On Dec. 20, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia vacated key provisions of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) final rules for employer-sponsored wellness plans. However, to avoid disruption to employers, the court stayed its ruling until Jan. 1, 2019.
Harassment is a form of employment discrimination that may violate federal laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a list of best practices for employers to use in their workplaces to prevent harassment. According to the EEOC, the following five core principles have generally proven effective in preventing and addressing harassment.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has directed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to reconsider its final wellness rules under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).
The final rules allow employers to offer wellness incentives of up to 30 percent of the cost of health plan coverage. The court held that the EEOC failed to provide a reasonable explanation for adopting the incentive limit. Rather than vacating the final rules, the court sent them back to the EEOC for reconsideration.
Employees may need to take time off from work for various reasons, including for their own medical situations or family emergencies. Federal and state leave laws require employers to provide employees with leave in certain situations.
In May 2016, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) finalized rules for employer-sponsored wellness programs under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).
Upon return from Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave, an employee must be restored to his or her original position or to an equivalent position with equivalent pay, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment. An employee is entitled to reinstatement even if he or she was replaced during the leave or if the employee’s position was restructured to accommodate his or her absence. However, there are circumstances under which reinstatement is not required.