In the US what is/are the legal definitions of &#39;workplace&#39;? According to this online USA guidance many US states give smokers the same sort of anti-discrimination class as for example pregnant mothers or other groups. Most states have some laws that protect smokers from discrimination and However, 29 states and the District of Columbia do prohibit discrimination based on legal activities outside the workplace, which includes smoking tobacco. What, in these states, constitutes 'the workplace'? For example, while under mandatory Covid19 homeoffice, while participating in teleconferences from home, is the home a 'workplace' for the purposes of these laws? Can an employer dismiss a smoker for smoking at home during mandatory homeoffice (and on a teleconference) or would this be perceived as discriminatory?
In the US what is/are the legal definitions of 'workplace'? Absent a statutory or contractual definition, the plain meaning is adopted "unless doing so would result in absurd, unintended consequences", Hassell v. Bird, 5 Cal.5th 522 (2018). Pulaski v. California OSHA, 90 CalRptr.2d 54, 69 (1999) points out that "'[w]orkplace' is commonly understood as covering any place where work is performed. This is especially true where worker health and safety is concerned". See also [non-precedential] [Covia Communities v. McInerney, (Court of Appeals of California, Dec. 2019)]3 ("The plain meaning of the term [...] does not limit 'workplace' to one location [...]. Nor does the plain meaning of 'workplace' require that the employer own the subject property"). Thus, a person's homeoffice also fits the definition of 'workplace'. Can an employer dismiss a smoker for smoking at home during mandatory homeoffice (and on a teleconference) or would this be perceived as discriminatory? Discriminatory means that the dismissal is motivated by the status of employee being insofar as a smoker rather than his act of smoking during the performance of work. By way of analogy, consider the laws against discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation: The ban on that discrimination does not entitle the employee to engage in sexual intercourse during a teleconference. Most bans on smoking in the workplace are intended to protect other employees' health and safety. From the remark in Pulaski, it follows that smoking at home during mandatory homeoffice time would not impair other employees' health and safety. That being said, the employer might have valid reasons for prohibiting to smoke during a teleconference. For instance, doing so could be perceived as unprofessional, and therefore detrimental to the image of the company.
Yes, you can be fired for "not being a good fit": New York State is generally considered to be an "employment at will" state, which means that a private sector employer can pretty much hire and fire as he or she pleases and a discharged employee usually will have no legal recourse even when the discharge is unfair or unreasonable. Source: New York State Office of the Attorney General
I cannot recall an example where a breach of such guidance in-and-of-itself is an offence: it's when the underlying legislation is contravened that one is committed. Note that the cited article say this: this guidance is of a general nature. Employers should consider the specific conditions of each individual place of work and comply with all applicable legislation and regulations, including the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. This guidance does not supersede existing legislation or regulations across the UK More broadly, and away from the NHS, the relationship between guidance and statute was examined in The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd &amp; Ors [2020] EWHC 2448 (Comm) where adherence to social distancing measures impacted on safe working practices on building sites, causing delays and an increase in costs. The court determined that: It follows that government advice or recommendations, whether before or after either set of Regulations came into effect, cannot have imposed or ordered a denial of access or a hindrance in access, however strongly worded the advice or recommendations were, since they did not have the force of law.
Are all interview questions that don't apply to essential functions illegal? No. Not all such questions are illegal, but see one exception from California legislation as pointed out by @GeorgeWhite and others in section 432.7 of the state Labor Code. Other jurisdictions very likely have equivalent prohibitions, but questions like the one you envisioned ("What music do you like") would not infringe statutory provisions. Generally speaking, it is lawful for an employer to assess candidates' personality &amp; non-essential skills under casual and not-so-casual scenarios through the use of questions with no relevance to the job at issue. Only in very specific circumstances certain pattern(s) of questions may lead to a finding of harassment or discrimination. Questions related to categories which the Civil Rights Act protects are risky because a rejected candidate would have at least some grounds for a claim of discrimination. Those categories are [candidate's] race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Questions on those protected categories are not illegal, but the employer will have the burden of proving that its challenged practice (i.e., making seemingly discriminatory questions) "is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity" (see 42 USC § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(ii)) rather than for purposes of unlawful discrimination.
Legally obtain employee’s covid vaccination status without employee’s consent? No Request employee to provide one. On grounds of what law? Anyone can ask anyone anything, however, I presume you are asking when they can demand to see your certificate. Employers have a general right to issue reasonable and lawful instructions to employees and failing to comply is misconduct. The direction to show a certificate is certainly legal and almost certainly reasonable given the employer’s obligations under Work Health and Safety law. More directly, all businesses in NSW are required to have and update a COVID-Safe Plan. It is perfectly reasonable for them to require employees to divulge their vaccination status. In certain workplaces it may be appropriate for them to mandate vaccinations. Also, there are various Public Health Orders under the Public Health Act 2010 that mandate vaccinations for health care workers, aged care workers (and visitors), child care and care workers. An employer has a legal obligation to check this. In addition, there are requirements under the Public Health (COVID-19 General) Order 2021 under the Public Health Act 2010 requiring some business to check in all visitors to the premises (including employees) including checking their vaccination status. This is what a status check looks like. There are 45 types of premises and events in this category listed in Schedule 5. Terminate employment should employee decide not provide this information or openly declare that they do not want to get vaccinated? What is the law allowing to discriminate the employee on their vaccination status? This is a typical office environment, nothing to do with health care or public sector. Yes. More specifically, refusing a lawful and reasonable instruction is misconduct and, if persistent, may warrant dismissal. If they refuse vaccination in a workplace where vaccines are legally mandated or where the employer has required them (and the requirement is reasonable to protect the legitimate interests of the business), they are similarly disobeying a lawful and reasonable direction. Case law in industries where flu vaccines are mandated is clear - refusal to have them is a legitimate reason for dismissal. There is no doubt this will be good law for COVID vaccines. Decisions on whether an employer not in a mandated industries can make vaccines mandatory have only been made at the Tribunal level so no precedents have been set but the general thrust of these decisions is if it is a reasonable precaution to protect other employees or the public (e.g. if social distancing and PPE is impractical or not likely to be effective): yes. So far, no employee has been successful in an unfair dismissal claim.
As a adult of sound mind, you are responsible for your actions. Background checks for job applications are common place to determine suitability. The employers have the right (and responsibility) to choose what is in their best interest. If through your previous and present actions, they come to the conclusion that you will become a liability to their interests, they will determine that you are not suitable for the position. Not being suitable for a position is not a discrimination, but a determination of fact. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. The same is true for the employers. They too have the obligation to act in their own that of their other employees that of their clients interests. In cases where a judge comes to a conclusion that the rights of others are being impeaded, they will most likely decide for that party. It is unlikely that a judge will assume that an individual is the center of the universe and that everyone else must revolve around that individual.
I, semi-contrarily, speculate that the answer is "yes", as long as we understand your question to be about religion, since that is what is legally relevant in terms of discrimination law. The EEOC "answers" the question in 29 CFR 1605.1, saying In most cases whether or not a practice or belief is religious is not at issue. However, in those cases in which the issue does exist, the Commission will define religious practices to include moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views. This standard was developed in United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965) and Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (1970). The Commission has consistently applied this standard in its decisions. The fact that no religious group espouses such beliefs or the fact that the religious group to which the individual professes to belong may not accept such belief will not determine whether the belief is a religious belief of the employee or prospective employee. The phrase “religious practice” as used in these Guidelines includes both religious observances and practices, as stated in section 701(j), 42 U.S.C. 2000e(j). The question then is what the court said in those cases that could possibly be construed as a definition of "religion". The case of Seeger, which pertains to conscientious objector status and the draft, held the following relevant points: The test of religious belief within the meaning of the exemption in §6(j) is whether it is a sincere and meaningful belief occupying in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualified for the exemption. Observe that the court does not generally define religion here, rather, it strives to interpret a clause in the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 50 U.S.C.App. § 456(j), which denies that there is a requirement to serve in the military on any person "who, by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form". The statutes more specifically says: As used in this subsection, the term "religious training and belief" does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views, or a merely personal moral code. Congress, then, also did not attempt to define "religion", rather it used that term to refer to certain undefined beliefs (it them becomes the court's job to define the term, relative to the act). Seeger also holds that Local boards and courts are to decide whether the objector's beliefs are sincerely held and whether they are, in his own scheme of things, religious; they are not to require proof of the religious doctrines, nor are they to reject beliefs because they are not comprehensible. This means that, w.r.t. the draft and the religious exemption, the basis for deciding is whether the beliefs are sincere, and whether they are in the subjects "scheme of thing" religious. I also bold the clause about not requiring proof of doctrine, since that will be an issue below. In Welsh it was held that: Section 6(j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whose conscientious objection claims are founded on a theistic belief, while not exempting those whose claims are based on a secular belief. To comport with that clause, an exemption must be "neutral" and include those whose belief emanates from a purely moral, ethical, or philosophical source. The significance of this is that the conscientious objector clause flouts the Establishment Clause by specifically giving preferential treatment to beliefs founded on a theistic belief, but not a non-theistic belief. Thus, to be consistent with the Establishment Clause, the term "religious" must be interpreted in a way that does not favor theistic vs. non-theistic beliefs. In both cases, defendants were raised religiously but were not members of a church with an officially pacifist doctrine. Quoting Welsh, the defendants neither could definitely affirm or deny that he believed in a "Supreme Being," both stating that they preferred to leave the question open. Both defendants affirmed on those applications that they held deep conscientious scruples against taking part in wars where people were killed. Both strongly believed that killing in war was wrong, unethical, and immoral, and their consciences forbade them to take part in such an evil practice. Thus, "firm belief" is the interpretation of "religious belief" w.r.t. the draft, and is relied on by the EEOC in their definition of religion. The question of whether white supremacism could be deemed a religion, w.r.t. discrimination laws, came up (and was basically avoided) in Swartentruber v. Gunite. The issue there was that the complainant had Klan tatoos, and his employer told him to cover them up. He sued the company (Gunite) for religious discrimination, to no avail. As the court summarized, he would have to show that (1) he has a sincere religious belief, observance or practice that conflicts with an employment requirement; (2) he informed his employer of the conflict; and (3) the religious practice was the basis for the adverse employment decision. His case failed for a number of reasons, but the crux of his argument was that the "Firey Cross" tattooed on his arm is one of that church's seven sacred symbols (he reports that he is "a member of the Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, a religious organization"). However, Mr. Swartzentruber does not present admissible evidence, or even contend without evidence, that being required to cover up his tattoo at work conflicts with his religious beliefs This appears to be at odds with Seeger above, because one is not required to prove that ones religion has a particular doctrine. Since Swartentruber represented himself, this could well mean nothing more than that he failed to make an appropriate assertion about his firmly held beliefs (since one is not required to show that their church has a specific doctrine). The basic reason why Swartzentruber's case failed was, simply, that his employer did in fact offer him a reasonable accommodation. Firing a person, on the other hand, is not a reasonable accommodation. Following the logic of Welsh and Seeger and being mindful of the Establishment Clause, one might well expect that an ideological firing would be a violation of the religious discrimination part of the Civil Rights Act. The belief in question would have to be firmly held, but need not be theistic. Since the matter has not been decided by SCOTUS, we cannot know how they would rule if the matter came before them. There is, at least, a clear precedential path where white supremacism could be held to be a religion. In addition, if the incident took place in Seattle, the firing would be illegal because city ordinances prohibit discrimination based on political ideology.
The employer might be liable for a discrimination claim, under the doctrine of disparate impact. See Texas Department of Housing &amp; Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc and references cited therein. The idea is that an employer can be liable absent proof of intentional discrimination when a practice disproportionately affects protected classes of individuals, and the practice is not justified by reasonable business considerations. So it would depend on why this particular state of affairs in employment came about. There is a test known as the 80% rule which attempts to quantify the notion of "under-representation" as evidence of discrimination. This test (not widely respected by the courts these days) might constitute evidence of discrimination, if a protected class is demonstrably under-represented. The current standard seems to be by comparison to random selection. In EEOC v. Sambo's of Georgia, Inc., 530 F. Supp. 86, the court found that a grooming policy had a disparate impact on members of a religion (Sikhism), and was thus contrary to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, although a requirement to shave does not obviously discriminate on the basis of religion. This points to an important element of a successful disparate impact claim, that there has to be a policy with a causal effect. In the above scenario, there is no proposed policy that has this effect. Note that the burden of proof is on the person suing for relief – they must have a theory of something the company does that causes this hiring pattern, a practice that is discriminatory. The identified policy (whatever it might be) could be justified by a business necessity defense (Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424), by showing that the practice has a demonstrable relationship to the requirements of the job. That, b.t.w., would not excuse a racially or religiously discriminatory hiring policy for a factory manufacturing menorahs or kinaras. If a company recruiting locally in Boise ID had a 75% black work force, it would be reasonable to suspect that something was up. But legally, without showing that this results from a unjustified policy of the company, mere statistically anomalous distribution is does not sustain a claim of discrimination.