With decentralized workplace laws creating a web of intersectingfederal, state and local requirements, managing workplace issueshas never been more complex. Moreover, legislative and regulatorydevelopments could contribute even more to the complexity in2008.

One area of federal concern is caregiving. While the traditionalconcept involves child care, these responsibilities increasinglyinclude caring for the elderly and the disabled--responsibilitiesthat continue to fall predominantly to women.

State and federal recognition of this trend has resulted in aproliferation of laws charging employers with balancing employeework obligations and family responsibilities.

In perhaps the most significant development at the federallevel, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released acomprehensive statement of its position in May 2007--in anenforcement guidance memorandum of legal obligations to workerswith caregiving responsibilities.

The EEOC stated its view that the dichotomy between fulfillingcaregiving responsibilities and professional obligations in theworkplace often result in a "maternal wall." This "wall" limitsemployment opportunities for some workers because of the perceptionthat a caregiver is more committed to caregiving than to thejob.

The EEOC also recognized the potential for discriminationagainst caregiving males--based on the perception that men arepoorly suited to caregiving. The result has been the denial ofparental leave and other benefits routinely given to women.

The memorandum made it clear that actions premised upon suchstereotypes violate federal anti-discrimination laws, even when anemployer acts upon these stereotypes unconsciously, or withperceived fair treatment.

The ramifications of the EEOC's position for employers areendless. In fact, there exists a very real possibility in 2008 ofincreased class-action litigation premised upon both disparateimpact and disparate treatment theories of proof.

Similarly, employers should be aware of the potential for anincrease in the number of retaliation claims, since the newstandards for retaliation--based on the U.S. Supreme Court's 2006"plaintiff-friendly" ruling in Burlington Northern vs. White--giveworkers a cause of action whenever a reasonable person would findan employment action materially adverse.

For example, schedule changes that might mean little to oneemployee could have an enormous impact on an employee withcaregiving responsibilities.

What's more, election-year politics in 2008 are apt to set inmotion the passage, and enactment, of more federal measures aimedat regulating the workplace.

The ultimate resolution of many of these issues, however, is farfrom predictable, given the divergent views within Congress.

The increasing role of employer advocates and employee interestgroups in formulating legislative policy is also a factor. Thesecompeting interests are most evident in anti-discriminationlaw.

A few key pending measures are:

o The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would legislatively reversethe Supreme Court's five-to-four ruling earlier this year inLedbetter vs. Goodyear Tire Rubber Company.

The measure would effectively eliminate the statute oflimitations from any type of Title VII claims linked tocompensation. It would restart the "clock" each time an individualreceives some form of compensation that arguably reflects adiscriminatory payroll decision.

o The proposed Employment Nondiscrimination Act has generatedsubstantial agreement within the U.S. Congress that the bill shouldextend Title VII's protections to an employee's sexual orientation.There is also disagreement as to whether Title VII should extend togender identity issues.

As these concerns percolate at the federal level, employers willbe subject to a patchwork quilt of state and localanti-discrimination measures related to sexual orientation andgender identity.

o Caps at risk? Finally, and perhaps most significant toemployers, is talk by some Democrats of introducing a bill torepeal existing caps on punitive damages and compensatorydamages--currently set at $300,000 for large employers. The capsexist in the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to curb an employer'spotential liability in workplace bias lawsuits.

And so, while 2007 was relatively quiet in terms of federallegislation coming to fruition, the stage is set for potentialchanges that could dramatically affect workplace laws in 2008.