Employment Matters Blog - A blog about current developments & issues in employment, labor & benefits law

By Jessica W. Catlow

Of the many pleasures of working with start-up companies, their boundless creativity and resistance to traversing roads already traveled are at the top. As outside counsel, however, we are often in the position of having to be the “Debbie Downers” and urging start-ups, once they become larger, to adopt certain, more “formalized” or “institutional” approaches to employment issues, such as performance management and training.  The resistance is nearly universal:  we often hear “that’s too corporate” or it will “change our culture”, or words to that effect.  A recent article posted on Reuters does a great job of highlighting the risks associated with a no-rules environment. 

We believe our clients can preserve their culture even when adopting a more formalized or institutional approach to employment related matters.  And remember- an ounce of “corporate” prevention is always better than the pound of cure in the form of higher legal fees when disputes arise. 

Written by Martha Zackin.

On October 20, 2010, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission held a hearing on employer use of credit history as tool to screen candidates for employment.  The purpose of the hearing, according to an EEOC press release, was to gather information on the practice of using credit histories as employment screening devices, a practice that “could unfairly exclude” some people from job opportunities.

Continue Reading

As recently reported in Employment Law 360 (subscription required), the EEOC sued US Steel alleging that certain of its alcohol testing practices violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. Specifically, in EEOC v US Steel Complaint EEOC alleges that US Steel has a policy and practice of randomly testing for alcohol probationary employees at its Clairton, Pennsylvania facility. The test - - an alcohol breath test - - is administered randomly to employees who are within their 90 day probationary period, without regard to whether there exists an objective basis to believe that the employee is under the influence. Interestingly, the practice is spelled out in the collective bargaining agreement with the United Steelworkers of America, Local 1557, which represents the employees, and was also named a defendant to the suit.

Continue Reading