Judging the Sincerity of Religious Beliefs
|
12/17/2020
|
By: Morgan Geffre
|
In
many
situations,
the
question
of
whether
an
employee’s
request
for
a
religious
accommodation
is
tied
to
sincere
religious
beliefs
is
not
at
issue.
Instead,
employers
simply
need
to
assess
whether
they
can
provide
the
accommodation
without
causing
an
undue
hardship.
Where
an
employer
does
question
whether
the
employee
sincerely
holds
those
beliefs—an
issue
that
might
arise
if
an
employee
asserts
a
dubious
religious
objection
to
the
COVID
vaccine—it
should
look
to
the
EEOC’s
long-standing
guidance
on
the
level
of
inquiry
it
can
make.
What
are
“religious”
beliefs
and
practices?
According
to
the
EEOC,
religious
practices
include
the
“moral
or
ethical
beliefs
as
to
what
is
right
and
wrong
which
are
sincerely
held
with
the
strength
of
traditional
religious
views.”
Religion
typically
concerns
“ultimate
ideas”
about
“life,
purpose,
and
death.”
The
EEOC
does
not
protect
beliefs
merely
because
they
are
strongly
held.
Whether
a
practice
is
religious
depends
on
the
employee’s
motivation.
Social,
political,
or
economic
philosophies,
as
well
as
personal
preferences,
are
not
protected
as
religious
beliefs
under
Title
VII.
The
EEOC
does
grant
employees
the
benefit
of
the
doubt.
Employers
should
not
dismiss
the
beliefs
simply
because
the
employee’s
practices
deviate
from
the
exact
tenants
of
a
religion,
or
because
few
or
no
people
adhere
to
those
religious
beliefs.
The
EEOC
cautions
employers
that
Continue Reading...
|
|
Promises, Promises, Promises: The Perils of the Christmas Bonus
|
12/7/2020
|
By: Morgan Geffre
|
While
we
may
all
look
back
and
laugh
at
Clark
Griswold
from
National
Lampoon’s
Christmas
Vacation
and
his
meltdown
from
not
receiving
a
Christmas
bonus,
that
may
be
a
very
real
scenario
for
many
employees
this
year
following
the
struggles
the
COVID-19
pandemic
brought
to
most
employers.
Although
canceling
employee
bonuses
is
a
great
setup
for
a
comedy,
year-end
bonuses
can
lead
to
legal
snags
that
are
no
laughing
matter
for
employers.
Under
Kansas
wage
payment
laws
and
general
principles
of
contract
law,
employers
are
legally
obligated
to
pay
bonuses
when
employees
meet
the
requirements
to
become
eligible
for
and
earn
them.
Simply
put,
employers
must
own
up
to
promises
they
make
to
employees
about
pay.
For
example,
if
you
tell
employees
at
the
beginning
of
the
year
that
you
will
pay
them
a
holiday
bonus
of
a
set
amount
at
the
end
of
the
year,
you
must
pay
the
bonus
to
employees
whose
employment
continues
throughout
the
year.
However,
a
past
practice
of
giving
discretionary
Christmas
bonuses
does
not
give
rise
to
a
legal
obligation
to
pay
bonuses
of
a
particular
amount,
or
at
all,
in
subsequent
years.
That
seems
simple
enough.
But,
employers
can
unwittingly
create
a
legal
obligation
if
they
include
a
Christmas
bonus
in
an
itemized
list
of
compensation
and
benefits
in
an
offer
letter
or
annual
compensation
statement.
Year-end
bonuses
based
on
individual,
department,
or
company
productivity
goals
or
profits
can
also
create
legal
headaches.
The
key
is
to
have
clear,
well-written
bonus
policies
that
pass
legal
muster.
Continue Reading...
|
|
Kansas Voting Leave Law 101
|
09/30/2020
|
By: Morgan Geffre
|
With
elections
looming
on
November
3,
it
is
important
for
employers
to
prepare
for
leave
requests
associated
with
voting.
Federal
law
does
not
require
employers
to
provide
leave
to
vote,
but
most
states
do,
especially
when
work
hours
do
not
allow
sufficient
time
to
vote
while
the
polls
are
open.
Laws
also
vary
between
states
on
the
amount
of
time,
whether
notice
is
required,
whether
the
time
is
paid,
and
whether
the
employer
can
dictate
which
hours
the
employee
may
take
leave
to
vote.
In
Kansas,
employees
are
entitled
to
two
consecutive
hours
of
paid
time
to
vote.
However,
outside
the
lunch
break,
employers
may
specify
when
the
two-hour
period
may
be
taken
and
can
require
that
the
two-hour
period
be
taken
prior
to
or
after
an
employee’s
regular
working
hours.
For
example,
if
the
polls
are
open
from
7:00
am
to
7:00
pm
and
the
employee’s
scheduled
shift
is
from
8:00
am
to
5:00
pm,
the
employer
does
not
have
to
provide
paid
leave
because
the
employee
has
two
consecutive
hours
after
work
to
vote.
Any
employer
who
intentionally
obstructs
an
employee
from
voting
or
imposes
a
penalty
on
an
employee
who
takes
leave
to
vote
is
subject
to
a
class
A
misdemeanor.
One
developing
area
of
voting
leave
law
is
how
employers
handle
the
greater
flexibility
in
voting.
If
the
employee
has
the
option
to
vote
in
advance
or
by
mail,
does
the
employee
still
qualify
for
leave?
Kansas
has
not
yet
addressed
this
question,
but
Continue Reading...
|
|
EEOC Updates COVID-19 Guidance for COVID-19 Testing and ADA Accommodations
|
09/22/2020
|
By: Morgan Geffre
|
On
September
8,
the
EEOC
updated
its
guidance
with
respect
to
what
employers
should
know
about
COVID-19,
the
ADA
Rehabilitation
Act,
and
other
EEO
laws.
Generally,
the
updates
act
to
clarify
previously
taken
positions
of
the
EEOC.
Two
of
the
important
clarifications
involve
the
EEOC’s
position
on
administering
COVID-19
tests
to
employees,
and
an
employers’
ability
to
invite
employees
to
request
disability
accommodations.
- Employers
are
still
able
to
administer
COVID-19
tests
if
they
are
accurate
and
reliable,
but
the
EEOC
notes
the
consideration
of
false
positives
and
negatives.
The
EEOC
also
added
the
disclaimer
that
a
negative
test
result
does
not
mean
the
employee
won’t
contract
COVID-19,
and
employers
should
continue
requiring
social
distancing
measures.
- Many
employers
are
still
operating
from
home.
In
preparation
for
returning
to
the
physical
workplace,
the
EEOC
allows
employers
to
invite
employees
to
submit
requests
for
disability
accommodations
in
advance
of
their
return.
This
would
simply
start
the
interactive
process.
Those
employees
who
do
not
request
an
accommodation
in
advance
would
not
be
barred
from
later
asking.
|
|
DOL Updates FFCRA Q&As for Fall 2020 School Year
|
08/31/2020
|
By: Morgan Geffre
|
The
Department
of
Labor
continues
to
update
the
Q&As
regarding
the
Families
First
Coronavirus
Response
Act
(FFCRA).
The
recent
updates
have
big
impacts
on
parents
of
school-aged
children
as
schools
tackle
the
decision
of
how
to
move
forward.
No
matter
what
local
schools
and
parents
decide,
it
is
important
that
employers
be
prepared.
Hybrid
Learning:
Under
this
model,
children
would
alternate
between
days
attending
school
in
person
and
participating
in
remote
learning.
Here,
parents
would
be
allowed
to
take
FFCRA
leave
on
the
days
that
the
child
is
home
participating
in
remote
learning,
because
school
is
effectively
“closed”
on
the
days
of
remote
learning.
The
requirement
still
applies
that
the
employee
must
actually
need
to
care
for
the
child
during
that
time
and
there
is
no
other
suitable
person
to
do
so.
Remote
Learning:
Some
schools
are
choosing
to
proceed
with
only
remote
learning
because
of
COVID-19.
Employees
with
children
who
attend
such
schools
would
be
eligible
for
FFCRA
leave
while
the
school
is
closed,
as
long
as
the
employee
meets
the
other
requirements.
In
the
event
the
school
reopens
at
a
later
time,
the
employee
may
lose
FFCRA
eligibility.
Elective
Remote
Learning:
If
an
employee
has
the
option
of
allowing
his
or
her
child
to
attend
in
person
classes
or
participate
in
remote
learning,
the
situation
changes.
Employees
who
voluntarily
sign
up
for
remote
learning
out
of
fear
their
child
will
contract
COVID-19
will
lose
eligibility
for
leave
under
the
FFCRA
because
the
school
Continue Reading...
|
|
|
Editors
Don Berner, the Labor Law, OSHA, & Immigration Law Guy
Boyd Byers, the General Employment Law Guy
Jason Lacey, the Employee Benefits Guy
Additional Sources

|