Roundup: Religious accommodation; Age discrimination based on being young; Labor union issues with AI; Violence at work; NLRA employee speech rights
Salary.com Compensation and Pay Equity Law Review
Welcome to Salary.com's Compensation and Pay Equity Law Review.
Our editor, employment lawyer Heather Bussing, is tracking legislation, cases, and analysis to give you the latest critical HR topics. She and Kent Plunkett, CEO of Salary.com, also have a new book out on Pay Equity, Get Pay Right: How to Achieve Pay Equity that Works!
This week we're asking these questions and even answering some of them:
- What the heck is Sofalism?
- What is undue hardship for religious accommodation?
- Why did Oregon expand its age discrimination law?
- Can replacing employees with AI violate labor law and union agreements?
- What are some signs of violence to watch for at work?
- Who should prove NLRA employee speech violations?
Undue Hardship and Religious Accommodation
Here's a great discussion of religious accommodation and some excellent advice on how handle situations where someone needs special treatment because of their religion.
Age Discrimination Based on Being Young
Discrimination is about seeing people as different and therefore less than or other than "us," whoever us may be. Making assumptions about someone's ability to do work because they are younger is just as bad as making assumptions because they are older or anything else that has nothing to do with someone's abilities or qualifications.
Before You Replace People With AI—Especially If You Have a Union
Here's more on Darth Vader's new AI cloned voice and how it may have violated labor law and the duty to bargain.
Watch for Violence at Work
I really appreciated this piece on what to consider and how to plan for potential workplace violence. The advice is solid. The only thing I would add is when in doubt about what to do, err on the side of safety and care.
Who Should Prove NLRA Employee Speech Violations?
Only the employment lawyers think it's a big deal that the NLRB periodically shifts the standard for whether employment policies violate employee rights to talk about work. I'm not sure whether it matters that much what the standard is.
