After a tortured history, the EEOC’s pay-data collection requirements are back! At least for now.

Consistent with some recent federal court rulings, all employers with 100 or more employees, and all government contractors with 50 or more employees and at least $50,000 in government contracts, as of now, must submit summarized pay data for all employees for 2017 and 2018 to the EEOC by September 30, 2019. The government is appealing the court rulings, and there still is a possibility that the pay-data reporting will not happen. But pending appeal and further details regarding the format and process for reporting employee pay data, employers should begin now to collect and review 2017 and 2018 pay data and to clean up any errors.

Regulatory Background

In 2014, President Obama directed the EEOC to develop a tool for collecting pay data from employers. In September 2016, the EEOC announced that pay-data collection would be incorporated into employer’s annual EEO-1 reports, beginning in December 2017. The initial proposal required EEOC to collect pay data for at least twice before September 30, 2019.

The EEOC regulations required employers to report, within each of the 10 EEO-1 job categories and 14 gender, race, and ethnicity categories, how many employees gross W-2      Continue Reading...

The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear three cases that address whether Title VII’s protections against sex discrimination extend to discrimination on the basis of an employee’s sexual orientation and gender identity. Lower courts have struggled with the question of whether “discrimination on the basis of sex” could include protections for LGBTQ workers, resulting in a split among the federal courts of appeal. The Supreme Court will now have the opportunity to resolve the question once and for all. Two of the cases involve gay employees who both claim that they were fired because of their sexual orientation. In one case, Zarda v. Altitude Express, the Scond Circuit Court of Appeals (covering northeastern states) ruled that Title VII extended to sexual orientation discrimination.  In the other case, Bostock v. Clayton County, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (covering southern states) ruled that Title VII did not protect employees from sexual orientation discrimination. The third case the Supreme Court will hear involves a transgender employee. In R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. EEOC, a funeral home owner terminated an employee because of her transgender status. The business owner relied on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to argue that his personal religious beliefs supported his termination decision and RFRA provides a defense for employers with sincerely held religious beliefs. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (covering midwestern states, but not Kansas), ruled against the business owner and found that Title VII protects transgender employees and RFRA did      Continue Reading...

According to the United States Department of Labor (DOL), nine out of 10 new fathers in the United States took some time off work for the birth or adoption of a child, but the amount of time that new dads take off work is generally very low. Seven out of 10 fathers took 10 days or less of parental leave. The DOL notes that fewer employers offer paid parental leave for men than for women, and fewer men report receiving paid parental leave than women. While 21% of women take parental leave, only 13% of men do the same.

Many employers have policies stating that employees must provide at least two weeks’ notice of resignation. The reason, of course, is to give the employer time to hire a replacement or otherwise staff the position. Even when not required by policy, two weeks’ notice often is taken for granted as a professional courtesy.

In 2016, with much fanfare, the EEOC adopted new summary pay-reporting requirements for all employers who file an EEO-1 report, which includes most employers with at least 100 employees and most federal government contractors with at least 50 employees and a government contract worth at least $50,000. In August 2017, before those new requirements went into effect, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued an immediate stay that excused employers from having to report pay data. But on March 4, 2019, with the 2018 filing period opening in mid-March (pushed back due to the government shutdown earlier this year), a judge in the District of Columbia ruled that the OMB had no grounds to stay the pay collection rules, and the Court lifted the stay. The EEOC had purged from its website its prior guidance and instructions regarding pay collection, and it remains to be seen whether EEOC will require—or even be equipped to receive—payroll compensation data for the 2018 reporting cycle.

Reserve your spot now! This comprehensive, full-day seminar covers the latest employment law developments you need to know about to keep your organization compliant, as well as human resources best practices and strategies to make it an employer of choice. Sessions will be presented by Foulston’s experienced employment lawyers and a nationally known keynote speaker. Select from a variety of breakout sessions to customize your own schedule.

Unfortunately, workplace shootings are on the rise as an emerging issue for employers. Even courts and judges have taken note in their judicial opinions that workplace violence is increasing. While there are, of course, different degrees of violence that employees may be exposed to at work, the incidence of a shooting is a particularly concerning type of violence.

As she promised she would do, newly elected Kansas Governor Laura Kelly restored protections from on-the-job discrimination for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender state employees via Executive Order No. 19-02 on her first full day in office January 15, 2019. Former Governor Kathleen Sebelius had issued a similar executive order in 2007, which was later rescinded by former Governor Sam Brownback in 2015. The Order protects state employees from discrimination, harassment, and retaliation based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression, among other protected classifications. The Order also expands the policy to require state government contractors to comply with the order in their employment practices.

Advocates of LGBT rights view the Order as a major victory for LGBT state employees and a stepping stone towards extending these protections to the entire private sector. Kansas’s first openly lesbian and gay legislators, Representatives Susan Ruiz and Brandon Woodward, have announced that they planned to introduce a bill that would expand Kansas’ anti-discrimination law to provide similar protections for employees of private businesses. The likelihood of such a bill passing is unclear, but a growing number of Kansas employers are voluntarily adding sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories under their Equal Employment Opportunity & Harassment policies in anticipation of a potential future change in the law. Stay tuned for further updates on this potential litigation as well as other developments in the 2019 legislative season. 

In the world of employee management, things unfortunately don’t always go as planned. From discipline meetings and performance evaluations to termination meetings, managers often have to share difficult news with employees. Finding an honest, respectful way to do so can be the difference between an employee on the path to improvement and one who throws a scene on his way out the door and drives straight to the EEOC to file a charge of discrimination. While there are numerous strategies for how to best navigate these difficult conversations, read on for a few suggestions on keeping these meetings on track.

The start of the new year is a perfect time for Kansas employers to address employment updates from 2018 and prepare for possible changes coming in 2019. In this article, we’ve summarized a few changes and trends from 2018, as well as a few changes we might see in 2019.

Employment attorneys always tell their colleagues that the best practice area is undoubtedly employment law. HR professionals probably feel much the same way. Every personnel situation is different, it’s never boring, and just when you think you’ve seen it all, you hear about another wild day in the workplace. 2018 was no different, and the following real-life cases prove it.

Foulston Siefkin’s HR Training Series presents workshops on the full range of issues that are important and relevant to employers. These workshops are designed to benefit business owners, executives, and HR professionals with responsibility in their organization for the issues arising from the employer-employee relationship. Each session will be presented by a Foulston Siefkin attorney at our offices in Kansas City, Topeka, and Wichita. All training sessions will be submitted for HRCI and SHRM credit.

• What to Do When OSHA Shows Up JANUARY 24, 2019
• FLSA Update FEBRUARY 28, 2019

• Box of Tricks or Pandora’s Box? How Outside Information Can Help or Hurt Employee Hiring and Retention JANUARY 30, 2019
• Anatomy of a Complaint: From Charge to Lawsuit FEBRUARY 21, 2019
• FLSA Update MARCH 6, 2019
• Just the Facts: Difficult Conversations, Discipline, and Performance Management APRIL 16, 2019

• Box of Tricks or Pandora’s Box? How Outside Information Can Help or Hurt Employee Hiring and Retention JANUARY 17, 2019
• Anatomy of a Complaint: From Charge to Lawsuit FEBRUARY 12, 2019
• FLSA Update MARCH 5, 2019
• Just the Facts: Difficult Conversations, Discipline, and Performance Management APRIL 11, 2019

The validity of arbitration agreements continues to be the subject of litigation in Kansas and Missouri. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold class action waivers in arbitration agreements between employers and employees is one of many other issues raised in recent employment arbitration cases.

In October, a federal court in Kansas considered whether an enforceable arbitration agreement existed when the employee didn’t sign the arbitration agreement. In Kansas, an employee continuing to work after receiving notice of an employer’s arbitration policy is generally considered the same as an employee who has accepted the terms of the arbitration policy. In the most recent case, the employer sent multiple emails to the employee’s work email informing her of her right to opt out of arbitration. The employee didn’t deny receiving the emails and didn’t opt out of the agreement. The court initially noted that, if accepted, the agreement would be valid because it required both the employer and employee to arbitrate any disputes. In contrast, an agreement that requires the employee to arbitrate but makes arbitration optional for the employer isn’t enforceable. The key issue in this case was whether an employee failing to opt out may be deemed to have accepted mandatory arbitration. The court found that even if the employee didn’t read any of the emails, the employer provided adequate notice, and the employee had a meaningful opportunity to reject the offer of arbitration. Thus, by failing to opt out, the employee bound herself to arbitrate her discrimination and retaliation      Continue Reading...