EdLawConnect Blog

While employers can realize significant time savings or improvement in the hiring process by implementing technology, employers must ensure that the selected technology is designed and implemented in a way that prevents discrimination based on protected classes such as disability, race, sex, national origin, color, or religion.  Employers may be responsible for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and/or the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) even if the discrimination is not intentional or the technology was developed by an outside vendor.

With an estimated 3.96 billion social media users worldwide, it is no surprise to learn that most students have at least one social media account.  Whether it is Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, or TikTok, people of all ages, from your 85 year-old grandmother to your 7 year-old nephew, can be found sharing their life somewhere on a social media platform (and possibly, your life too!).  In 2021, it appears acceptable to share all types of information, from the tiniest of details, such as what you ate for lunch or your newest dance moves, to more controversial items, such as political and religious beliefs.  People share the details of their everyday lives with friends, family, and strangers.  For many social media users, their first inclination is to “post” about any experience they have just encountered - the good, the bad, and the ugly, with their closest “friends.”  In a world where posting or snapping about any thought instantaneously occurs, when is sharing an opinion or criticism too much, and who decides when enough is enough?  This is the question the U.S. Supreme Court recently reviewed in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. By and Through Levy (2021) _ _ _ U.S. _ _ _ 2021 WL 2557069, when the Court reviewed whether school officials had the right to regulate or punish a student for her off-campus, social media speech.

Earlier this year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (“Ninth Circuit”) affirmed a lower court’s decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (9th Cir. 2021) 991 F.3d 1004, holding that a school district’s direction to a high school football coach not to engage in religious conduct through prayer immediately after the game in front of students and spectators did not violate the coach’s First Amendment right to free speech.  On balance, the Ninth Circuit confirmed that allowing the conduct would have risked the school’s violation of the Establishment Clause.  As outlined below, the case outcome was fact-specific and driven by the unique circumstances giving rise to the Coach’s claim.

While school and community college districts have policies and complaint procedures to address overt unlawful discrimination and harassment in the workplace, there is a more subtle aspect of workplace culture which creates potential liability for employers – microaggressions.

The typical workplace bulletin board is densely packed with legally required posters and employee notifications. As laws change, the posters must be updated to reflect the changes. For example, the minimum wage in California increased to $10 an hour on January 1, 2016; the required poster specifying the minimum wage should reflect that most recent increase.

On July 16, 2015, Governor Brown approved an amendment to Government Code section 12940 prohibiting an employer or other covered entity from retaliating, or otherwise discriminating, against a person for requesting accommodation of his or her disability or religious beliefs, regardless of whether the accommodation request was granted.

The legislation stems from the Court of Appeal’s decision in Rope ...

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 – commonly known as “COBRA” – gives certain former employees, their spouses, and dependent children the right to continue health coverage at the employer’s group rates. COBRA generally obligates both public and private employers with 20 or more employees to offer COBRA coverage when coverage is lost due to certain “qualifying events.”

On July 2, 2013, the United States Treasury Department announced that implementation and enforcement of employer mandates under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Act”) will be delayed by one year.  Until today, school district employers were preparing to be in compliance with the Act starting on January 1, 2014.  As a result of today’s announcement, the new deadline for compliance is ...

A new year often presents a suitable opportunity to review important employment policies. Although policies concerning the “acceptable use of electronic resources” were a novelty only a decade ago, they have now become so common that employers may neglect to review them from time to time to be sure they are still current. A policy written in 2005 could be out of date if it does not accommodate advances in ...

In California, employers are required to have workplace postings regarding employee rights and responsibilities under the Fair Employment and Housing Act which are produced by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”). California recently updated three of these mandatory DFEH posters as a result of revisions to state law that went into effect on January 1, 2013.

Specifically, the DFEH ...