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.

Over the past 30 years, the labor movement in the United States has steadily declined. Union membership rates have plummeted from 20.1 percent to just 11.3 percent. With membership at historic lows, unions are turning to new organizing strategies in an attempt to stay relevant to the working class.

Autumn is upon us. In Washington, that means we are busy savoring our pumpkin spice lattes and enjoying the last few days of sunshine. This is also the time of year when some of us carve pumpkins and tell scary stories as the Halloween holiday approaches. To celebrate the season, we bring you this light-hearted update on cases sure to strike fear in the heart of unions and employers. Read on if you dare!

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) governs how employers may acquire and use employee genetic information. Since GINA became effective in 2009, there has been little enforcement of GINA and therefore little guidance on employer responsibilities under GINA. In May, however, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) began actively enforcing GINA. The EEOC’s recent enforcement activity serves as a reminder that employers must proactively ensure that their practices comply with GINA.

Employers who lately have felt under siege by federal and state enforcement agencies can take comfort in two recent decisions by the United States Supreme Court. In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, a narrow Court majority held retaliation claims under Title VII to a stricter standard of proof than standard discrimination claims. In Vance v. Ball State University, the same majority narrowly defined “supervisor” for purposes of establishing an employer’s vicarious, or strict, liability for harassment. Both decisions will make it more difficult for employees to establish claims of employment discrimination under federal law.

The U. S. Supreme Court’s June 26, 2013 ruling in United States v. Windsor that invalidated section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will require employers to take action now to ensure compliance with various federal employment laws. Unfortunately, the decision also raises questions regarding the scope of the Supreme Court’s decision, and how federal agencies will react to the court’s ruling.