Showing posts with label Human Resources. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Human Resources. Show all posts

Friday, April 1, 2016

MUS Welcomes New Human Resources Manager

Meyer, Unkovic & Scott announced today that Leeanne Smollen recently joined the firm as the new human resources manager.

Prior to joining Meyer, Unkovic & Scott, Smollen worked as an account manager at Seubert and Associates, where she was a group employee benefits consultant and strategic partner who worked with regional clients with 50-100+ employees. Smollen has also worked as a human resources manager at Nicholson Construction, as a site manager for the YMCA Child Care Program, as well as Director for several preschools in the Pittsburgh area.

Smollen graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in psychology from Robert Morris University. She went on to earn a Human Resources Generalist graduate certificate and a Master of Science degree in human resources management from La Roche College.

Smollen is a member of the Society for Human Resource Management and the Pittsburgh Human Resources Association.

She currently resides in Ross Township, Pennsylvania.

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

New Pregnancy-Related Protections

Beth Slagle’s article “New Pregnancy-Related Protections” recently appeared in Perspectives, a PHRA publication. You can use this link and visit page 3 to read the article.


Thursday, September 18, 2014

Same-Sex Marriage Update



On May 20, 2014, a federal Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued an opinion effectively lifting the state's ban on same sex marriage. The plaintiffs in Whitewood v. Wolf challenged the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's marriage laws, claiming these laws denied them Due Process and Equal Protection rights guaranteed by the Constitution. In describing PA's marriage laws and previous laws that discriminated against people based on their gender or race, Judge John E. Jones, III stated in his opinion that, "[w]e are a better people than what these laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history." This ruling is in line with a series of similar decisions that have occurred in the wake of the Supreme Court's United States v. Windsor decision. Windsor struck down Section 3 of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"), which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman for federal law purposes.

What impact does this decision have on employers? While there are no federal laws that protect employees against discrimination for their sexual orientation, twenty-one states do have such laws. Pennsylvania currently does not protect workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation on the state level. However, 34 municipalities in the state have passed laws protecting employees from this type of discrimination. In addition, employers may face sex discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") if they treat employees with same sex spouses in a disparate manner. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") enforces the ban against discrimination based on sex through Title VII, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. While these laws do not cover sex discrimination based on sexual orientation, they do cover sex discrimination based on sex stereotyping. Recent rulings by the EEOC have determined that an employee can file a claim for sex discrimination based on sexual orientation because it is a form of sex stereotyping. In addition, President Obama signed an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation. For employers, this presents a number of issues. Employers who discriminate against employees in the workplace who have same sex spouses could find themselves facing claims under Title VII or, depending where the employment is located, a state law or a local ordinance. Furthermore, employers could face claims of sex discrimination if they provide certain employee benefits to opposite sex spouses while excluding same sex spouses.
 
Employers who sponsor a qualified retirement plan will want to ensure that the plan treats same sex spouses in the same manner that opposite sex spouses are treated. After Windsor, survivor benefits offered to opposite sex spouses will now have to be offered to same sex spouses. Likewise after the Whitewood decision, if a same sex marriage ends in a divorce in Pennsylvania, a Qualified Domestic Release Order ("QDRO") issued for a same sex spouse will need to be treated as if issued for an opposite sex spouse.
 
Employers that sponsor welfare plans will have to consider offering spousal coverage to same sex spouses if their plan currently covers opposite sex spouses. Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") and under the Affordable Care Act ("ACA"), welfare plans are not required to offer spousal coverage. However, if the plan does offer spousal coverage but limits the coverage only to opposite sex spouses, the sponsoring employer may face a sex discrimination claim. Similarly, if an employer is required to contribute to a multiemployer welfare plan as part of a collective bargaining agreement, the employer could face the same risk of a sex discrimination claim if that plan offers spousal coverage only to opposite sex spouses.

For more information about the lift of the state's ban on same sex marriage and other employment law matters, please contact Joseph A. Vater, Jr. or Stephen A. Chesney.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

EEOC Issues New Pregnancy-Related Protections



Beth A. Slagle
bas@muslaw.com
In response to the steadily rising rate of pregnancy-related claims of workplace discrimination, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued new guidance that gives more protection to employees who are pregnant, have recently had children or want to take leave to care for a new child.

The first part of the EEOC's guidance addresses the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) in the first update since it was enacted in 1978. The PDA is an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating against employees on the bases of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The PDA clarifies that prohibited discrimination based on sex extends to matters related to pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. Thus, employers may not fire, refuse to hire, reduce pay, demote or otherwise negatively affect the working conditions of an employee because of matters related to pregnancy or childbirth.

The EEOC's new guidelines use a variety of scenarios and examples to illustrate employers' actions that it considers discriminatory in relation to current, past or possible future pregnancies. Examples include:

  • A janitor tells her boss that she is pregnant. Despite her assertions that she can still perform her job, her boss is concerned that the physical demands of the job are bad for the baby and forces the worker to take leave right away. By the time the employee gives birth, she has exhausted her leave and is fired.
  • A nurse is fired shortly after returning from maternity leave, even though her supervisor assured her that her job would be safe. Although her employer claims that it had to eliminate her position because of over-staffing, it did not dismiss any other workers, nor is there evidence that there is not enough work to do.
  • An executive tells her supervisor that she is thinking about having a second child. Her manager has a negative reaction, and voices concerns that she won't be able to handle her job responsibilities. Two weeks later, the woman is demoted to a lower-paid position with less demanding job duties.

The EEOC requires employers to offer the same protections to men as women when requesting leave to care for a child. For example, if an employer offers new mothers six months of paid leave to bond with their new babies, they must offer the same benefit to new fathers.

The second part of the EEOC's guidance addresses for the first time how impairments related to pregnancy and childbirth may be covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in certain situations. While pregnancy itself is not a disability under the ADA, medical conditions related to pregnancy may qualify as a protected disability.

The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities. For pregnant employees, the most commonly requested accommodation is a light duty, which may mean that the employee does not have to lift heavy objects or perform certain physically-taxing tasks. The EEOC does not require employers to accommodate pregnant workers' requests for light duty. If the employer provides light duty jobs to employees in other circumstances, however, such as those with an injury or recovering from surgery, it must also provide light duty options to pregnant women.

In most cases, the most important aspect of a light duty request is whether it affects the primary function of the job. For example, a pregnant woman who works in a warehouse may not be able to perform primary job functions if she cannot lift more than 20 pounds. Unless the employer accommodates other warehouse workers who cannot lift heavy weights, such as a worker with a broken arm, the employer may have the right to dismiss the pregnant employee. A contrary example may be an administrative assistant who lifts heavy boxes only when the office receives its paper supply every other month. Because heavy lifting is a very small part of her job, it would be little hardship to the company to work around her restriction.

The key theme in the EEOC's new guidance is that employers must treat employees who are pregnant, have recently had a child or may have children in the future equally with workers in comparable scenarios. Employers must make decisions based solely on employees' ability to perform the functions of their job, and not apply any stereotypes about the expectations about what an employee may or may not be able to do.

For more information about non-compete agreements and other matters related to employment law, contact Beth Slagle at bas@muslaw.com or 412-456-2890.

Beth Slagle has practiced law for more than 20 years and focuses her practice on business disputes and employment law. Beth's work has earned her a spot in Best Lawyers in America since 2010, and she is the chair of the firm's Insurance Coverage Litigation Group. She can be reached at bas@muslaw.com or 412.456.2890. 
  
This material is for informational purposes only.  It is not and should not be solely relied on as legal advice in dealing with any specific situation.

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Employees Must Receive Compensation For Signing Non-Competes

Beth Slagle's article "Employees Must Receive Compensation For Signing Non-Competes" recently appeared on the front page of the PHRA’s publication Perspectives. You can click here to download it.



Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Tips For Conducting An Interview

This video blog highlights a few things that small business owners or HR managers can do to ensure a successful interview process.



Monday, April 7, 2014

Exploring Employee Incentives

Exploring employee incentives? There are some useful facts, figures and incentives for rewards and recognition in this article, "Exploring Employee Incentives".

Thursday, March 13, 2014