Tag archives: Employer liability

Germany: COVID-19-vaccination and employment law

In Germany, employers are obliged to take all necessary measures, including those to protect against infection (such as offering working from home, increased hygiene protections, social distancing and behavior) and offering voluntary company vaccination programs, in order to protect the health and safety of the workers in the company and to fulfil their obligations under occupational health and safety law. The newly developed vaccines are offering some hope in turning the tide in the fight against COVID-19. The Federal Labor Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht – BAG) had already provided guidance to employers on their obligations and liability in connection with employer-initiated … Continue Reading

Texas’ new open carry law

Effective January 1, 2016, licensed Texas residents are permitted to openly carry a handgun. Specifically, the new law authorizes individuals to obtain a license to openly carry a handgun in a shoulder or hip holster, but it continues to prohibit any weapons in 9 specific locations including schools, polling places, courts and court offices, secured airport areas and high school, college and professional sports events.  While Texas’s new open carry law has received extensive media coverage, it should be pointed out that 44 states already allow the open carry of a handgun, to varying degrees and with various requirements.

By … Continue Reading

Treating employees fairly: “acquiescing” in discriminatory practices could result in employer liability

This article was written by Kelly Armstrong, a Candidate Attorney at Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa

A decision recently handed down by the Labour Appeal Court finds that, even where an employer does not itself have a policy or practice which discriminates against an employee, if the employer is associated with another entity which does have such a discriminatory policy or practice affecting its employees, the employer may be liable if it does nothing and “acquiesces” in such discrimination.

In this case, an employee was dismissed after she was refused entry into her place of work by the employer’s landlord … Continue Reading

LexBlog