| “How Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) is Shaping Today’s Businesses” Exploring the Rise, Impact, and Opportunities Presented by the E in ESG Tuesday, October 18, 2022 11:00 AM ET This webinar will include: How and why the business community is prioritizing ESG, including updates on legislative developments The metrics underpinning energy costs and carbon emissions A roadmap designed to create value from ESG initiatives Descriptions of public incentives and private capital helping organizations drive ESG initiatives
REGISTER TODAY! This insightful sustainability webinar is scheduled for October 18, 2022, 11AM.
ABOUT CHATEAU ENERGY SOLUTIONS
Chateau Energy Solutions works with clients to architect an energy strategy to drive operational efficiency. There are three primary areas of focus: Energy Efficiency, EV Charging, and Microgrids. All of these offerings can be provided through an Energy-as-a-Service offering to achieve financial and decarbonization results.
For more information on Chateau Energy Solutions, go to www.ChateauES.com. | | HRDive.com Article How Torani — maker of those ubiquitous coffee syrups — brings women into manufacturingWith its thoughtful new facility and practice of hiring talent for potential, Torani boosted the number of women in its front-line workforce by 625%.
Published Oct. 12, 2022 Caroline Colvin - Reporter
Many HR experts tout the benefits of upskilling as a retention tactic. A look into Torani’s recent diverse hiring push paints a slightly different portrait: A company culture of upskilling can help employers reach their diversity goals more rapidly while also sustaining a solid talent pipeline and life cycle.
Torani recently announced that over the past five years, its HR department “has doubled down” on its diverse recruiting efforts. But what does that actually mean?
The syrup company said it increased representation of women by 625%. Becca Russell, Torani’s chief of people and opportunity development, explained that while half of company leadership has long been women, the demographic was underrepresented in front-line manufacturing and distribution roles. Now, almost 28% of those roles are filled by women — something Torani called an “impressive feat” due to the field’s history as a male-dominated space....Continue Reading>>
| | Constangy.com Blog
Is Biden about to make marijuana legal? BY ROBIN SHEA ON 10.7.22
POSTED IN DRUG POLICIES, DRUG TESTING, MARIJUANA
If so, what will that mean for employers?
Yesterday, President Biden announced that he was pardoning everyone who was criminally convicted of simple possession of marijuana under federal law. He's also asked state governors to do the same.
The third part of his announcement is of potential significance to employers: The President said that he would ask the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General to review whether marijuana should be "demoted" from a Schedule I controlled substance (any use illegal) to a lower class. “The federal government currently classifies marijuana as a Schedule I substance,” the President said, “the same as heroin and LSD and more serious than fentanyl. It makes no sense.”
The drugs on Schedules II-V are legal with varying levels of restriction. All of the Schedules, with examples, are available here.
If marijuana gets a "demotion," this could be a big deal to employers -- especially those in the dwindling number of states where marijuana use is still illegal. The Americans with Disabilities Act does not protect current users of illegal drugs. Because marijuana is currently an illegal drug under all circumstances under federal law, current users of marijuana have no protection under the ADA . . . currently.
The ADA also says that testing for illegal drugs is not a "medical examination" subject to the ADA's restrictions on such. (There are major qualifications to that general rule, which is why virtually all employers wait until the post-offer stage to conduct drug tests.) If marijuana moves to another Schedule, pre-employment drug tests presumably would have to either (a) not include testing for marijuana, or (b) always be conducted post-offer (which, again, they probably are, anyway). If an offeree tests positive, the employer might have to consider making reasonable accommodations rather than simply withdrawing the offer. At least, for positions that are not safety-sensitive. And employers who conduct random or universal testing of current employees may not be able to include marijuana in the panel of drugs for which they test. As with alcohol, presumably employers would be allowed to test for marijuana only if there were some sort of "cause" -- that is, reasonable suspicion, post-accident, and subject to a last-chance agreement.
(Where testing for marijuana is required by another federal law, such as the regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, there should not be an ADA issue.)
Not too terribly long ago, in a post for employers with operations in states where marijuana was legal, I recommended treating marijuana use the same way one would treat alcohol use. In other words, tolerate it, but don't let people consume during working hours or be under the influence while on duty. I still think that's the way to go, but . . .
. . . we have another problem. With marijuana, as opposed to alcohol, there is no generally recognized standard of being "under the influence." In a state where all marijuana use is illegal, that isn't a concern because any level of marijuana in the system would justify withdrawal of a job offer, mandatory rehabilitation, or termination of employment. But if employers can take action against an employee for marijuana use only if the employee is "under the influence," then how will the employer know when it can legally test?
And, finally, we have the issue of reasonable accommodation under the ADA. If marijuana moves into a lower class, employers would presumably be required by the ADA to consider reasonable accommodation for many, if not most, users of medical marijuana.
P.S. On November 8, five more states (Arkansas, Maryland, Missouri, and the Dakotas) will have referenda on whether to legalize all adult use of marijuana. These states currently allow medical use but not recreational use.
Tags: ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act, Controlled Substances, Drug Testing, Marijuana, President Biden
******** Watch Youtube video here: https://youtu.be/fgn94EMxEM0 | | Constangy.com Article
Judge shuts down LGBT guidance BY ROBIN SHEA ON 10.7.22
POSTED IN DISCRIMINATION, GENDER IDENTITY DISCRIMINATION, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, SUPREME COURT
And opens up a can of worms.
In June 2021, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (or, to be more precise, EEOC Chair Charlotte Burrows, a Democrat*) issued non-binding guidance about LGBT workers. I blogged about it here.
The guidance was not too different from what employers were accustomed to under the Obama Administration. These were the most significant points:
♦ Employees have to be allowed to use the restrooms that correspond with their gender identity. ♦ "Dead naming" or using old pronouns with a transgender worker may not be unlawful if it's sporadic and accidental, but if it becomes frequent enough, then it could be considered harassment based on gender identity.
The State of Texas filed suit, claiming that the guidance was invalid for a number of reasons:
♦ It was issued unilaterally by Chair Burrows rather than being presented to the full five-member Commission for a vote (which, with a Republican majority, no doubt would have voted it down).* ♦ The public was given no notice or opportunity to comment, nor were the states or "other affected institutions and individuals." ♦ It exceeded the scope of Bostock. ♦ It violated the First and Eleventh amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
This week, a federal judge in Amarillo struck down the guidance based on the first three points, as well as guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that related to federal funds for entities that restrict "gender-affirming" medical care and treatment for gender dysphoria.
I feel sure that the EEOC and the HHS will appeal. I also feel sure that Point No. 3 -- the Bostock issue -- is going to be huge in the workplace and everywhere else. You recall that "Bostock" is Bostock v. Clayton County, the U.S. Supreme Court decision issued in June 2020, in which the Court ruled 6-3 that employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on "sex." In a majority opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Court said that "sex" for Title VII purposes included sexual orientation and gender identity. But Justice Gorsuch also made it clear that the decision applied to employment discrimination -- "[a]n employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender" -- and not necessarily to other issues, like workplace dress codes, who uses which restroom, who uses which locker room, which pronouns should be used, or the extent of any religious exemptions.
The federal judge in Amarillo took Justice Gorsuch at his word, and found that the guidance was going beyond the SCOTUS ruling in Bostock: Under [Texas]'s reading of Bostock, the State of Texas may not discriminate against an employee 'for being homosexual,' 'for being transgender' -- i.e., 'men for being attracted to men,' 'women for being attracted to women,' and 'persons with one sex identified at birth and another today' -- but may regulate correlated conduct via sex-specific dress, bathroom, pronoun, and healthcare policies, if otherwise consistent with Title VII case law. (Emphasis in Texas v. EEOC.)
The can of worms I mentioned earlier? Now it looks like we could be in for a rash of litigation about bathrooms, pronouns, and dress codes in the workplace. Should be interesting. *Why did Chair Burrows issue the EEOC guidance on her own? The EEOC, believe it or not, still is a majority Republican commission. Republican former Chair Janet Dhillon's term expired this past July, but she can stay on through the end of this year if President Biden can't get a replacement confirmed. That means the majority of EEOC commissioners were very unlikely to have voted in favor of this guidance. So, from Chair Burrows' standpoint, it was issue the guidance unilaterally, or issue no guidance at all.
Tags: Appearance Code, Bathrooms, Bostock v. Clayton County, Charlotte Burrows, Gender Identity, Janet Dhillon, Justice Neil Gorsuch, LGBT, Pronouns, SCOTUS, Sexual Orientation, Supreme Court, Texas, Texas v. EEOC, Title VII
| | HRDive.com BRIEF Employees say they want to ditch their commutesPublished Oct. 11, 2022 Kathryn Moody Senior Editor
Dive Brief:The main reason workers want remote work? It’s concern over commuting costs, according to ZipRecruiter survey results released Oct. 7. Only half said as much in January, the report noted, but as of August, two out of three job seekers called commuting costs their main motivation.
Job seekers “strongly prefer” remote work, ZipRecruiter said; 60% want remote roles, and around 20% would take only remote jobs. Women and minority job seekers are especially likely to cite a desire for remote work.
Certain industries, including tech, law, healthcare and government, have “tremendous potential” to scale remote work, ZipRecruiter said. About 85% of tech jobs posted on the site, for example, could become remote, the company added...
Continue Reading>>
| | Last Two Webinars Register now!! Advanced Leadership Webinar Series Recommended for: Leaders and Managers across all disciplines
In Partnership with The Focus Group
Presenter – Pete Tosh
These webinars are only $70.00 for member and $80.00 for non-members.
|
|
|
|
