Posted On: June 30, 2008

Employment Discrimination (Federal): Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.

As a courtesy to employers and employment lawyers, The Employment Law Chronicle provides links to the text of key Federal, Virginia, and District of Columbia labor and employment laws published on government sites.

Title VII prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion or sex.
Posted On: June 30, 2008

D.C. Employment Law: District of Columbia Human Rights Act (DCHRA), D.C. Code §§ 2.1401.01 et seq.

As a courtesy to employment lawyers and employers, The Employment Law Chronicle provides links to the text of key Federal, Virginia, and District of Columbia labor and employment laws published on government sites.

The DC Human Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin. sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, family responsibilities, genetic information, disability, matriculation, or political affiliation.
Posted On: June 30, 2008

Federal Labor Law: Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938, 29 U.S. Code Chapter 8

As a courtesy to employment lawyers and employers, The Employment Law Chronicle provides links to the text of key Federal, Virginia, and District of Columbia labor and employment laws published on government sites.

The Fair Labor Standards Act sets minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and child labor standards. It applies to most employers in the private sector, Federal, State, and local governments. The U.S. Department of Labor provides helpful material on the FLSA.

Minimum Wage: While some workers may qualify for a FLSA exemption, nonexempt workers are entitled to a minimum wage as follows: $5.85 per hour effective July 24, 2007; $6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008; and $7.25 effective July 24, 2009.

Overtime: After 40 hours of work in a workweek, covered employers must pay nonexempt workers overtime in the amount of at least 1 1/2 times their regular rate of pay.


Bookmark and Share

Posted On: June 30, 2008

Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA): 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et. seq.

As a courtesy to employers and employment lawyers, The Employment Law Chronicle provides links to the text of key Federal, Virginia, and District of Columbia labor and employment laws published on government sites.

The FMLA permits eligible employees of covered employers to take up to 12 weeks of job-protected, unpaid leave during any 12-month period. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2008 amends the FMLA to provide for additional categories of job-protected leave relating to members of the military.

Continue reading " Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA): 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et. seq. " »

Bookmark and Share

Posted On: June 30, 2008

Virginia Employment Law: Virginia Human Rights Act, Virginia Code Chapter 39, §§ 2.2-3900 et. seq.

As a courtesy to employers and employment lawyers, The Employment Law Chronicle provides links to the text of key Federal, Virginia, and District of Columbia labor and employment laws published on public sites.

The Virginia Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, or disability.
Posted On: June 27, 2008

Disabilities Discrimination: What Are An Employer's Obligations Under The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)?

The ADA requires covered employers to make a reasonable accommodation to the known disability of a qualified applicant or employee if the accommodation would not impose an "undue hardship" on the employer's business.

In general, undue hardship means an action that requires significant difficulty or expense, when considered in light of these factors:

(i) the nature and cost of the accommodation needed under the ADA;

(ii) the overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved in the provision of the reasonable accommodation; the number of persons employed at such facility; the effect on expenses and resources, or the impact otherwise of such accommodation upon the operation of the facility;

(iii) the overall financial resources of the covered entity; the overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities; and

(iv) the type of operation or operations of the covered entity, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of such entity; the geographic separateness, administrative, or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities in question to the covered
entity.

Bookmark and Share

Posted On: June 26, 2008

Disabilities Discrimination: Who is Covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)?

The ADA protects employees or applicants who satisfy the test of being a "qualified individual with a disability," which means an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the job. If an employee or applicant satisfies the definition of being a qualified individual with a disability, then the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer's operations.

Continue reading " Disabilities Discrimination: Who is Covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)? " »

Bookmark and Share

Posted On: June 24, 2008

4th Circuit Court of Appeals, Employment Law Decisions

In two recent decisions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit focused on relevant standards of review for two issues of interest to Virginia immigration and employment lawyers:

In Woods v. Prudential Ins. Co., No. 07-1580 (June 11, 2008), the Fourth Circuit concluded that the trial court erroneously applied the "abuse-of-discretion" standard of review to plaintiff's ERISA claim instead of the more rigorous "de novo" standard of review to determine whether the plan administrator properly denied plaintiff's benefit claim.

In Teshome-Gebreegziabher v. Mukasey, No. 08-1060 (June 16, 2008), the Fourth Circuit clarified that the "clear and convincing" standard of review applies to an immigrant's motion to stay deportation.