The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) may require employers to allow disabled employees well more than six months of unpaid leave as a reasonable accommodation, according to a federal district court in western Washington. There is no doubt that unpaid leave beyond the three months guaranteed by the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) can be a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. But the district court’s October 23 decision in Casteel v. Charter Commc’ns. Inc. suggests that such a reasonable accommodation might include unpaid leave of surprising length.

When employees take leave to care for their own or a family member’s serious medical condition, they are often entitled to the protection of the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA” or “Act”). But what if an FMLA-eligible employee expressly declines to use FMLA leave? The Ninth Circuit recently answered that question in Escriba v. Foster Farms Poultry, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236 (9th Cir. 2014) and held that employees are free to decline FMLA leave, but if they do so they are not entitled to the protections of the Act.

This summer has been one of the warmest and sunniest in recent memory. But while the rest of the Northwest has been enjoying the weather, local courts have been busy deciding employment law issues. So as summer turns to fall, we reflect on four noteworthy cases decided by Washington courts and the Ninth Circuit.

Washington courts have long recognized that employee handbook provisions may form the basis for unilateral contracts between employers and employees. The Washington Supreme Court’s recent decision in Storti v. Univ. of Wash., No. 88323-8, 2014 Wash. LEXIS 570 (2014) serves as an important reminder for employers to pay close attention when drafting employee handbooks, and also offers valuable guidance on how, if necessary, employers can preserve the right to modify handbook language construed as a promise.

Arbitration provides an alternative to the expense of formal litigation, but in January 2012, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) appeared to limit the efficacy of employment arbitration agreements when it held that arbitration agreements containing class-action waivers violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). D.R. Horton Inc. & Cuda, 357 N.L.R.B. No. 184 (2012). In labor and employment litigation, class-action lawsuits give employees tremendous leverage by exponentially increasing the risk of employer liability and the cost of litigation.

The Washington Supreme Court recently announced that the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) requires employers to accommodate employees’ religious beliefs. The Court’s recent decision in Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc. marked the first time Washington’s high court has directly considered whether the WLAD requires employers to make religious accommodations. The Court’s May 22, 2014 ruling is a significant change for employers because it overturned a 2012 court of appeals decision, which had held that the WLAD imposed no such duty.

As it enters the last half of its second term in office, the Obama administration is ramping up its enforcement and regulatory efforts in key areas affecting employers. You will need to monitor these efforts in the coming years, and you should expect these changes to impact how you manage your employees in the future.

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) is once again racing down the road of major regulation changes regarding union organizing/representation election cases. Continuing political efforts to help the Labor movement slow the downslide of union representation in America, the Obama Board in February 2014 reissued its controversial 2011 regulation changes. Those regulations had been overturned by federal court decisions in 2012-2013 related to administrative procedure errors by the Board.

In February, the Washington Supreme Court issued a landmark decision limiting the scope of the non-profit religious organization exemption from the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). The Court, in Ockletree v. Franciscan Health Sys., held that the exclusion of non-profit religious organizations from the definition of “employer” was unconstitutional as applied to discrimination that was unrelated to the organization’s religious purpose.

Since its issuance in 2012, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC” or “Commission”) guidance on the use of criminal records in hiring has been a source of confusion and criticism from employers and the legal community alike. In 2013, the attorneys general of nine states sent a letter to the Commission challenging the EEOC guidance and urging it to withdraw two lawsuits it had initiated enforcing its stance against two employers’ use of bright-line criminal background checks in the hiring process. In direct response to the attorneys generals’ challenge, the Commission recently issued additional informal guidance providing further clarification of what it views as an employer’s legal obligation when using criminal history information to make hiring decisions.

Immigration reform has been on the government’s radar for some time, and 2014 promises to be no different. Over the past four years, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has audited the I-9 employment records of over 10,000 employers and imposed more than $100 million in fines. In September 2013, ICE notified another 1,000 employers that it would be conducting I-9 compliance and worksite enforcement audits. This new wave of “silent raids” is the largest round of I-9 inspections since 2009.

For many employers, the company holiday party is as ubiquitous as the holidays themselves. Many organizations are privy to holiday party legends—some good, some bad. As the holiday season unfolds, companies throughout the Puget Sound region are once again preparing to celebrate the season with their employees. If alcohol is part of your company’s holiday celebration, you could be at risk for more than just a hangover.