Delaware Employment Law Blog

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), is about to undergo a major change.  The changes are thanks to the Congress' passage of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) (S. 3406, H.R. 3195) (originally the ADA Restoration Act of 2007). The new law, which will likely take effect January 1, 2009 will broaden the definition of “disability” so that more physical and mental impairments are covered.

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (signed into law by President George H. W. Bush) was intended to “provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” Just as other civil rights laws prohibit entities from basing decisions on characteristics like race or sex, the ADA prevents employers from making decisions based on disability. Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Sutton v. United Airlines) narrowed the definition of disability such that people with conditions such as epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, cancer, diabetes, and cerebral palsy have been determined to not meet the definition of disability under the ADA.

Election 2008 and the ADAAA

Senators Obama, Biden, and McCain are all co-sponsors of the ADAAA, (click each candidate's name to read their individual platforms on the ADA).  For employers, the ADAAA does not bring good news.  The law will result in increased litigation, and the focus of any future dispute will shift from whether an employee has a qualifying disability to whether the employer engaged in a discriminatory act.

Employers should be aware of several employment and labor law initiatives in the state and federal legislatures.  Congress currently is considering the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), and the RESPECT Act, for starters. And the Construction Industry Independent Contractor Act, which was quietly passed by the Delaware and Pennsylvania Houses poses serious risks to employers in the construction trade.

Employee Free Choice Act

The EFCA could be a silent killer.  It has managed to keep a very low profile during its months-long visit to Capital Hill.  In short, it would eliminate the secret-ballot vote and would require employers to recognize a labor union without an election.  The long-unchanged law currently requires employers to choose between recognizing the union and a secret-ballot election if more than 50% of employees in a bargaining unit sign a union authorization card. 

If passed, the EFCA would change this procedure entirely.  Employers would have to recognize the labor union immediately if more than half of the workforce signs union cards.  And, to make it worse, there's not much an employer can do about it.  Union campaigns can be fully underway before the employer even learns about it.  And interference in card-gathering activities would subject the employer to civil penalties.

RESPECT Act

The unfortunately named RESPECT Act poses another labor-related threat to employers in the construction industry.  The "Re-Empowerment of Skilled and Professional Employees and Construction Tradeworkers Act" would amend the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by redefining the definition of "supervisor."  If passed, the RESPECT Act would eliminate the current requirement to obtain supervisor-classification that the employee must posses the authority to assign work to others and to responsibly direct employees.  Instead, the definition of supervisor would be much more difficult to satisfy.  The proposed definition would require the employee to exercise authority over employees for a majority of his or her working time.

There is a giant leap from possessing authority and exercising that authority for a majority of working time. 

We've posted about the state-level initiatives that would criminalize misclassification of employees as independent contractors that have passed the House both in Delaware and in Pennsylvania.  It may be that the definition of "independent contractor" becomes key in avoiding a criminal conviction.  The EEOC provides a non-exclusive list of 17 factors, as well as examples of the factors in use, for use in making that determination.

Helpful Resources

Kris Dunn at The HR Capitalist has a persuasive post about the Employee Free Choice Act and the potential catastrophe it could cause if passed.

The American Nurses Association, which is very pro-RESPECT Act, has a current list of the legislators who support the bill--check to see if your state's legislator is one of the them.  If he or she is on the list, put pen to paper and tell your elected officials what you and the entire industry stand to lose if the RESPECT Act is passed.

Good documentation practices during the hiring process can help employers avoid a failure-to-hire claim.  And that's a good thing, considering that failure-to-hire claims are costly. Just ask Perdue.  The poultry company has agreed to a pay out of more than $800k to settle a claim of disparate impact arising from what the DOL concluded to be systematic discrimination against non-Hispanic job applicants. 

Disparate Impact Claim

A Labor Department news release states an evaluation in 2005 and 2006 by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) found the Salisbury-based company failed to comply with federal employment laws at its poultry processing plants in Rockingham, N.C., Dillon, S.C., and Monterey, Tenn. (The OFCCP has jurisdiction because Perdue supplies poultry under a federal contract to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.)

The settlement agreement will require Perdue to pay $800,000 in back wages and interest to 750 women and minorities who were not hired during the relevant time period.  The company also will make employment offers to some of those who were not hired but who are still interested in employment with Perdue.  In those cases, the employees will receive retroactive company service dates for purposes of benefits and promotion rights. 

Documentation Regrets

Perdue officials denied the allegations on the basis that many applicants were unqualified for employment or withdrew from consideration for employment.  They stated that the company agreed to a settlement only to avoid protracted litigation, according to the company. The VP of HR said in a company statement:

Perdue is committed to treating all job applicants fairly. We regret we did not more carefully document our hiring process for production associates, which led to these concerns by the OFCCP and, ultimately, to this settlement.

Perdue has implemented new procedures to ensure it retains all relevant documentation of its selection processes and is also conducting training of its human resources staff to assure appropriate implementation of Perdue's hiring and employment practices, according to the company statement.

Interviewing Best Practices

Interviewing is one of the most neglected areas in employment law.  When I teach seminars on lawful interviewing, I will inevitably see faces filled with shock and despair as they realize just how many of the best practices have not been implemented in their organization. 

Documentation is key in hiring.  If you keep notes and records only on the people you hired, you will have nothing to refer to in a failure-to-hire claim.  And let's be honest, the ones you didn't hire are likely the ones who were the least memorable.  Can you remember candidates you interviewed and rejected in 2005 and 2006? 

Without an established and consistent documentation and record-retention policy for the hiring policy, a failure-to-hire claim can be nearly impossible to defend.  Just ask Perdue.

Source:  Delaware News Journal, Gwenn Garland

Employers often bemoan the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), citing the law's difficult-to-understand compliance requirements. And most employment lawyers and discrimination attorneys would agree that the ADA can be more challenging in its application than, for example, Title VII, which prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, gender, national origin, or other protected characteristics. 

Whereas an employer is in "compliance" with Title VII so long as it does not take adverse employment actions against employees because of a protected characteristic, the ADA requires that employers take affirmative steps towards assisting employees who are able to perform the functions of the job but who may need a reasonable accommodation to do the job as well as other employees without a disability.

But today, most savvy employers understand the tremendous value that the ADA provides to society as a whole and are able to appreciate the law, despite what can seem like a daunting set of requirements and prohibitions that the law entails.

Wal-Mart pharmacist, Glenda Allen, was shot during a robbery at her second job. Doctors estimated her chance of survival as very poor.  But survive she did.  Doctors concluded she may never walk again.  But walk she did.  In the end, she suffered permanent injury to her spinal cord and required the use of a cane as a result of an abnormal gait caused by the shooting.

When she sought to return to work, Wal-Mart fired her.

Wal-Mart's position was that Allen could no longer do her job--with or without reasonable accommodations.  Allen was not paraplegic, though, she had at least limited mobility.

The litigation was unusually protracted--she initially filed suit in 1994.  After losing on summary judgment, Allen persisted until settling with the retail giant yesterday for $250,000. 

This case is a difficult one for me understand, at least strategically.  Granted, in 1994, the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), which governs accommodations employers must make for employees with disabilities, was hardly the piece of legislation that it is today. Barely 4 years old at the time, the ADA was not understood by many and feared by most. 

But today, some 14 years later, the amount of the settlement seems a pittance when compared to the legal fees that surely must have been incurred for more than a decade of litigation.  Additionally, Wal-Mart is sophisticated enough to appreciate the true value that the ADA provides to the business world by being able to offer equal employment to the disabled.  It strikes me as odd that the global mega-store would not have settled long ago, even if only to "save face" with the disabled community. 

[H/T Coral & Opal: Wal-Mart Coughs Up $250k in Pharmacy Discrimination Case]

The Third Circuit, which covers Delaware, has ruled that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act provides a cause of action to an employee fired for having an abortion.  Although the case involves an unusual set of facts, it serves as an important reminder that compassion provides rewards beyond good karma – it can keep you out of court.

Doe v.  C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc.

After learning that there might be problems with her pregnancy, the plaintiff, “Doe,” shared the information with her employer. Tests showed severe deformities and, at her doctor's recommendation, she had an abortion. On the day of the funeral ceremony, three days after the abortion, Doe was terminated.

The employer asserted that Doe failed to follow company policies with regard to her absence from work during her medical procedure and in the days following.   Doe presented evidence that her husband had called in to arrange the time off.

The employer had what the court called a “somewhat less than compassionate leave policy.” Employees were given no personal or sick leave. After one year on the job, employees were given five days’ paid vacation. Any time taken off during a work day was to be deducted from the employee’s vacation time or be unpaid. When employees were out sick, the employee or spouse had to call in on a daily basis.  But evidence was presented that showed not all employees were treated the same with respect to the daily call-in rule.

An Abortion Is a Protected Activity Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”) is an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and states that discrimination on the basis of “sex” includes discrimination “because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” The PDA does not require preferential treatment for pregnant employees but mandates that employers treat pregnant employees the same as non-pregnant employees who are similarly situated with respect to their ability to work.

Doe's allegations did not make for a typical pregnancy-discrimination claim. She did not claim, for instance, that she was discriminated against because she was pregnancy or that she had been fired while on maternity leave. Instead, she argued that she was discharged because she underwent a surgical abortion. Whether or not protections generally afforded pregnant women under the PDA also extend to women who elect to terminate their pregnancies was an issue that had not been decided in the Third Circuit.

The EEOC has taken the position that it is an unlawful employment practice to fire a woman because she had an abortion.  This was also the position taken in an early decision in Delaware's federal court.  Referencing both sources, the Third Circuit held that abortion is protected conduct under the PDA.

Evidence of Discriminatory Intent

The Court found enough evidence to refute the employer’s stated non-discriminatory reason for termination and permitted Doe’s claim to proceed to trial.  The evidence persuasive to the Court included: (1) daily call-in rule was not enforced with other employees; (2) another employee stated that Doe’s supervisor (who fired her) stated that Doe “didn’t want to take responsibility,” possibly in reference to her abortion; and (3) Doe was fired only three working days after the abortion.

Lessons for All Employers

Abortion does not often arise as part of a discrimination (or any other) claim against an employer because such a procedure is often kept private by the employee.  An employer cannot discriminate on the basis of conduct that it knows nothing about.  Also, the facts in this case, where the baby was wanted, and the employee had abortion for medical reasons, may be somewhat rare.

Nevertheless, the lessons from this case are applicable to many types of discrimination claims and provide a good reminder for employers. Simple changes to the employer’s policies and decision-making procedure would have resulted in a dramatically different outcome.

1. Make your leave policies reasonable. If humanity is not enough to persuade you on this point, then the risk of litigation should. It is clear that this employer’s draconian leave policy won no favors with the court, and certainly would not have won any points with a jury. Moreover, where leave policies  are so unreasonable that practically no one can abide by them, exceptions will be made routinely. When exceptions are made, subjectivity comes into play and it can be very difficult to defend why exceptions were made in some cases and not others.

2. Disseminate your policies, and enforce them consistently. Inconsistent treatment gets the employee past the first hurdle of any discrimination claim.

3. Never forget to take timing into account with any serious employment action. If you are considering taking an adverse employment action directly following some protected activity, which, in Delaware, now includes an abortion, think twice. Consider giving the employee a second chance and let some time elapse before taking action. Again, if benevolence does not lead you in the right direction here, know that many a discrimination case was moved onto trial because of suggestive timing.

Doe v.  C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc., Nos. 06-3625, 06-4508 (3d Cir. May 20, 2008).

Racial discrimination comes in many forms and, following a recent opinion from the Second Circuit, discrimination due to an employee's interracial relationship is one of them.

Employment discrimination laws prohibit employers from making decisions based on race, gender, religion, disability, and certain other characteristics.  Since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, these laws have addressed discrimination based on the characteristic of the employee.  But lately there has been an increase in cases of "associational discrimination." 

Associational Discrimination 101

In this new genre of discrimination law, the focus is not on the characteristic of the employee, but on a person or persons with whom the employee associates.  In other words, let's say that your parents were Jewish and all of their friends were Jewish but you had converted to were Christianity in college. 

And let's say that your employer fired you--not because he thought you were Jewish, but because of your association with your Jewish friends and family.  That is an example of associational discrimination.  The discrimination stemmed not from your religion but from the religion of the people with whom you associate. 

A recent case from the Second Circuit--the first of its kind--held that associational violation occurs when an employee is fired for his interracial marriage.

Holcomb v. Iona College (2nd Cir.)

Facts of the Case

The case is Holcomb v. Iona College, decided on April 1.  Holcomb was a basketball coach at Iona College in New York. He claimed that a college official, Brennan, tried to prevent Holcom's wife, who was Black, from attending public alumni functions , and that Brennan had made racially derogatory comments about some of the Black players. 

Another college official, Petriccone, also made offensive racial comments about Black players in the basketball program.  As the Second Circuit put it, "Colleagues at Iona testified to Petriccione’s record of what might, charitably, be called racial insensitivity. Egregiously in this respect, Petriccione is said to have referred to a Nigerian employee at the Alumni Giving Office as a 'jungle bunny' and an 'African princess.'  When that member of staff applied to his office for the position of Assistant Director of Annual Giving, he remarked:  '[W]hat does she think she is coming from a hut in Africa and thinking she could apply for this job?'”

In addition, when Petriccione found out that Holcomb was marrying an African-American woman, he allegedly made a comment so offensive comments that it won't be posted here. 

Iona College eventually fired Holcomb, explaining that his termination had to do with his poor job performance. After the district court granted summary judgment to the college,the Second Circuit remanded on appeal.

The Court's Decision

The court's discussion set forth the associational-discrimination analysis. Here is the play-by-play:

1. Protected Class. The Court held that Holcomb was a member of a "protected class" under Title VII.  Although Holcomb was not Black, his wife was, and there was evidence that his interracial marriage was the reason for his termination. 
2. Interracial Association.  The Court reasoned that, "where an employee is subjected to an adverse action because an employer disapproves of interracial association, the employee suffers discrimination because of the employee’s own race." All the district judges in this circuit to consider the question, including the district court in this case, have reached that conclusion."
3.  Pretext Evidence.  As noted above, there was plenty of evidence from which the Court could conclude that the reasons given for Holcomb's termination were a mere pretext for race-based discrimination.  Another piece of evidence to support Holcomb's claim was that O'Driscoll, the white staff member who replaced Holcomb, was the only white member of the staff without a Black girlfriend or wife. 

Recap

This decision from the Second Circuit does not necessarily address a novel issue of law.  Associational discrimination had previously been addressed by district courts within the Circuit.  But the clarity of the Court's opinion in Holcomb very clearly sets the groundwork for similar future claims.

Sexual Harassment Claim Based on Raunchy Radio Listening Leads to Liability

A female employee who quit her job when her employer failed to respond to her complaints about the offensive conduct of her male co-workers will see her day in court. A federal appeals court revived the sexual harassment claims, which alleged that the employer permitted the co-workers to enjoy the risqué humor on a daily radio and did nothing to stop the crude derogatory terms often employed when discussing women.

The outcome in Reeves v. C.H. Worldwide Transportation, Inc. (click the link for full-text of the opinon), seems to have surprised some employment law bloggers, including the Ohio Employment Law Blog, one of our favorite e-law blogs.

I think the outcome is consistent with prior cases.

Offensive Conduct

The employee, who was the only woman in her work group, was offended by being subjected to her co-workers’ choice of a daily morning radio show that featured sexually explicit content. They ignored her complaints to them and to her supervisor about the program, which included topics graphic enough not to post.

In addition, commercials broadcast during the program featured: “sexual favors; a bikini contest that instructed women to wear their most perverse bikinis; . . . a drug called Proton that promised to increase sexual performance, please a partner, and make the user a “’sexual tyrannosaurus rex.’”

The employee also complained about her male co-workers’ frequent use of the words “whore,” “bitch” and other, more colorful terms to describe women they disliked. And, all the while they continuously usedl sexually explicit “language, phrases, jokes, songs, comments, [and] remarks.”

Trial Court Finds "Not Based on Sex"

The district court granted judgment in favor of the employer, deciding that the harassment was not “based on” sex, since all the workers in the office were subjected to the same working conditions, and since the offensive conduct was not expressly “directed at” Reeves. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.

Appellate Court Finds the Conduct Did Not Have to Be "Directed At" the Employee

In its decision, the Court of Appeals relied on a prior decision involving racial harassment. In that case, the Court held that racially derogatory language did not have to be “directed at” the complaining employee in order to create a racially hostile workplace. Similarly, said the court in Reeves, found that sexually derogatory language did not have to be directed at the complaining female employee. The degrading nature of the language could be sufficient to satisfy the requirement that the harassment be “based on” sex.

The court also held that Reeves had produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the harassment met the “severe or pervasive” requirement. The court noted that the offensive sex-specific language and the radio program were near daily occurrences for almost three years, (at which point Reeves quit). So the frequency of the conduct favored Reeves’ claim.

On the other hand, while the language was offensive, it was not directed at Reeves herself and therefore the court did not deem the conduct to be especially severe. Further, the conduct was not physically threatening to Reeves. But, it was objectively humiliating to her, particularly in light of evidence that Reeves’ male co-workers knew that their conduct made her uncomfortable but did not stop it.

Finally, there was evidence that the conduct interfered with Reeves’ work. She testified that at times the conduct made it difficult for her to concentrate on her work and she would have to leave the room. She also had to take time away from her work to ask her co-workers and supervisor to stop the offensive conduct, and to make notes for herself about what had happened.

Since Reeves had presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to decide in her favor, the court sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

Some commentators have expressed doubt as to the soundness of the court’s reasoning, especially in light of the possibility that the conduct was not actually “directed at” the lone female employee in the group. As the court noted, Reeves’ co-workers knew that she found their conduct to be offensive. But they continued to engage in it despite that knowledge.

These are the types of activities we routinely counsel our clients not to permit, and this case illustrates why we give that advice.

Genetic testing is a key advance in preventative health care. But opponents of DNA testing worry about privacy issues--that employers may use genetic data in making employment decisions. The Genetic Nondiscrimination Act of 2007 (GINA) is intended to prevent that.

The Act was unanimously accepted by the Senate with a vote of 95-0. After final approval from the House, it will go to the President's desk for signature. It could be signed into law as early as next week. The act will protect individuals against discrimination based on their genetic information when it comes to health insurance and employment. These protections are intended to encourage Americans to take advantage of genetic testing as part of their medical care. The purpose of GINA is to ensure that anyone who gets genetic screening tests will be protected from having that information shared with health insurers or employers. Up until now, individuals who tested positive for a certain type of cancer gene could be denied insurance coverage or employment based on his or predisposition to developing cancer years down the road.

“It means that people whose genetic profiles put them at risk of cancer and other serious conditions can get tested and seek treatment without fear of losing their privacy, their jobs, and their health insurance,”

said Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).

The debate is not a new one--the bill was rejected more than 10 times before it passed. And during those 10+ years, Delaware passed its own genetic antidiscrimination law. Delaware is one of 35 states to prohibit genetic discrimination in employment. State laws typically protect "genetic information." A number of states, including Delaware, have passed or are considering bills that expressly include and requests for genetic services. The Delaware law also makes it unlawful for an employer to "intentionally collect" genetic information unless it can be demonstrated that the information is job-related and consistent with business necessity or is sought in connection with a bona fide employee welfare or benefit plan.

Of the 35 states with these laws, though, there has not been a single suit filed on the grounds of "genetic descrimination," although the EEOC did settle a genetic-discrimination claim that was filed under the Americans With Disabilities Act. In that case, the employer, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, was alleged to have obtained blood samples from employees that would later be used for genetic testing, unbeknownst to the employees. The employer ceased the conduct within days of receiving the EEOC's complaint and eventually settled the suit.

Additional Resources:
The National Conference of State Legislatures maintains a comprehensive website on laws dealing with genetics and genetic testing if you're interested in where your state currently stands.

But the most detailed resource, by far is that of the National Human Genome Research Institute, (NHGRI) at genome.gov. The NHGRI's site inlcudes dozens of helpful explanations about just about everything genetic--including the legal, social, and ethical implications of genetic testing.

To review GINA's passage through the House and Senate, visit thomas.loc.gov.

From a women's health perspective, U.S. News & World Report's Deborah Kotz's article is a worthy read.

And, as always, our friends at HR Hero has a whole cache of easy-to-read and to-the-point articles on the Genetic Testing page of their website.

Family and Medical Leave has hit New Jersey employers. The N.J. Senate passed legislation that would make the Garden State only the third state (after California and Washington) with state-sponsored paid family and medical leave. Governor Corzine said he intends to sign the bill, so employers should start preparing now.

The New Jersey Division of Civil Rights, the state agency charged with enforcing the bill, has posted a helpful Q&A on the NJ FMLA on its website.

The criteria for employee coverage will be the same as for coverage under the state’s unemployment compensation law. Employers are covered if they are covered under the New Jersey Temporary Disability Benefits law, that is, if they have one or more employees who earned at least $1,000 in the current or preceding calendar year. Employees will be entitled to benefits in the amount of two-thirds of their weekly pay, up to $524 per week, for up to six weeks in any 12-month period.

Benefits are payable for time off taken to care for a seriously ill family member, or in connection with childbirth or adoption. Benefits will be funded by an additional tax on employees of about $.48 per employee per week, beginning on January 1, 2009. Benefits will begin to be available on July 1, 2009.

The law does not include any job restoration guarantees, and provides that employers with fewer than 50 employees (who are not covered by the federal FMLA) will not be liable to a discharged employee.

The Third Circuit, which governs Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, applied a strict interpretation of Rule 23(f) and affirmed dismissal of a class action against Johnson & Johnson. The case, Gutierrez v. Johnson & Johnson, was filed by African-American and Hispanic former J&J employees alleging race discrimination--8,600 employees in all.

The federal District Court in New Jersey declined to certify the group as a class. Notably, the court found that the group had failed to identify any J&J policy that was discriminatory. The court also cited the diversity and size of the group as factors weighing against class certification.

Now, hang in there, this is where it starts to get complicated.

The potential class could have filed an appeal with the Third Circuit after the District Court issued its decision denying certification. But, instead, they wanted to file a motion for reconsideration. J&J agreed to an extension of time for the employee to file their motion. The court granted the requested extension but eventually denied the motion for reconsideration, upholding its denial of class status.

The employee-petitioners sought permission tofile an interlocutory appeal with the Third Circuit. The petition was filed within ten days of the District Court’s denial of their motion for reconsideration but 125 days after the original decision denying class certification.

A petition to appeal must be filed within 10 days. When a motion for reconsideration is timely filed, though, the 10 day-clock stops running until the motion is decided. Here, the employee-petitioners filed their motion within the deadline set by the District Court's scheduling order. That was not enough for the Third Circuit. Instead, the court found that the 10-day requirement was mandatory--within 10 days of the decision denying class certification, the party has 10, and only 10, days within which to file an appeal.

The fact that the motion for reconsideration was timely for purposes of the District Court’s scheduling order did not matter. According to the Third Circuit, much to Johnson & Johnson's relief, Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is strict and mandatory.

Courts
Delaware Bankrupcy Court
Delaware District Court
Delaware State Courts
Federal Courts
Federal Judicial Center
Supreme Court of the United States
Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Delaware
City of Wilmington
Delaware Department of Labor
Delaware General Assembly
Delaware Public Agencies
Delaware Public Employment Relations Board
Delaware State Bar Association
Department of Labor
Kent County
New Castle County
State of Delaware
Sussex County

Disability Resources
Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access (CATEA)
EmployABILITY
Job Accommodation Network (JAN)
Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP)
Workplace Rehabilitation Engineering and Research Center (RERC)

Drug & Alcohol Issues
Division of Workplace Programs Drug-Free Workplace Kit
DOL Working Partners for an Alcohol & Drug-Free Workplace
DOT Office of Drug & Alcohol Policy & Compliance
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
National Institute on Drug Abuse
Office of National Drug Control Policy
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Substance Absue Services

Employment Law
Employment Law Information Network
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FMLA Issues
FMLA Compliance Guide
FMLA Form WH-380 (Certification)
FMLA Form WH-381 (Response to Leave Request)
FMLA Regulations
FMLA Special Rules for Returning Reservists (USERRA)

Human Resources
About.com Career Planning
About.com Human Resources
All Business
G. Neil
HR Gopher
HR Hero
HR Resource
HR World
Society of Human Resources
Suite 101 Career Advice
Suite 101 Training/Professional Development
Yahoo! Career Tools

Jerks at Work
Badbossology.com
Bob Sutton Work Matters
Workplace Bullying Institute

Labor
National Labor Relations Act
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
NLRB Decisions

Research Resources
Delaware Administrative Code
Delaware Code
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Lexbe Litilaw Employment Law Articles
Time and Date.com
United States Code

Wage & Hour Issues
DOL Fair Pay Initiative
Health Care Compliance Reports
State Labor Offices
State Mimimum Meal Breaks
State Minimum Wage Rates
State Minimum Wages for Tipped Employees
State Payday Requirements
U.S. Wage and Hour Division(WHD)
Youth Rules!