With the rise of the #MeToo movement, companies have been forced to re-examine how they litigate and settle allegations of sexual harassment in the workplace. Specifically, companies are facing increasing criticism if they compel claims of sexual harassment to private arbitration or force employees who allege sexual harassment to sign settlement agreements with confidentiality clauses, effectively shielding both the company and the alleged sexual harasser from public scrutiny. Continue Reading
In an effort to continue to raise awareness of human trafficking and provide available services to victims, beginning October 14, 2018, lodging facilities in New York State were required to provide informational cards in certain public spaces of the facilities.
Specifically, a recently enacted New York statute adds a section to the general business law, and requires every lodging facility to make informational cards available in plain view in the public restrooms, individual guest rooms, and near the public entrance or other conspicuous place in plain sight of the guests and employees. The legislature reasoned that the discrete size of an informational card may make it possible for a victim to take a card unnoticed and use the card to call the hotline for help at a later time. Continue Reading
A 21st Century Social Movement
In this age of interconnectivity, compelling societal movements have a never-before-seen speed and reach. Traditional means of spreading information and generating social change have been supplemented—if not outright replaced—by the near-instantaneous ability of an idea or cause to go viral on social media, regardless of its source. In 2018, the gatekeepers—and indeed, the gates—to disseminating content and generating popular support are being dismantled before our eyes. Nowhere over the past year was this more evident than in the #MeToo movement. Continue Reading
In Jesus Cuitlahuac Garcia v. Border Transportation Group, LLC, et al, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District has held that the ABC test set forth in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018) applies only to causes of action brought under wage orders.
Plaintiff Garcia was a taxicab driver for several years with Border Transportation Group (“BTG”). In 2015, a year after ceasing work for BTG, he sued BTG and two individual defendants for various wage and hour violations. Continue Reading
As detailed previously here, the New Jersey Paid Sick Leave Act (the “Act”), goes into effect October 29, 2018. In general, the Act allows New Jersey employees to accrue one (1) hour of sick leave time per thirty (30) hours worked, and allows New Jersey employees to use earned sick leave time for: (i) diagnosis, care, treatment of, or recovery from the employee’s mental or physical illness, injury or other adverse health condition, or for the employee’s preventive medical care; (ii) time to aid or care for a family member in one of the situations described in (i); (iii) time needed due to an employee’s or family member’s status as a victim of domestic or sexual violence; (iv) closure of the workplace, school, or childcare facility issued by a public health authority due to a public health emergency; and (v) a school-related conference or meeting. A detailed summary of the Act’s other requirements can be found here. Continue Reading
Following a June 19, 2018 vote by District of Columbia residents to pass Initiative 77, which would provide a single minimum wage for all employees including tipped workers, the D.C. Council has voted to overturn the voter-approved Initiative.
On Sunday, September 30, 2018, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a number of bills that will have a significant impact on litigation and legal counseling in the employment context. Many of the new laws are a response to the traction gained by the “me-too” movement and are summarized herein. Continue Reading
On October 1, 2018, New York State released final model sexual harassment materials and compliance guidance in response to comments received during its open comment period, discussed in more detail in a previous blog article. The new materials provide important guidance for future compliance and include new employer requirements, as detailed below. Continue Reading
On September 30, 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a bill that prohibits a provision in settlement agreements that prevents the disclosure of information pertaining to sexual harassment and sex discrimination. The law goes into effect on January 1, 2019, and serves as an extension of the already-existing law that prohibits provisions in settlement agreements that prevent the disclosure of acts that could be prosecuted as felony sex offenses and certain sex offenses against children. Continue Reading
The National Labor Relations Board has made good on its recent promise to move forward with rulemaking to re-establish the decades-old joint employer standard in place prior to the Board’s 2015 decision in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., d/b/a BFI Newby Island Recyclery, 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015) (Browning-Ferris or BFI), petition for review docketed Browning-Ferris Indus. of Cal. v. NLRB, No.16-1028 (D.C. Cir. filed Jan. 20, 2016). On Sept. 13, the Board announced that it is issuing a proposed rule (to be published in the Federal Register on September 14, 2018) to establish an updated standard for determining joint employer status under the National Labor Relations Act. Under the proposed rule, “[a]n employer, as defined by Section 2(2) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act), may be considered a joint employer of a separate employer’s employees only if the two employers share or codetermine the employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment, such as hiring, firing, discipline, supervision, and direction.” Notably, the Board’s proposed rule clarifies that a putative joint employer “must possess and actually exercise substantial direct and immediate control over the employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment in a manner that is not limited and routine.” No doubt relieved to see a return to the pre-BFI standard, employers will be further delighted to discover that under the proposed rule, the Board is “presently inclined to find, consistent with prior Board cases, that even a putative joint employer’s ‘direct and immediate’ control over employment terms may not give rise to a joint-employer relationship where that control is too limited in scope.”