Legislative Alert

ENACTED LEGISLATION

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA: The Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations has released the poster employers are required to display under the city’s amended “Ban the Box” ordinance

Summary: The Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations has released the poster employers are required to display under the new amendments to Philadelphia’s “Ban the Box” law, the Fair Criminal Records Screening Standards Act. The poster must be displayed as of March 14, 2016.

Impact(s): Philadelphia employers

View source document

BETHLEHEM, PENNSYLVANIA: Bethlehem, PA “Bans the Box” on city employment applications

Impact(s): Bethlehem, PA city employers

COURT OPINIONS

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit expands the reach of the Minnesota Drug and Alcohol Testing Workplace Act

Summary: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that the Minnesota Drug and Alcohol Testing Workplace Act can apply to the employees of Minnesota-based employers working in other states whenever there are “significant contacts” between the state and the parties or the facts giving rise to the claim. The court ruled that the Minnesota drug testing law applied to a Minnesota applicant for a West Virginia job because the employer did business in Minnesota, hired a Minnesota resident and permitted a pre-employment drug test to be conducted in Minnesota.

Impact(s): Minnesota employers

View source document

RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT: The Rhode Island Supreme Court concluded that an employee was barred from pursuing a suit against her employer for violations of Rhode Island’s employer drug testing statute because her complaint was filed more than three years after the alleged violation

Summary: A security guard filed a complaint against her employer alleging that the employer violated Rhode Island’s employer drug testing statute when they required her to submit to a drug test without the reasonable grounds set forth by the statute and subsequently terminated her employment based on the results of the test. The plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss asserting the complaint was not timely filed within the three year-limitations period. The trial court agreed with the employer. The high court affirmed the lower court’s decision.

Impact(s): Rhode Island employers

View source document

This document and/or presentation is provided as a service to our customers. Its contents are designed solely for informational purposes, and should not be inferred or understood as legal advice or binding case law, nor shared with any third parties. Persons in need of legal assistance should seek the advice of competent legal counsel. Although care has been taken in preparation of these materials, we cannot guarantee the accuracy, currency or completeness of the information contained within it. Anyone using this information does so at his or her own risk.