Tri-State SHRM

News

  • 06/17/2020 1:38 PM | J.W. Bramlett (Administrator)

    Please select the link below to learn more about how you can earn re-certification PDC's for your work during COVID-19.

    https://www.shrm.org/certification/recertification/qualifying-credit-activities/Pages/Advance-Your-Education.aspx

  • 06/16/2020 8:48 AM | J.W. Bramlett (Administrator)

    In light of the new USSC decision this morning, which states that sex discrimination under Title VII includes sexual orientation and gender discrimination, employers must change their policies and handbooks to include sexual orientation and gender identity in any listings of protected classifications.

     

    SHEILA B. GLADSTONE
    Principal

    512-322-5863 Direct
    512-970-5815 Cell

    Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C.
    816 Congress Ave., Suite 1900, Austin, TX 78701
    www.lglawfirm.com  |  512-322-5800

    News | vCard | LinkedIn | Bio

     

    As I indicated this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court today issued a 6-3 opinion finding that Title VII's anti-discrimination provisions apply to LGBT workers.  There is a lot of legal discussion (obviously) in the full majority opinion and the two dissenting opinions.  I won't clog up HR Connect with those details but if anyone is interested, I've attached the decision here.  

    At the end of the day, the majority opinion was decided on a very simple basis - that the language of Title VII prohibits discrimination against LGBT individuals because it is discrimination based on sex.  The following language from Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion explains:


    "An individual's homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions. That's because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex. Consider, for example, an employer with two employees, both of whom are attracted to men. The two individuals are, to the employer's mind, materially identical in all respects, except that one is a man and the other a woman. If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates against him for traits or actions it tolerates in his female colleague.

    Or take an employer who fires a transgender person who was identified as a male at birth but who now identifies as a female. If the employer retains an otherwise identical employee who was identified as female at birth, the employer intentionally penalizes a person identified as male at birth for traits or actions that it tolerates in an employee identified as female at birth. Again, the individual employee's sex plays an unmistakable and impermissible role in the discharge decision."

    Obviously, this decision could yield further action in the courts...specifically in the realm of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (which has Title VII implications).  But that is a post for another day.

    At the end of the day, the notes from Sheila and John are correct - you should update your policies to reflect that discrimination based upon sexual orientation or gender identity are prohibited and you should train all your staff regarding that fact.

    ------------------------------
    Dustin Paschal
    Chair, DallasHR Board of Trustees
    Attorney
    Simon | Paschal PLLC
    Dallas TX
    ------------------------------


  • 01/10/2020 2:51 PM | J.W. Bramlett (Administrator)

    RANDOM DRUG TESTING RATE GOING BACK UP TO 50 PERCENT

    On December 27, 2019, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) announced in a Federal Register Notice that carriers will need to test 50 percent of their drivers for drugs in calendar year 2020. This is an increase from 2019, when carriers were required to randomly test 25 percent of their drivers for drugs.

    The reason for the change

    Under §382.305, the FMCSA Administrator can drop the random drug testing percentage to 25 percent if the industry is below a one percent positive test rate for two consecutive years (this is based on the reports that certain carriers are required to file). However, if the rate goes above one percent for one year, the percentage must be raised to 50 percent. For calendar year 2018 (the most-recent year full data is available), the industry exceeded the one percent, leading to the change to back to 50 percent for 2020.

    Nothing new

    The testing percentage for the industry was 50 percent for many years. FMCSA dropped the required percentage to 25 percent in 2015 for calendar year 2016, and it remained there until now. Before 2016, the testing rate was 50 percent.

    No change in alcohol testing

    The percentage of drivers a carrier must test randomly for alcohol has not changed. For calendar year 2020, carriers must test 10 percent of their drivers randomly for alcohol.

    How many are required?

    FMCSA requires a carrier to base their random testing percentage on its number of driver positions. If a carrier has a constant driver count, this is not hard to determine. However, if there are fluctuations throughout the year, a commonly accepted method is to average the number of drivers you had for the last few random drawings. Once you have the driver count averaged, just multiply by the testing rate (50 percent) and round up to the nearest whole number. That’s the number of drivers you’d need to test for the year. To determine how many drivers need to be drawn in each drawing, simply divide that number by how many drawings you conduct during the year.

    Here is an example: For your first quarter you had 80 drivers, for the second quarter drawing you had 95 drivers, and for the third quarter drawing you have 91 drivers. The average is 80 + 95 + 91 divided by 3, or 88.6, which rounds up to 89. This is then multiplied by .5 to determine how many random drug tests you need to do this year (44.5, which rounds up to 45) and .1 to determine how many random alcohol tests you have to do this year (8.9, or 9). The process is detailed in Interpretation Question 20 to §382.305.

    It’s all about tests, not how many were drawn

    At the end of the calendar year, you must have randomly tested the proper number of drivers for drug and alcohol. How many you drew is not what you are judged on. If you drew enough, but were short on the number tested due to terminations, layoff, or injuries, you are not in compliance.

    If you find you are running short due to any of the above reasons, the interpretations state that you are allowed to draw alternates to achieve the correct number of tests in the calendar year. However, you need to remember that the alternates must be drawn using the same scientific selection method used for the regular drawing. No walking out to the drivers’ room and selecting alternates based on who’s available the day you realize you are running short!

    Key to remember: For 2020, you will need to double the number of drivers drawn for random drug tests, so remember to double the money budgeted for drug testing and to double the manhours allotted for notifications, filing, and other administrative tasks.



  • 07/29/2019 9:30 AM | Todd Jones (Administrator)

    New policies go into effect on August 1st, 2019.  Follow this link for the announcement:  SHRM Recertification Policy Changes

  • 07/25/2019 10:26 AM | Todd Jones (Administrator)

    Watch for developments on this over the next month.  See the article here:  EEO-1 Pay Data Deadline

  • 07/22/2019 4:15 PM | Todd Jones (Administrator)

    A good article from Texas A&M...Workplace Burnout

The Tri-State SHRM Chapter serves the needs of the Human Resource (HR) community as well as advances the working knowledge of HR professionals

We look forward to networking with you!

SOCIAL MEDIA

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software