Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Shimabukuro, Jon O." in: author
Clear all search criteria
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
Quarantine and Isolation: Selected Legal Issues Relating to Employment [Updated November 1, 2008]
"This report examines the employment-at-will doctrine, possible application of the public policy exception in the case of a potential influenza pandemic, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and possible application of the nondiscrimination mandates of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The report will be updated as developments warrant. […] The emergence and rapid spread of a new avian influenza virus (H5N1) and its potential for causing a human influenza pandemic have given rise to issues relating to the use of quarantine and isolation. Questions relating to employment are among the most significant issues, since, if individuals fear losing their employment or their wages, compliance with public health measures such as isolation or quarantine may suffer. Although the common law doctrine of employment-at-will, which allows an employer to terminate an employee from employment for any reason other than those prohibited by statute, is generally applicable, there is an exception to this doctrine for public policy reasons."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Shimabukuro, Jon O.; Jones, Nancy Lee
2008-11-01
-
Collective Bargaining and Homeland Security [Updated September 5, 2002]
From the Summary: "This report discusses the personnel provisions of recent proposals to create a new Department of Homeland Security. H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, has generated concern among some members of the labor community who have questioned the possible denial of collective bargaining rights for the estimated 170,000 employees affected by the homeland defense reorganization. S. 2452, the National Homeland Security and Combating Terrorism Act of 2002, would restrict the President's ability under 5 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(1) to exclude the new Department and transferred agencies from coverage under chapter 71 of title 5, U.S. Code. The President's existing authority under 5 U.S.C. § 7103(b)(1) to exclude the employees of certain agencies from the ability to bargain collectively is also discussed in this report. The report provides a legislative history of this exclusion provision. In addition, the report reviews the concept of successorship, whereby a union may retain its status as the exclusive representative of employees acquired by a new employer. Successorship could be an issue for the eighteen unions that represent employees affected by the reorganization. This report reflects legislative action up through House passage of H.R. 5005. The report will be updated as events warrant."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Shimabukuro, Jon O.
2002-09-05
-
Collective Bargaining and Homeland Security [Updated November 18, 2002]
From the Summary: "This report discusses the personnel provisions of H.R. 5710, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and the President's existing authority under 5 U.S.C. 7103(b)(1) to exclude the employees of certain agencies from the ability to bargain collectively. H.R. 5710, described as a revised version of the original White House proposal to create a new Department of Homeland Security, was passed by the House on November 13, 2002. H.R. 5710 includes language related to the President's authority under 5 U.S.C. 7103(b)(1). The report provides a legislative history of 5 U.S.C. 7103(b)(1). In addition, the report reviews the concept of successorship, whereby a union may retain its status as the exclusive representative of employees acquired by a new employer. Successorship could be an issue for the eighteen unions that represent employees affected by the reorganization."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Shimabukuro, Jon O.
2002-11-18
-
Homeland Security: Final Regulations for the Department of Homeland Security Human Resources Management System (Subpart E) Compared With Current Law [Updated February 9, 2005]
From the Summary: "On February 1, 2005, final regulations to implement a new human resources management system for the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") were published. The regulations provide for the organization of the new personnel system, describing, among other topics, the use of pay bands, how jobs will be evaluated, and how pay will be administered. In addition, subpart E of the final regulations defines the department's labor relations system. This report compares the provisions of the final regulations with similar provisions from title 5, chapter 71 of the U.S. Code. Although the collective bargaining rights for employees of DHS will be subject to the new regulations, such rights for most federal employees are otherwise governed by 5 U.S.C. chapter 71. While some of the differences involve simply a change in diction, other changes are more significant. The establishment of a Homeland Security Labor Relations Board that will perform many of the duties otherwise undertaken by the Federal Labor Relations Authority, as well as a redefining of what constitutes certain unfair labor practices are examples of these more noteworthy changes. The regulations take effect on March 3, 2005."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Shimabukuro, Jon O.
2005-02-09
-
Homeland Security and Labor-Management Relations: NTEU v. Chertoff [Updated August 14, 2006]
"The Homeland Security Act of 2002 provides the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management ("OPM") with the authority to develop a separate human resources management system for the employees of the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"). On February 1, 2005, final regulations to define and implement the new system were published in the Federal Register. Shortly after the regulations were issued, the National Treasury Employees Union ("NTEU") and several other labor organizations filed a lawsuit, alleging that DHS and OPM exceeded the authority granted to the agencies under the Homeland Security Act. On August 12, 2005, a U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia enjoined parts of the new regulations involving labor-management relations and the Merit Systems Protection Board in NTEU v. Chertoff. The district court on October 7, 2005, denied a motion by DHS and OPM to modify its injunction of labor-management relations regulations. On June 27, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed some conclusions of the district court, reversed others, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. This report examines the opinions of the district court and court of appeals."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Shimabukuro, Jon O.; Nicola, Thomas J.
2006-08-14
-
Prevailing Wage Requirements and the Emergency Suspension of the Davis-Bacon Act [September 16, 2005]
"President Bush has, by proclamation, suspended the application of the Davis-Bacon Act to all contracts to be performed in the jurisdictions in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi included in the Hurricane Katrina disaster area. This has the effect of permitting the payment of less than the locally prevailing wage on contracts entered into after September 8, 2005, for the construction or repair of public buildings and public works in the affected area. H.R. 3684 would make this type of suspension automatic for one year when a disaster is declared under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Shimabukuro, Jon O.; Luckey, John R.
2005-09-16
-
Quarantine and Isolation: Selected Legal Issues Relating to Employment [September 11, 2009]
"On June 11, in response to the global spread of a new strain of influenza, the World Health Organization (WHO) raised the level of influenza pandemic alert to phase 6, which indicates the start of an actual pandemic. This change reflects the spread of the new influenza A(H1N1) virus, not its severity. Although currently the pandemic is of moderate severity with the majority of patients experiencing mild symptoms and making a rapid and full recovery, this experience could change. Questions relating to employment are among the most significant issues raised by a pandemic since if individuals fear losing their employment or their wages, compliance with public health measures such as isolation or quarantine may suffer. Although the common law doctrine of employment-at-will, which allows an employer to terminate an employee from employment for any reason other than those prohibited by statute, is generally applicable, there is an exception to this doctrine for public policy reasons. This report will examine the employmentat- will doctrine, possible application of the public policy exception in the case of a potential influenza pandemic, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and possible application of the nondiscrimination mandates of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Shimabukuro, Jon O.; Jones, Nancy Lee
2009-09-11
-
Quarantine and Isolation: Selected Legal Issues Relating to Employment [May 11, 2009]
"Recent human cases of infection with a novel influenza A (H1N1) virus have been identified both internationally and in the United States. There has been human to human transmission and the new virus has the potential to become pandemic. The emergence of this virus, in addition to other potential pandemic threats such as the avian influenza A (H5N1) virus, has given rise to issues relating to the use of quarantine and isolation. Questions relating to employment are among the most significant issues since if individuals fear losing their employment or their wages, compliance with public health measures such as isolation or quarantine may suffer. Although the common law doctrine of employment-at-will, which allows an employer to terminate an employee from employment for any reason other than those prohibited by statute, is generally applicable, there is an exception to this doctrine for public policy reasons. This report will examine the employment-at-will doctrine, possible application of the public policy exception in the case of a potential influenza pandemic, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and possible application of the nondiscrimination mandates of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Shimabukuro, Jon O.; Jones, Nancy Lee
2009-05-11
-
Survey of Federal Whistleblower and Anti-Retaliation Laws [April 22, 2013]
"This report provides an overview of federal whistleblower and anti-retaliation laws. In general, these laws protect employees who report misconduct by their employers or who engage in various protected activities, such as participating in an investigation or filing a complaint. In recent years, Congress has expanded employee protections for a variety of private-sector workers. Eleven of the forty laws reviewed in this report were enacted after 1999. Among these laws are the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The report focuses on key aspects of the federal whistleblower and anti-retaliation laws. For each law, the report summarizes the activities that are protected, how the law's protections are enforced, whether the law provides a private right of action, the remedies prescribed by the law, and the year the law's whistleblower or anti-retaliation provisions were adopted and amended. With regard to amendment dates, the report identifies only dates associated with substantive amendments. For enactments after 2001, the report provides information on congressional sponsorship and votes."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Shimabukuro, Jon O.; Whitaker, L. Paige; Roberts, Emily E.
2013-04-22
-
Ebola: Selected Legal Issues [December 16, 2014]
"Several West African countries are currently grappling with an unprecedented outbreak of Ebola virus disease (EVD). Here in the United States, where Ebola is not endemic, a handful of EVD cases have been diagnosed, and domestic transmission of the virus has occurred in only two cases to date. This report provides a brief overview of selected legal issues regarding measures to prevent transmission of Ebola virus and the civil rights of individuals affected by the disease. Quarantine and isolation are restrictions on a person's movement, imposed to prevent the spread of contagious disease. The federal government has jurisdiction over interstate and border quarantine, carried out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). However, primary quarantine authority typically resides with state health departments and health officials. Every state has the authority to pass and enforce quarantine laws as an exercise of its police powers, but these laws may vary widely by state. State and federal quarantine or isolation orders may be subject to suits alleging inadequate due process or violations of equal protection, but modern legal challenges to quarantine and isolation orders are not extensive. […] The use of these measures to contain the spread of Ebola may raise a classic civil rights issue: to what extent can an individual's liberty be curtailed to advance the common good? In addition to the constitutional issues noted above, discrimination against individuals with an infectious disease may be covered by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA). While quarantine and isolation effectively minimize Ebola exposure, they may also raise various employment concerns, particularly for those workers who fear losing their jobs or wages if they are forced to comply with a quarantine or isolation order. Infected workers may also be protected under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) if it can be established that they have a serious health condition, and employers whose employees could face workplace exposure to Ebola virus may be obligated to comply with applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Cole, Jared P.; Perry, Rodney M.; Dolan, Alissa M. . . .
2014-12-16
-
Quarantine and Isolation: Selected Legal Issues Relating to Employment [Updated April 30, 2008]
"The emergence and rapid spread of a new avian influenza virus (H5N1) and its potential for causing a human influenza pandemic have given rise to issues relating to the use of quarantine and isolation. Questions relating to employment are among the most significant issues, since, if individuals fear losing their employment or their wages, compliance with public health measures such as isolation or quarantine may suffer. Although the common law doctrine of employment-at-will, which allows an employer to terminate an employee from employment for any reason other than those prohibited by statute, is generally applicable, there is an exception to this doctrine for public policy reasons. This report examines the employment-at-will doctrine, possible application of the public policy exception in the case of a potential influenza pandemic, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and possible application of the nondiscrimination mandates of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The report will be updated as developments warrant."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Jones, Nancy Lee; Shimabukuro, Jon O.
2008-04-30
-
Abortion: Judicial History and Legislative Response [January 24, 2014]
"In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in 'Roe v. Wade' that the U.S. Constitution protects a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy. In 'Doe v. Bolton', a companion decision, the Court found that a state may not unduly burden the exercise of that fundamental right with regulations that prohibit or substantially limit access to the means of effectuating the decision to have an abortion. Rather than settle the issue, the Court's rulings since 'Roe and Doe' have continued to generate debate and have precipitated a variety of governmental actions at the national, state, and local levels designed either to nullify the rulings or limit their effect. These governmental regulations have, in turn, spawned further litigation in which resulting judicial refinements in the law have been no more successful in dampening the controversy. […] The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA or PPACA), enacted on March 23, 2010, includes provisions that address the coverage of abortion services by qualified health plans that will be available through health benefit exchanges beginning in 2014. ACA's abortion provisions have been controversial, particularly with regard to the use of premium tax credits or cost-sharing subsidies to obtain health coverage that includes coverage for elective or non-therapeutic abortion services. Under ACA, individuals who receive a premium tax credit or cost-sharing subsidy will be permitted to select a qualified health plan that includes coverage for elective abortions, subject to funding segregation requirements that will be imposed on both the plan issuer and the enrollees in such a plan."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Shimabukuro, Jon O.
2014-01-24
-
Abortion: Judicial History and Legislative Response [January 23, 2015]
"In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in Roe v. Wade that the U.S. Constitution protects a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy. In Doe v. Bolton, a companion decision, the Court found that a state may not unduly burden the exercise of that fundamental right with regulations that prohibit or substantially limit access to the means of effectuating the decision to have an abortion. Rather than settle the issue, the Court's rulings since Roe and Doe have continued to generate debate and have precipitated a variety of governmental actions at the national, state, and local levels designed either to nullify the rulings or limit their effect. These governmental regulations have, in turn, spawned further litigation in which resulting judicial refinements in the law have been no more successful in dampening the controversy. […] The debate over abortion continued in the context of health reform. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), enacted on March 23, 2010, includes provisions that address the coverage of abortion services by qualified health plans that are available through health benefit exchanges. The ACA's abortion provisions have been controversial, particularly with regard to the use of premium tax credits or cost-sharing subsidies to obtain health coverage that includes coverage for elective or non-therapeutic abortion services. Under the ACA, individuals who receive a premium tax credit or cost-sharing subsidy are permitted to select a qualified health plan that includes coverage for elective abortions, subject to funding segregation requirements that are imposed on both the plan issuer and the enrollees in such a plan."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Shimabukuro, Jon O.
2015-01-23
-
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB): A Legal Overview [March 25, 2019]
From the Document: "The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or Board) is a quasi-judicial independent agency in the executive branch charged with protecting federal employees against improper employmentrelated actions. The Board works to ensure, for example, that federal agencies avoid taking arbitrary action against employees, exhibiting favoritism, or engaging in reprisals against whistleblowers. The MSPB also aims to promote an effective federal workforce free of certain types of discrimination and other prohibited personnel practices. While the Board mainly carries out its mission through adjudication of federal employment-related disputes, it also performs specified oversight functions related to federal employment, including conducting special studies of the civil service and other executive branch merit systems."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Shimabukuro, Jon O.; Staman, Jennifer A.
2019-03-25
-
Categories of Federal Civil Service Employment: A Snapshot [March 26, 2019]
From the Document: "The federal government is the nation's largest employer, with over two million workers employed in the United States, U.S. Territories, and foreign countries. A majority of these employees work in the competitive service of the executive branch. Applicants for competitive service positions compete with other applicants and are evaluated according to objective standards. The executive branch includes two other service classifications--the excepted service and the Senior Executive Service (SES)--with hiring and removal standards that diverge from those prescribed for the competitive service. Positions in the excepted service are specifically excepted from the competitive service by statute, by the President, or by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). SES positions are also not in the competitive service. The SES includes senior managerial, supervisory, and policy positions that are subject to a different pay scale, as well as different hiring and removal standards. This report examines the three service classifications, and reviews some of the central features and notable differences among these classifications."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Shimabukuro, Jon O.; Staman, Jennifer A.
2019-03-26
-
Abortion, Justice Kennedy, and Judge Kavanaugh [August 8, 2018]
"In 1992, nearly 20 years after it concluded in Roe v. Wade that the Constitution protects a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy, the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey adopted a new standard for reviewing the constitutionality of abortion regulations. Under this new standard, announced in a joint opinion written by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter, a reviewing court must consider whether an abortion regulation imposes an 'undue burden' on a woman's ability to have an abortion before fetal viability, the gestational point when a fetus is able to live outside the mother's womb with or without artificial assistance. In the years that have followed, the Court has applied and further explained the undue burden standard in several subsequent cases. With the recent retirement of the last remaining Justice on the Court from the Casey plurality, questions have arisen about the future of the Court's abortion jurisprudence."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Shimabukuro, Jon O.
2018-08-08
-
Equal Rights Amendment: Close to Adoption? [July 2, 2018]
"Illinois' recent ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the U.S. Constitution has revived questions about the potential for the amendment to be adopted. First presented to the states in 1972, the ERA provides that '[e]quality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex.' 37 states have now ratified the ERA, and some supporters of the amendment maintain that ratification by just one additional state could result in its adoption. After ratification by one more state, the ERA will have been ratified by three-fourths of the states, as required by Article V of the Constitution. Whether the ERA can be so adopted, however, is not entirely certain. Questions concerning the expiration of Congress's original ratification deadline without approval by three-fourths of the states, and the rescission of ratifications by five states between 1973 and 1978, would likely have to be addressed before the ERA would be formally adopted."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Shimabukuro, Jon O.
2018-07-02
-
NLRB Rejects Former Standards Following Appointment of New Members [January 18, 2018]
"With two new members appointed by President Trump, a newly constituted National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) issued a series of significant decisions in the waning days of 2017. These decisions overturned several rulings issued during the Obama Administration that were heavily criticized by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others in the business community. Two NRLB decisions in particular - 'Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, Ltd.' and 'PCC Structurals, Inc.' - are notable because they reversed earlier rulings, which had prompted the introduction of legislation in the 115th Congress - the Save Local Business Act (H.R. 3441) and the Representation Fairness Restoration Act (S. 1217/H.R. 2629) - aimed at wiping out the Obama-era rulings. In light of these recent decisions, proponents of the bills could conclude that further consideration of the measures is not needed. However, because the bills would prescribe additional standards beyond what was addressed by the Board, some might contend that enactment of the legislation is still warranted."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Shimabukuro, Jon O.
2018-01-18
-
Fetal Viability and Judge Amy Coney Barrett [October 16, 2020]
From the Document: "The Supreme Court nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett has prompted greater scrutiny of her judicial opinions, academic writing, and statements to discern how she might decide future cases if she were confirmed to the High Court. With cases involving the Affordable Care Act, the First Amendment, and civil rights on the Court's docket in its current term, Judge Barrett's views on these subjects are being carefully reviewed. Commentators are also examining Judge Barrett's background and writing to try to gauge her views on the Court's seminal 1973 abortion decision, 'Roe v. Wade'. Although the Supreme Court's docket does not include any cases involving abortion at the moment, the Court is considering whether to review 'Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization'. 'Dobbs' implicates one of 'Roe's' 'essential holdings': that a state may not completely prohibit abortion before fetal viability, a point in fetal development when a fetus is able to live outside of the mother's womb with or without artificial assistance. Judge Barrett joined a dissenting opinion in a 2018 case involving an Indiana law that would have restricted abortions based on fetal characteristics such as sex or a Down syndrome diagnosis. While joining a judicial opinion authored by another judge does not necessarily reflect full agreement with the underlying opinion, it may grant some insight into Judge Barrett's views. This Sidebar examines that 2018 dissent and discusses 'Dobbs' as it awaits further consideration by the Court."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Shimabukuro, Jon O.
2020-10-16
-
Unemployment Compensation (UC): Issues Related to Drug Testing [Updated November 4, 2019]
From the Document: "Recent interest in Unemployment Compensation (UC) drug testing has grown at both the federal and state levels. The policy interest in mandatory drug testing of individuals who are applying for or receiving UC benefits parallels two larger policy trends. First, some state legislatures have considered drug testing individuals receiving public assistance benefits. While UC is generally considered social insurance (rather than public assistance), the concept of drug testing UC recipients (who are receiving state-financed benefits from a program authorized under state laws) could be interpreted as a potential extension of this state-level interest. Second, over recent years, Congress has considered issues related to UC program integrity, including drug testing, which may be viewed as addressing UC program integrity concerns. [...] Some stakeholders also expressed concern that expanded UC drug testing could create barriers to UC benefit receipt among eligible individuals and discourage UC claims filing. Stakeholders have also raised at least two legal concerns with the new final UC drug testing rule: (1) some commenters have argued that the new final rule may violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and (2) some commenters have argued that the new final rule improperly delegates authority to the states to identify occupations that regularly conduct drug testing. Other policy issues to consider related to expanding UC drug testing include administrative concerns, such as state establishment of a drug testing program for UC claimants as well as the potential provision of and funding for drug treatment services."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Isaacs, Katelin P., 1980-; Carpenter, David Hatcher; Whittaker, Julie M. . . .
2019-11-04
-
Court Invalidates Louisiana Admitting Privileges Law [July 13, 2020]
From the Document: "In a recent decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that required physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the location where the procedure is performed. In 'June Medical Services v. Russo', a majority of the Court concluded that the law imposed an undue burden on a woman's ability to obtain the procedure. Justice Breyer authored an opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, that relied heavily on 'Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt'--the Court's 2016 decision that invalidated Texas's admitting privileges law. Justice Breyer maintained that the laws being reviewed in 'June Medical Services and Whole Woman's Health' were 'nearly identical' and that the Louisiana law 'must consequently reach a similar conclusion.' In a separate opinion, Chief Justice Roberts concurred in the judgment, emphasizing that the legal doctrine of stare decisis required 'June Medical Services' to be decided like 'Whole Woman's Health'. At the same time, however, the Chief Justice reiterated his belief that 'Whole Woman's Health' was wrongly decided and criticized how the undue burden standard used to evaluate abortion regulations was applied in both cases."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Shimabukuro, Jon O.
2020-07-13
-
Equal Rights Amendment: Close to Adoption? [Updated November 13, 2019]
From the Document: "The recent election of Democratic majorities in both chambers of the Virginia legislature has prompted new discussion of the state ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the U.S. Constitution when it convenes in January. In 2018, efforts to ratify the amendment were narrowly defeated in the state House and Senate. First presented to the states in 1972, the ERA provides that '[e]quality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex.' 37 states have now ratified the ERA, and some supporters of the amendment maintain that ratification by just one additional state could result in its adoption. After ratification by one more state, the ERA will have been ratified by three-fourths of the states, as required by Article V of the Constitution. Whether the ERA can be so adopted, however, is not entirely certain. Questions concerning the expiration of Congress's original ratification deadline without approval by three-fourths of the states, and the rescission of ratifications by five states between 1973 and 1978, would likely have to be addressed before the ERA would be formally adopted."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Shimabukuro, Jon O.
2019-11-13
-
COVID-19 and Federal Employment Protections for Work Refusals [Updated May 20, 2020]
From the Document: "The easing of stay-at-home orders in most states has prompted both the reopening of businesses and concern among employees who fear exposure to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the workplace. Fifty-one percent of the respondents in a recent survey of employees forced to stop working or work remotely because of the virus said that fear of getting sick at work would prevent their return. While federal labor and employment laws do not generally require an employer to retain an employee who fears returning to work, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) may provide some protections for employees who are reluctant to return to work because of possible exposure to COVID-19."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Shimabukuro, Jon O.
2020-05-20
-
Families First Coronavirus Response Act Leave Provisions [April 2, 2020]
From the Document: "This In Focus examines the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA; P.L. 116-127) leave provisions, as amended by the CARES [Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and. Economic Security] Act (P.L. 116-136), and regulations published by the Department of Labor (DOL) on April 1, 2020. The FFCRA created two new and temporary leave benefits for eligible employees: (1) emergency Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave to care for the employee's minor child whose school or place of care is closed, or whose care provider is unavailable due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency (such leave is paid leave after an initial 10 days of unpaid leave), and (2) paid sick leave for certain COVID-19 related needs. The FFCRA included tax credit provisions to help employers (including the self-employed) cover costs related to paid leave. Both paid leave benefits took effect on April 1, 2020, and apply to leave between April 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Donovan, Sarah A.; Shimabukuro, Jon O.
2020-04-02
-
Families First Coronavirus Response Act: Federal Employee Leave [April 24, 2020]
From the Document: "The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA; P.L. 116-127) established two types of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) related leave for employees: [1] Division C of the FFCRA, titled the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (EFMLEA), amended the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to make FMLA leave available to an employee unable to work or telework because a child's school or place of care is closed or a childcare provider is unavailable for COVID-19-related reasons. The first 10 days of this new emergency FMLA leave may be unpaid leave, but an employer must provide paid leave, up to a possible 10 weeks, for leave taken after 10 days. [2] Division E of the FFCRA, titled the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (EPSLA), requires employers to provide paid sick time to an employee unable to work or telework for specified COVID-19-related reasons, such as being subject to a quarantine or isolation order. Although the paid sick time provided by the EPSLA is available for most federal employees, emergency FMLA leave is available only for certain federal employees. This In Focus explores the differences in federal employee coverage under the EFMLEA and the EPSLA, and discusses how the EFMLEA's amendment of the FMLA created coverage for only a subset of federal employees."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Donovan, Sarah A.; Shimabukuro, Jon O.
2020-04-24
-
Congressional Responses to Selected Work Stoppages in Professional Sports [August 11, 2011]
"Prior to the 2011 National Football League (NFL) lockout, developments in professional football's labor-management relations had prompted questions regarding how, when, and in what manner a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) might be drafted. Interest in this matter included, on the part of some observers, questions about how Congress responded to previous work stoppages in professional sports. In attempting to address this particular question, this report examines congressional responses to the 1982 and 1987 work stoppages in the NFL. With the conclusion of the 2011 NFL lockout in July, this work stoppage is also included. Additionally, this report examines the 1994 Major League Baseball strike, which is useful considering the extent of congressional activity surrounding this strike. Compared to the 1994 baseball strike, the 1982 and 1987 football strikes and the 2011 lockout did not garner much attention from Congress in terms of legislative measures and hearings. Three legislative measures were introduced in response to the 1982 strike; one each was introduced in response to the 1987 strike and the 2011 lockout. Members introduced or offered 22 legislative measures and held five hearings that were related to the baseball strike. […] Disagreeing that congressional intervention was warranted, other Members offered several reasons why Congress ought not to intervene. For example, one Member suggested that repealing baseball's antitrust exemption would alter the balance of power in professional baseball. Other Members believed that more pressing matters deserved Congress's attention. At least one Member suggested that a particular bill, if enacted, would have the effect of favoring the players over the owners."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Halchin, L. Elaine; Murray, Justin; Shimabukuro, Jon O.
2011-08-11
-
Congressional Responses to Selected Work Stoppages in Professional Sports [September 17, 2012]
"Prior to the 2011 National Football League (NFL) lockout, developments in professional football's labor-management relations had prompted questions regarding how, when, and in what manner a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) might be drafted. Interest in this matter included, on the part of some observers, questions about how Congress responded to previous work stoppages in professional sports. In attempting to address this particular question, this report examines congressional responses to the 1982 and 1987 work stoppages in the NFL. With the conclusion of the 2011 NFL lockout in July, this work stoppage is also included. Additionally, this report examines the 1994 Major League Baseball strike, which is useful considering the extent of congressional activity surrounding this strike."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Halchin, L. Elaine; Murray, Justin; Shimabukuro, Jon O.
2012-09-17
-
Abortion: Judicial History and Legislative Response [September 16, 2015]
"In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in Roe v. Wade that the U.S. Constitution protects a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy. In Doe v. Bolton, a companion decision, the Court found that a state may not unduly burden the exercise of that fundamental right with regulations that prohibit or substantially limit access to the means of effectuating the decision to have an abortion. Rather than settle the issue, the Court's rulings since Roe and Doe have continued to generate debate and have precipitated a variety of governmental actions at the national, state, and local levels designed either to nullify the rulings or limit their effect. These governmental regulations have, in turn, spawned further litigation in which resulting judicial refinements in the law have been no more successful in dampening the controversy. […] The debate over abortion continued in the context of health reform. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), enacted on March 23, 2010, includes provisions that address the coverage of abortion services by qualified health plans that are available through health benefit exchanges. The ACA's abortion provisions have been controversial, particularly with regard to the use of premium tax credits or cost-sharing subsidies to obtain health coverage that includes coverage for elective or non-therapeutic abortion services. Under the ACA, individuals who receive a premium tax credit or cost-sharing subsidy are permitted to select a qualified health plan that includes coverage for elective abortions, subject to funding segregation requirements that are imposed on both the plan issuer and the enrollees in such a plan."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Shimabukuro, Jon O.
2015-09-16
-
VA Accountability Act of 2015 (H.R. 1994), as Reported to the House [July 27, 2015]
"This report describes the VA Accountability Act of 2015 (H.R. 1994) as reported to the House by the Committee on Veterans Affairs on July 23, 2015, and compares it to current law where appropriate. A press account has reported that Chairman Jeff Miller may meet with all committee members to seek views of the minority before floor action. As a result of this meeting, it is possible that the final bill that will go to the House floor may have some provisions that differ from those that the Committee reported. This report provides a section-by-section description of the act: Section 1 is the short title, 'VA Accountability Act of 2015.' Section 2 would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to expedite removing or demoting most employees for misconduct. Section 3 would require an individual appointed (1) to a permanent position in the competitive service or (2) as a career appointee in the Senior Executive Service (SES) to serve an 18-month probationary period before the appointment would become final. Section 4 would establish a process for handling whistleblower complaints. Section 5 would establish specific requirements for VA's senior executive performance appraisal system and would require the Secretary of the VA to reassign senior executives to a new position at least every five years. It would also require a review of, and a plan for improvements to, the current management training program for senior executives. […] Section 10 would require the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study on the amount of time department employees spent in carrying out organizing activities related to labor organizations and the amount of space in department facilities used for such activities."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Nicola, Thomas J.; Carey, Maeve P.; Isaacs, Katelin P., 1980- . . .
2015-07-27
-
Abortion: Judicial History and Legislative Response [March 24, 2014]
"In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in 'Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)', that the U.S. Constitution protects a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy. In 'Doe v. Bolton', 410 U.S. 179 (1973), a companion decision, the Court found that a state may not unduly burden the exercise of that fundamental right with regulations that prohibit or substantially limit access to the means of effectuating the decision to have an abortion. Rather than settle the issue, the Court's rulings since 'Roe' and 'Doe' have continued to generate debate and have precipitated a variety of governmental actions at the national, state, and local levels designed either to nullify the rulings or limit their effect. These governmental regulations have, in turn, spawned further litigation in which resulting judicial refinements in the law have been no more successful in dampening the controversy. Although the primary focus of this report is legislative action with respect to abortion, discussion of the various legislative proposals necessarily involves an examination of the leading Supreme Court decisions concerning a woman's right to choose."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Shimabukuro, Jon O.
2014-03-24
