reporting laws, and state and local restrictions.

Effective March 27, 2015, the Family and Medical Leave Act, or FMLA, will extend coverage to all legally married same-sex couples to take FMLA leave to provide care for their spouse. FMLA leave entitles eligible employees, as defined by the statute, to take unpaid leave for a “qualifying event” for a period of up to 12 weeks. In addition to serious health conditions of the employee, qualifying events include the care of a spouse or child with a serious health condition and leave due to a spouse’s covered military service.

March Madness & Employee Morale: A Winning Combination

Selection Sunday has passed, the brackets are set and employers across the US find themselves once again on the eve of March Madness. Businesses are faced with the issue of whether to embrace the “madness” or to strictly enforce office policies, which likely prohibit distractions such as streaming basketball games and participating in bracket pools. While numerous studies indicate that employee productivity is at record lows this Thursday & Friday, there are great benefits to be had if handled correctly.

Thirty-five years ago, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”) established that it is unlawful for employers with fifteen or more employees to discriminate against pregnant workers “because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions.” That remains the basic law of the land today. What has remained unclear, however, is whether Congress, in passing the PDA, meant to compel employers to provide pregnant employees who are not able to work for medical reasons with accommodations, such as a light duty job, to the same extent as similarly situated, non-pregnant employees.

The Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in a case brought by Peggy Young against United Parcel Service (“UPS”) that is expected to provide some guidance as to whether and under what circumstances an employer may be required to accommodate pregnant employees under the PDA. Irrespective of what the court decides, however, covered employers should continue to ask whether such accommodations may still be necessary under recently implemented amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).