With recent announcements of delay, website troubles, and cancelled health insurance, many employers are left unsure what to make of it all. Here’s a quick update:
Weeks after the close of the Washington state polls, the final ballots have been counted and state officials announced yesterday that Proposition 1 passed with a mere 77-vote margin.
Do for profit corporations have religious liberty rights under federal law and the US Constitution? The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear this issue by accepting certiori of Hobby Lobby v. Sebilius and several accompanying lower court decisions.
Last week at the 59th ELA Annual Conference, I spoke on the looming challenges of meeting the civil rights of student athletes with disabilities. Earlier this year I blogged about this topic and its potential ramifications.
For those who haven’t been following the polls for the recent November 5th election, despite a few ballots still left to count, it appears that SeaTac Proposition 1 (a measure to raise the minimum wage in SeaTac to $15/hr for hospitality and transportation workers in and around SeaTac Airport) will pass.
Although much of the NLRB agenda has been thrown into question with the general belief that the Supreme Court will void President Obama’s NLRB recess appointments and thus the decisions made thereunder, expect that the Board will promptly revisit all of those rulings and reinstate them.
Despite the government shutdown, the Supreme Court of the United States is forging ahead with its schedule for the October 2013 term. The fall schedule of arguments carry a number of direct and potential impacts for employers.
In June 2013, the American Medical Association (AMA) officially recognized obesity as a disease. Putting aside arguments within the medical community about the wisdom of classifying more than one-third of U.S. adults as ill, the AMA’s decision fuels legal arguments that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects obese individuals from discrimination based on their obesity.
The Washington Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the guardian of an elderly woman did not act negligently by not forcing an elderly woman into a nursing home against her wishes. The decision reversed the Washington Court of Appeals which had found that the guardian had acted negligently when they didn’t set aside the clients wishes and replace with their own
On June 25, the United States Supreme Court announced an important decision on the ability of local governments to extract environmental (and presumably other) mitigations from private developers seeking land use entitlements. The case, known as Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management District, severely limits this practice.