Concluding their 2019 legislative sessions, New York and Connecticut adopted sweeping new discrimination and harassment requirements — mandating additional training, expanding available remedies and making it easier for victims to obtain judicial relief.

New York

In June, the New York General Assembly adopted several significant changes to New York State’s anti-discrimination statute (known as the

When it comes to 2019 employment and labor developments for manufacturers, I predict ….

much more of the same.

The election of President Trump and a Republican controlled House and Senate in November 2016 brought a roll-back back from the aggressive enforcement policies of the Obama administration.  Simply speaking, the Federal Government has limited or

Continuing its aggressive measures to combat workplace sexual harassment, on August 23, the New York State Department of Labor issued for public comment a draft sexual harassment training program, a checklist of minimum standards for compliant sexual-harassment policies, and a list of FAQs. The materials can be found here. In addition, the New York

Two recent developments, generated from the tidal forces of the #MeToo movement should get manufacturers’ attention.

On December 22, 2017, Congress adopted a comprehensive tax reform law.  Included in the statute is an amended Section 162(q).  That provision states that manufacturers may no longer deduct from federal income tax “(1) any settlement or payment

Effective January 1, 2018, employees of manufacturers working in New York State may be eligible for paid family leave.  The NY Paid Family Leave Law (“PFLL”) is both broader than and more narrow than the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.  The PFLL applies to all employees employed by private manufacturers and working in New

Readers of this space may recall my recent posts highlighting court and legislative changes to employment laws, regulations and policies affecting manufacturers.  See e.g. “‘Manufacturing’ Law: Courts Also Move to Fill the Void,” “INTERESTING UPDATE: ‘Manufacturing’ Law: Courts Join the States to Fill the Void,” and “The DOL Seeks

In a May 16 Blog Post, I reviewed several cases dealing with the question of whether Title VII’s ban on discrimination “because of . . . sex” included a ban on discrimination “because of sexual preferences.”  I summarized three recent decisions by the United States Courts of Appeal – the Eleventh Circuit holding Title VII

Manufacturers should take note of two recent developments in the human resources world.  One expected.  The other not.

Frequent readers of this blog may recall that in January I predicted the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) would make good on its goal of updating the “Persuader Rule.”

By way of background, the Persuader Rule

Just in time for Labor Day, the National Labor Relations Board handed organized labor a great gift and potentially disrupted the business and labor relationships of thousands of American manufacturers.

On August 27, 2015, a divided Labor Board ruled 3-2 that Browning-Ferris Industries was the “joint employer” of workers supplied by a third-party.  Browning-Ferris Industries