Update on Pregnancy Discrimination Guidelines in the Workplace

In July 2014, the EEOC issued an update, its first in 30 years, in regard to pregnancy discrimination in the workplace.  In its update, the EEOC clarified how Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) interact to protect pregnant employees.

The new guidelines state that employers are prohibited from forcing pregnant employees from taking leave.  The new guideline also acknowledges that "employers may have to provide light duty for pregnant workers."

Women are not the only ones who will benefit from these new guidelines; "similarly situated" men and women must be treated on the same terms when it comes to parental leave.

To read the new guidelines, click here.

If you are the victim of discrimination in the workplace, contact Ambuter Law for your free case evaluation. 

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case on EEOC's Duty to Conciliate

The U.S. Supreme Court has granted a writ of certiorari in an appeal of the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision finding that an alleged failure to conciliate is not an affirmative defense to the merits of a discrimination case (Mach Mining, LLC v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission).

In 2008, the EEOC received a charge of discrimination from a woman alleging that Mach Mining, LLC denied her a job because of her sex.  After investigating the charge, the EEOC notified Mach Mining, LLC in 2010 of its intention to start the informal conciliation process.  In 2011, the EEOC had determined that the conciliation process had been unsuccessful, and informed the company of such.  The EEOC then filed a suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

Mach Mining filed its answer and asserted several affirmative defenses, including that the EEOC had failed to conciliate in good faith.  The EEOC moved for summary judgment solely on the issue of whether, as a matter of law, an alleged failure to conciliate is an affirmative defense to its suit for unlawful discrimination.  The District Court denied the EEOC's motion.  The District Court held that the court should evaluate conciliation to the extent needed to “determine whether the EEOC made a sincere and reasonable effort to negotiate.”

In December 2013, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision.  The court's opinion read:

"The essence of an affirmative defense is that it assumes the plaintiff can prove its factual allegations. An affirmative defense raises additional facts or legal arguments that defeat liability nonetheless. . . . The wrong claimed by defendant here is purely one of insufficient process. A procedural remedy, such as a short stay to allow the parties to pursue conciliation further, would be tailored to the alleged wrong. Dismissal on the merits, however, would excuse the employer’s (assumed) unlawful discrimination. That would be too final and drastic a remedy for any procedural deficiency in conciliation,” Judge David F. Hamilton wrote for the panel.

On February 25, 2014, Mach Mining, LLC petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court.  On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case.  Arguments for the case will be scheduled to begin in the Fall of 2014.


If you have a question regarding your rights in the workplace, please contact Ambuter Law for your free case evaluation.

Proposed DOL rule redefines FMLA's definition of "spouse"

On June 20, 2014, the DOL released a press release announcing a proposed rule that will extend the definition of "spouse" under the FMLA.  The proposed rule extends protections of the FMLA to all eligible employees in legal same-sex marriages regardless of where they live.  The DOL is proposing this rule in light of the 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor.  In this case, the United States struck down a section of DOMA, which limited the definition of "marriage" to opposite-sex unions, and "spouse" to individuals of the opposite sex.

Currently, the FMLA defines "spouse" by looking at the laws of the employee's state of residence.  The proposed FMLA rule is moving from look at the employee's state of residence to looking at where the employee was married - or the "place of celebration."  The proposed rule would allow an eligible employee in a same-sex marriage to take FMLA to take care of his or her spouse leave regardless of the state that he or she resided in, as long as the "place of celebration" recognized the marriage as legal.

The DOL proposes to redefine "spouse" as follows:

• Spouse, as defined in the statute, means a husband or wife. For purposes of this definition, husband or wife refers to the other person with whom an individual entered into marriage as defined or recognized under State law for purposes of marriage in the State in which the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside of any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and could have been entered into in at least one State. This definition includes an individual in a same-sex or common law marriage that either (1) was entered into in a State that recognizes such marriages, or (2) if entered into outside of any State, is valid in the place where entered into and could have been entered into in at least one State.

If you have a question concerning your rights in the workplace, please contact Ambuter Law for a free case evaluation

Obama plans to sign executive order extending LGBT protections

Obama plans to sign an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Currently, there is no federal law that prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.  While Obama cannot extend this protection to all Americans, he can take unilateral action that impacts federal contractors.

Obama's plan to sign the executive order was welcomed by those in the LGBT community.  This may be the first step in ending discrimination in both the private and public sector when it comes to discrimination based on sexual orientation.


If you have a question regarding your employment rights, please contact Ambuter Law for your free case evaluation.

Seattle raises minimum wage: What does this mean for the economy?

On June 2, 2014, Seattle passed an ordinance that raised the city's minimum wage to $15.00/hr, which makes it the highest in the nation.  Washington state's minimum wage is $9.32/hr.

The new ordinance, which takes effect on April 1, 2015, includes a phase-in of the wage increase over several years, with a slower process for small businesses.  For companies with more than 500 employees, the ordinance allows a phase-in process over at least three years.  Those companies that provide health insurance will be allowed at least four years to phase-in the increase.  Smaller businesses will be given seven years.

While many believe this will pave the way for other cities to raise their minimum wage and provide a livable wage, others argue that it will cost more jobs.  Many smaller businesses in the area state that with they won't be able to stay in business with the increase in minimum wage. 

States such as Minnesota, California, Maryland, and Connecticut have also passed laws to increase the minimum wage in the upcoming years.  Only time will tell whether it proves to be beneficial.


If you have a question regarding your employment rights, contact Ambuter Law for a free case evaluation.

Federal agency axes employee rating system

The Independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is scrapping its employee rating system in response to concerns that it was discriminatory.

The rating system ranked employees on a scale of one thru five.  Due to concerns with the system, everyone who ranked a three or above is automatically being given a score of five, along with retroactive pay raises associated with the top score rating.  These raises will most likely cost $5 million.

Moving forward, the bureau is planning on using a two-tiered rating system for at least two years while the old system is re-evaluated.  These changes are coming about after American Banker found that minority employees were more likely to receive lower evaluations than their white counterparts.

However, what this means is that the performers who slacked off or didn't perform at a level of five, are now being rewarded the same as top performers.  Many are seeing this as a slap to the face for those who actually worked hard and deserved to be compensated as top performers. 



If you have a question or concerns regarding your rights in the workplace, please contact Ambuter Law for your free case evaluation.

Veterans' Preference

With the passing of Memorial Day, we remember those who have served our country.

The State of Florida also tries to remember its veterans by giving Veterans' Preference to those who apply for public sector jobs. 

As stated in Chapter 295, Florida Statute, preference is extended to veterans who fall under the following categories:

• A veteran with a service-connected disability who is eligible for or receiving compensation, disability retirement, or pension under public laws administered by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense.
• The spouse of a veteran who cannot qualify for employment because of a total and permanent service-connected disability, or the spouse of a veteran missing in action, captured, or forcibly detained by a foreign power.
• A veteran of any war who has served on active duty for one day or more during a wartime period, excluding active duty for training, and who was discharged under honorable conditions from the Armed Forces of the United States of America. A veteran who served honorably but who has not met the criteria for the award of a campaign or expeditionary medal for service in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom, qualifies for preference in appointment effective July 1, 2007.
• The unmarried widow or widower of a veteran who died of a service-connected disability.
• A veteran who has served in a qualifying campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge or expeditionary medal has been authorized; including any Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal or Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. 

The service dates are defined as follows:

• World War II: December 7, 1941 to December 31, 1946
• Persian Gulf War: August 2, 1990 to January 2, 1992
• Korean Conflict: June 27, 1950 to January 31, 1955
• Vietnam Era: February 28, 1961 to May 7, 1975
• Operation Enduring Freedom – October 7, 2001 to date to be determined
• Operation Iraqi Freedom – March 19, 2003 to date to be determined

To claim veterans’ preference, the applicant must:

• Be a Florida resident
• Indicate your claim for veteran preference on the application
• Provide a copy of your DD214 to positions that are covered under FS 295, as described above.

If you believe that you have been discriminated against as a veteran in violation of Florida Statute 295, please contact Ambuter Law for your free case evaluation.