Compliance Stuff

KEY TAKEAWAYS: Georgia employers can strengthen their defense of Workers’ Compensation claims by establishing a strategically curated panel of physicians Employers have the authority to select panel physicians whose practices and philosophies align with the company’s objectives Employers must ensure the injured employees clearly understand the panel process and their rights within it In Georgia workers’ compensation claims, the Panel of Physicians is the employer’s first line of defense after an accident . Maintaining control of medical from day one can make all the difference in how a claim unfolds. But if the panel is  invalid , the injured employee can pick any doctor they want as their Authorized Treating Physician (ATP). That shift can significantly increase exposure for both medical and indemnity benefits and prolong the timeline for resolving the claim. Employers have the right to select physicians who are aligned with their goals: providers who understand their business, ro...

KEY TAKEAWAYS: Employees with disabilities may be entitled to reasonable accommodations even if they can perform the essential functions of their job without an accommodation. Ability to perform the essential functions of the job is relevant to a failure-to-accommodate claim, but it is not dispositive. In a recent Second Circuit decision from March,  Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District , the court clarified the broad scope of workplace accommodation protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Specifically, the court ruled that employees with disabilities may be entitled to reasonable accommodations  even if  they can perform the essential functions of their job without one. In  Tudor,  plaintiff appealed a decision from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant on a failure-to-accommodate claim brought pursuant to the ADA. The lower court ruled that an employee’s...

KEY TAKEAWAYS In  Hunter v. Debmar-Mercury , the Second Circuit clarified the scope of marital status discrimination under the New York City Human Rights Law Marital status discrimination refers to discrimination based on an employee’s status as married, unmarried, or divorced, and not on an employee’s relationship to a specific person Employers should be mindful not to discriminate when making employment decisions, regardless of an employee’s marital status The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April 8, 2025, clarified the scope of “marital status” discrimination under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) . In  Hunter v. Debmar-Mercury LLC, et al. , the Second Circuit held that discrimination based on “marital status” refers to discrimination based on an individual’s status as married, or not, and does not extend to employment decisions based on an individual’s relationship to a particular person. In  Hunter , the plaintiff served as the executive pr...

Key Takeaways: An employee is not entitled to unrestricted free speech in the workplace under the U.S. Constitution Employers should carefully craft policies regulating acceptable and unacceptable forms of speech in the workplace Employers should be careful to avoid restricting employee speech that is specifically protected under state and federal law With any change in political climate, it is hard for employers to navigate the statements of employees, both during the workday and their off time. Employees who make their political positions public often point to the First Amendment — “free speech” — falsely believing that this would allow them to make any statement, unrestricted, in any location and under any circumstance. However, employers should understand what protections do and do not apply in the workplace and should review or create policies and procedures in dealing with employee speech. Generally speaking, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not apply to private ...

KEY TAKEAWAYS The New York Third Department once again h eld that a Professional Employer Organization (PEO) was not obligated to provide coverage for a worker who was  never enrolled  as a leased employee. The decision hinged on the production of a detailed PEO agreement, policy documents, payroll records, and clear testimony confirming the claimant was not submitted for enrollment. Notably, the court again declined to address whether PEOs must verify that clients carry separate coverage for non-leased workers — leaving unresolved tension between board-level expectations and appellate rulings. Another day, another chapter in the evolving world of New York Workers’ Compensation for Professional Employer Organizations (PEOs). As discussed in prior  updates , this decision follows the foundational Third Department rulings in  Gaylord ,  Cardona , and  Brown . Fortunately, we continue to see good news coming out of the Third Department. In  Fonseca v. Pl...

Key Takeaways Use of Artificial Intelligence in hiring and promotion is undergoing regulatory scrutiny in California Tools that screen resumes, rank candidates, or assess interview responses can lead to legitimate claims of bias or discrimination Employers must ensure AI tools are transparent, explainable, and tested for adverse impact on protected groups The EEOC and the Civil Rights Department may view reliance on opaque (non-transparent) or unvalidated (not tested or verified for accuracy or bias) AI as a violation of anti-discrimination laws F ederal and California agencies have increased their focus on how AI and automated decision-making tools are being used in hiring, promotions, and employment screening processes. Employers using such technologies may be exposed to discrimination claims if these tools lead to disparate treatment or impact on certain races, national origins, genders, ages, or other protected classes, whether intentional or not. With AI increasingly integrated i...

Key Takeaways: Kathy Hochul has signed a bill expanding the statutory carveout applied to police officers, firefighters, and EMTs who filed a claim for mental injury due to extraordinary work-related stress S.6635/A.5745 now allows all workers to apply for Workers’ Compensation for extraordinary work-related stress The law takes effect January 1 Under S.6635/A.5745: Where a [worker] files a claim for mental injury premised upon extraordinary work-related stress incurred at [work], the board may not disallow the claim upon a factual finding that the stress was not greater than that which usually occurs in the normal work environment. A major part of this law is that now all employees in New York can apply for workers’ compensation if they feel they are undergoing a mental health crisis caused by their job. In the past, this option was only available for select first responder positions. Unlike other accidental injuries, there are two requirements in a claimant’s case that are unique to...