Compliance Stuff

The use of algorithmic software and automated decision systems (ADS) to make workforce decisions, including the most sophisticated type, artificial intelligence (AI), has surged in recent years. HR technology’s promise of increased productivity and efficiency, data-driven insights, and cost reduction is undeniably appealing to businesses striving to streamline operations such as hiring, promotions, performance evaluations, compensation reviews, or employment terminations. However, as companies increasingly rely on AI, algorithms, and automated decision-making tools (ADTs) to make high-stakes workforce decisions, they may unknowingly expose themselves to serious legal risks, particularly under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and numerous other federal, state, and local laws. Quick Hits Using automated technology to make workforce decisions presents significant legal risks under existi...

 Renowned for its intricacies, California’s employment law landscape is unique, particularly when it comes to complying with county and city laws. With over 480 cities and 55+ counties with the capability of enacting various regulations, HR teams are putting together broken puzzle pieces to understand these nuances and avoid compliance mistakes. This article delves into why California is challenging, with specific examples and solutions to avoid compliance risks. 1. Complex Local Jurisdictions   With so many cities and counties in California enacting their own ordinances, it makes it difficult to navigate the legal landscape as an HR team. And in addition to city laws, there are county laws that apply only to unincorporated areas of the county . And, in California, many locations may have state, county and city level laws all on the same topic that may apply.   Local minimum wage ordinances present complexities in California due to numerous cities and counties s...

 A court in Indianapolis found that the plaintiff, who was on approved FMLA leave at the time she was discharged from employment for prior acts of theft of food pantry donations--which violated the city's code of ethics--failed to prove that she had not violated city policies and that she would have retained her job had she not taken FMLA leave.   The court granted summary judgement in favor of the city of Indianapolis on the plaintiff's FMLA retaliation claim despite the timing of her dismissal that occurred just a few weeks after her request of leave because the city's investigation into the theft allegations against her predated her request for FMLA leave. The summary judgement was also appropriate on the Title VII claim alleging race discrimination because the plaintiff failed to establish that her dismissal was motivated by race or that similarly situated White employees were treated more favorably under the city's policies. The court’s decision affirms that the F...