Compliance Stuff

  Under Michigan’s Occupational Health and Safety Act (“MiOSHA”), employers may not “discharge an employee or in any manner discriminate against an employee because the employee filed a complaint” regarding the employer’s unsafe working conditions, among other things. MCL 408.1065(1). Any employee who “believes that he or she was discharged or otherwise discriminated against by a person in violation of this section may file a complaint” with the Department of Labor of Economic Opportunity (LEO) within 30 days after the violation and, upon receipt, LEO’s Occupational Health and Safety Administration will conduct an investigation, determine if a violation occurred, and order appropriate relief, including reinstatement. MCL 408.1065(2).  Although some have considered that an adequate remedy for alleged retaliation, the Michigan Supreme Court did not believe so. Accordingly, in addition to the remedies provided in the Act, the Court recently upheld the right of employees to bring ...

  Waves of mass layoffs during the past two years have generated a new trend: l ayoff influencers who use social media to vent feelings, get assistance with a job search, and find community with other laid-off workers. This trend raises concerns for companies that don’t want misinformation or embarrassing stories about them to be circulated online, and o pens doors potentially to third parties seeking to represent employees in collective bargaining and potential litigation. Quick Hits Some laid-off workers are becoming social media influencers, telling their layoff stories to thousands of followers and outsiders. Former employees generally are not prohibited from criticizing their former employer on social media if their comments are true and not defamatory. To protect their brand and public image, companies can offer severance agreements, including nondisparagement clauses, to laid-off workers. Hundreds of thousands of employees were laid off in 2023, especially in the tech, const...

  In June 2023, the Supreme Court made   a landmark decision   in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA) v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (Harvard) and SFFA v. University of North Carolina (UNC), ruling 6-3 that the admissions policies at Harvard and UNC violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by considering an applicant’s race during the admissions process. While this ruling specifically addresses race in college admissions, it raises broader questions about the future of affirmative action in employment. For those of us involved in federal contract compliance, it is important to clarify that “ affirmative action” in the context of employment is fundamentally different from its use in college admissions. Contrary to some popular misconceptions, affirmative action for federal contractors does not mean quotas, set-asides, or preferential treatment for protected class members – such practices are explicitly illegal. In employment, merit-b...

  The question of who can access paid leave for a mental health condition depends on several factors, from the place of employment to the place of work.  “Can I take paid leave to treat my mental health condition(s)?” It’s a question that comes up often for both employers and employees alike, especially in an age where people have become much more comfortable discussing mental health in the workplace.   And for good reason.  According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) , over 1 in 5 adults suffer from some form of mental illness, many of whom are completely debilitated as a result.   However, the question of who can access paid leave for a mental health condition depends on several factors, from the place of employment to the place of work.   Let’s take a look at the current landscape of paid leave as it relates to mental health in the United States at the federal and state level, and the direction employers themselves are headed to stay competit...

 Employers now have some clarity around a new program that allows them to match retirement plan contributions to employees’ student loan payments. The IRS on Aug. 19 released long-awaited interim guidelines regarding the program, a provision under SECURE ACT 2.0 that allows employers with 401(k), 403(b), governmental 457(b), or Savings Incentive Match Plan for Employees (SIMPLE) IRA plans to match employees’ student loan payments like they would for traditional retirement contributions. The provision took effect this year, but employers have been waiting for more guidance around the new program. In Notice 2024-63, the IRS clarified eligibility rules and certification requirements in a Q&A format. The guidance applies for plan years beginning after Dec. 31, 2024, the agency said. The notice addresses a variety of plan-administration issues, the IRS said in an accompanying news release , including: General student loan matching contribution eligibility rules (including dollar an...

  How prepared is your organization?   Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in  Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College , Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies have faced increased scrutiny. Practices promoting DEI are continuing to be challenged by activists, workers, and politicians. Hardly a day goes by when DEI is not in the news in some fashion. In case you missed it, you can check out a few examples,  here ,  here , and  here . Consider these ten ways to avoid having your DEI practices become the next target: No. 1:   Don’t tie executive compensation to attainment of diversity goals.  Such a practice is not  per se  unlawful, but it could provide powerful evidence to support a claim that managers made employment decisions based on protected characteristics . The State of Missouri relies on this type of monetary incentive in its  lawsuit against IBM  alleging discriminati...

  Quick Hits Businesses are facing a wave of lawsuits advancing novel legal theories targeting the use of website visitor tracking tools such as cookies, pixels, and web beacons . The suits allege these tools unlawfully track website visitors’ online activity and collect their information, such as visitors’ geographic and device information, and share that information with third parties for marketing purposes. Companies may want to determine whether their websites use the tools in question. If so, they may want to examine the extent to which the statute and its exceptions may apply and whether the website can be tweaked to buttress available defenses.   These lawsuits make generalized allegations that business websites use software or tools to collect various types of device and browsing information from website visitors and that businesses then share such information with other entities such as social media companies.  The claims invoke an obscure provision of the Calif...