A recent $93.6 million verdict from an Oregon jury has the potential to bankrupt a union that some describe as one of the strongest and most militant in the United States—the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU).
A New York federal judge just struck down a rule that was about to permit the government to withhold federal funds from healthcare providers that don’t allow workers to refuse to perform procedures because they violate their religious beliefs or conscience. Judge Paul Engelmayer’s 147-page ruling, handed down yesterday, has led to heated reactions and spin from both sides of the controversy. However, the decision may not have a big effect on the daily operations of healthcare institutions and employees who want to be excused from participating in certain procedures. Similar laws and accreditation requirements remain in effect.
A California appellate court just held that mandatory service charges added by banquet facilities to their contracts may need to be paid to banquet service employees essentially as a form of a gratuity. The October 31, 2019 decision changes up what some considered to be a settled area of law and may require you to immediately adjust your pay practices in order to get into compliance.
The iconic sports movie, Major League, premiered 30 years ago. Three decades later, nearly everyone remembers the classic comedic scenes with characters such as Ricky “Wild Thing” Vaughn (Charlie Sheen), Jake Taylor (Tom Berenger), Willie Mayes Hayes (Wesley Snipes), and Pedro Cerrano (Dennis Haysbert).
Despite his predecessor vetoing two similar proposals, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill into law on October 10, 2019 that will prohibit employers from entering into mandatory arbitration agreements for nearly all types of employment law claims in California. The new law could have significant impacts on California employers across all industries – if it ever goes into effect. There are significant questions around whether the new statute is invalid. We could see it scaled back or completely tossed out before ever being enforced based on an argument that it is preempted by federal law. Legal challenges are inevitable, and will likely require years of litigation before a final resolution. In the meantime, what do California employers need to know about this development?
First-year Governor Gavin Newsom signed some significant pieces of legislation in recent days that will impact employers across California – ranging from a ban on mandatory arbitration agreements, to a complete rewrite to the rules for the use of independent contractors, to a general prohibition on “no-rehire” clauses in settlement agreements. This legal alert highlights the top employment legislation signed into law, including several signed in the last few days leading up to yesterday’s deadline for bills to be signed or vetoed. It also includes links to much deeper dives into these specific measures. California employers will want to read each of these articles closely.
A federal appeals court just ruled an employee for a cannabis business could bring a claim for federal wage and hour violations against his employer despite the fact that another federal law continues to criminalize the drug. The September 20, 2019 ruling from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals washes away a defense that other businesses have tried to use to their benefit. The ruling only directly applies to cannabis-related employers in Colorado, Kansas, and other nearby states. However, all employers in this field should pay attention to this decision as it may soon apply to you.
The suspense is over – the Department of Labor just this morning announced the revised Overtime Rule, which will set the minimum salary threshold for the Fair Labor Standard Act’s white-collar exemptions at $684 per week, or $35,568 per year. The rule, which will expand overtime pay obligations to an estimated 1.3 million additional workers, will take effect on January 1, 2020. What do you need to know about this breaking news?
The National Labor Relations Board took the latest step in the long-simmering debate over whether college teaching and research assistants could unionize when it released a proposed rule on Friday that would once again block such efforts. Declaring that university students should not qualify as employees under federal labor law, the Board took the first step to reverse a 2016 ruling by the Obama-era NLRB that opened the door for certain graduate and undergraduate students to form unions. The proposed rule still has a way to go before it is finalized and adopted, but you will want to familiarize yourself with this development to the extent it may soon upend the current state of the law and your campus practices.
With his signature on AB 5 on September 18, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom has completed the year-long overhaul of the state’s independent contractor test. What was once governed by a balancing test that provided breathing room for businesses to deploy contractors with relative ease has now been transformed into a bright-line standard that will challenge businesses across the state when it comes to compliance. Companies will soon face an increased risk of misclassification claims from workers unless they take immediate steps to get in line with the new law.
The California Supreme Court recently handed down an intriguing decision which casts doubt on – and in some cases even condemns – some of the most common practices used by employers in both drafting and presenting arbitration agreements to their employees. In doing so, the court highlighted circumstances under which similar agreements with “an unusually high degree” of procedural unconscionability may be blocked from being enforced. Accordingly, it’s important that you understand which of the employer’s terms and practices were criticized by the court so you can avoid those same pitfalls in your own arbitration programs moving forward.
In a blow to national union organization efforts, the National Labor Relations Board just clarified the test for determining whether “micro-units” of employees within a larger workforce can organize on their own. In its September 9 Boeing Company decision, the NLRB addressed a union’s efforts to utilize a “micro-unit” strategy to target a petitioned-for unit that made up of only two job classifications from a significantly larger, integrated workforce. In reversing a Regional Director’s decision to allow a representation election with this smaller subset of employees, the NLRB clarified its traditional community-of-interest standard for evaluating the appropriateness of petition for bargaining units.
The California legislature today approved a controversial new law that will reshape the way businesses across the state classify workers. While supporters of the bill have emphasized its impact on independent contractors, the bill also severely impacts legal obligations governing businesses that hire other businesses. In short, the law will make it much more difficult for many companies to treat workers in California as independent contractors, and more difficult for businesses to hire smaller, entrepreneurial businesses. The governor has already promised to sign the law into effect; once he does, hundreds of thousands of workers across the state will be entitled to increased pay, benefits, and employment law protections – not to mention the opportunity to organize into labor unions. Many businesses, especially those in the gig economy, will need to radically restructure their operations or transform these workers into employees in order to comply with the law. What do you need to know about today’s developments?
Citing the high burden on employers and the unproven usefulness of the program, the EEOC announced today that it will halt further collection of pay data during future EEO-1 reporting cycles. While you still need to turn over compensation information from both 2017 and 2018 when you submit your Component 2 pay data as part of your EEO-1 submission by September 30, today’s announcement may mean this will be a one-time effort that may not need to be repeated in 2020. What do you need to know about today’s news?
In yet another ruling that levels the labor relations playing field, the National Labor Relations Board ruled on Friday that employers could rightfully eject outside union representatives soliciting petition signatures from a shared shopping center parking area. When read in conjunction with a June decision conferring greater rights to limit on-premises union activity by abolishing the “public space” exception, and a more recent ruling extending greater latitude when it comes to excluding contractor employees, the Board has significantly restricted union access to private employer property. These rulings have supplied employers with powerful tools to combat prohibited solicitation on their premises. What do you need to know about this latest decision?
At the height of the #MeToo movement, California lawmakers enacted a requirement that all employers with five or more employees would need to provide sexual harassment prevention training to all employees by January 1, 2020. However, in response to outcry from the business community, Governor Newsom signed into effect a law this past Friday extending the deadline for employers to provide the newly required sexual harassment prevention training to January 1, 2021. What do California employers need to know about this one-year reprieve?
Illinois recently enacted sweeping legislation in an effort to combat sexual harassment in the workplace. Illinois Senate Bill 75 created the Workplace Transparency Act, amended the Illinois Human Rights Act and the Victims’ Economic Security and Safety Act, and introduced the Sexual Harassment Victim Representation Act and the Hotel and Casino Employee Safety Act. Additionally, Illinois House Bill 252 amended the Illinois Human Rights Act, further changing the legal landscape for Illinois employers. Both new measures will significantly impact how employers do business in Illinois. The implications are vast, ranging from what constitutes an “employer” in Illinois to the validity of certain employment agreements (and almost everything in between).
Employers found to have misclassified employees as independent contractors will no longer face the prospect unfair labor practice charges for such actions alone, according to a new ruling handed down yesterday by the National Labor Relations Board. Although the NLRB’s previous General Counsel and several administrative law judges had previously concluded that hiring entities could face the one-two punch of misclassification litigation followed by a federal labor law violation, the current Board wiped this concern off the table with its August 29 ruling in Velox Express, Inc. What do businesses need to know about this positive development?
This article addresses many employment-related issues facing employers in the wake of hurricane-related disasters; consequently, in addition to federal laws, we also focus on certain state laws, especially those in the areas most impacted by the storms. Nevertheless, the information here is of more widespread applicability than just the current hurricane season, and may be helpful following any unexpected natural catastrophe.
Governor Andrew Cuomo just signed into effect an amendment to New York law expanding the protections employers must provide to employees who are victims of domestic violence. In addition to expanded protections against discrimination, the amendment obligates employers to provide reasonable accommodations to domestic violence victims who must be absent from work for certain specified reasons. The amendment, signed on August 20, becomes effective November 18, 2019. What do you need to know in order to be in compliance come November?
The EEOC recently released guidance to assist those employers filling out their EEO-1 reports who have non-binary employees – those who choose not to identify as male or female – in their workforces. This question has become more pressing given the increase in the number of states permitting individuals to classify themselves as non-binary on government-issued identification forms, especially as employers begin the task of completing their EEO-1 reports before next month’s deadline. What do employers need to know about this latest development?