Various counties in Texas have issued orders mandating that businesses develop and implement a “Health and Safety Policy” that requires all employees or visitors to wear face coverings.
The Supreme Court has blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to rescind the DACA program, which protects hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought to the United States as children from potential removal, and offers them work authorization.
As the nation continues the gradual reopening of workplaces and the economy, the EEOC has updated its guidance to provide information to employers regarding their responsibilities under federal civil rights laws.
On June 5, 2020, Cal/OSHA issued temporary emergency guidance to assist physicians and other licensed health care professionals balance the benefits of providing mandated medical surveillance examinations against the risks of potential COVID-19 exposure.
Canadian businesses have suffered severe financial distress due to COVID-19. Many employers have been forced to lay off their employees hoping they would only be required to do so temporarily.
The UK government announced measures to help workers and employers, including a Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme. This article - updated June 17, 2020 - summarises the grant, which is available to all UK employers, based on current guidance.
On June 7, 2020, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont and the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) released guidelines for businesses allowed to reopen during Phase 2 of the state’s reopening plan.
On June 10, 2020, the Minnesota Supreme Court held state law does not preempt the Minneapolis Sick and Safe Time Ordinance, and the ordinance can apply to employers located outside Minneapolis.
On June 5, 2020, the Texas Supreme Court refused to review a case that could have decided whether municipal paid sick leave ordinances in Texas were lawful.
The question before the Supreme Court in a trio of cases was whether Title VII, prohibiting discrimination in the workplace “because of sex,” encompasses discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The Court held that it does.
