As more employees return to the workplace after the Labor Day holiday, employers should be aware of the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission’s updated COVID-19 Guidance, “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and other EEO Laws.” The updated guidance follows its Vaccination Policy Update and primarily addresses workplace safety questions, including when employees and applicants may be required to undergo viral and antibody testing and other types of screening.

Continue Reading EEOC Updates Guidance Concerning COVID-19 Testing

A recent decision from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals highlights some of the pitfalls of entering into commercial transactions without conducting thorough employment diligence – even in the asset purchase context.

Continue Reading Buyer Beware: Tenth Circuit Issues Decision Emphasizing Critical Need for Employment Diligence

An employee in California has two primary options to pursue a claim for the enforcement of minimum wage and overtime pay rights. The employee may seek judicial relief by filing an ordinary civil action. Alternatively, the employee can initiate an administrative action with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE). In Elsie Seviour-Iloff v. LaPaille, the California Court of Appeal set forth multiple important holdings expanding the scope and potential liability available to employees pursuing administrative relief for wage claims with the DLSE.

Continue Reading Expanded Limitations Period and Individual Liability for Employers Facing Labor Commissioner Hearings

On June 24, 2022, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the United States Supreme Court overturned both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey and held the access to abortion is not a right protected by the United States Constitution. This article analyzes several employment law issues employers may face following the Dobbs decision.

Continue Reading What Employers Need to Know in a Post-Dobbs Landscape

The California Court of Appeal in Meda v. AutoZone, Inc. recently reversed a trial court’s finding that an employer demonstrated it “provided” seats to its employees as a matter of law under California’s suitable seating requirement. This rule stems from subdivision 14(A) of the Wage Orders,[1] which provides that California employers must provide suitable seats to employees “when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats.” In Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 63 Cal. 4th 1 (2016), the California Supreme Court set forth the fact-intensive framework and multiple factors in analyzing whether the “nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seat,” triggering the employer’s obligation to provide suitable seats. However, no published California authority had considered what steps employers must take to “provide” seats under subdivision 14(A).[2]

Continue Reading Are You Sitting Down for This? California Court of Appeal Provides Further Guidance on Suitable Seating Claims

San Francisco employers will soon be required to comply with an additional Ordinance providing San Francisco-based employees with paid leave during future public health emergencies. In the June 7, 2022 election, San Francisco voters passed Proposition G. It requires employers with 100 or more employees worldwide to provide up to 80 hours of paid public health emergency leave to San Francisco-based employees. The Ordinance will become operative on October 1, 2022. 

Continue Reading San Francisco Ordinance Requires Employers to Provide Paid Public Health Emergency Leave

For those larger Illinois employers who have not yet reported payroll and diversity data to the Illinois Department of Labor (the “IDOL”), now may be the time.  The IDOL recently issued guidance to help employers navigate their reporting requirements (the “Guidance”).

Continue Reading Now is the Time for Employers to Report Pay Equity Data to the Illinois Labor Department

On July 13, 2022, San Francisco’s amended Family Friendly Workplace Ordinance (FFWO) goes into effect.  All employers who conduct business and have employees working in the City and County of San Francisco or employees who telework, will need to comply with the FFWO.  It gives employees the right to request “flexible or predictable work arrangements” to assist with caregiving responsibilities.  The amendment creates significant changes to the existing FFWO – it enlarges the scope of an employer’s obligation under the ordinance, while also making it easier for employees to obtain modified schedule arrangements so they can effectively work and perform their caregiving responsibilities with relative ease.  Covered employers should take note of these changes to avoid scrutiny from the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement (OLSE) and costlier penalties.

Continue Reading Reminder: San Francisco’s Family Friendly Workplace Amended Ordinance Takes Effect July 2022

On February 18, 2022, the California Court of Appeal issued its decision in Jill LaFace v. Ralphs Grocery Company, __ Cal. App. 5th __ (2022), that provides important guidance in two areas. First, the Court made clear that plaintiffs asserting a claim under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) are not entitled to a jury trial. In addition, the Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling rejecting the plaintiff’s suitable seating claim and found that an employee cannot create a “lull in operation” to trigger the provision of a seat by remaining idle instead of performing other expected job duties.

Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Makes Clear that PAGA Plaintiffs are not Entitled to a Jury Trial and Provides Helpful Guidance on Suitable Seating Claims

Illinois recently passed legislation amending the Freedom to Work Act (the “Act”), following a growing trend of states imposing greater restrictions on employers’ use and enforcement of non-competition and non-solicitation covenants.
Continue Reading Illinois Imposes New Restrictions on Non-Competes and Non-Solicits

In 2018, California passed Senate Bill 820, the STAND Act (Stand Together Against Non-Disclosure Act), in response to the #MeToo movement.  SB 820 prohibited the use of confidentiality provisions in settlement agreements where the underlying claims were based upon sexual assault, sexual harassment, and workplace harassment or discrimination based on sex.  The law did not extend to claims based upon other protected characteristics.  Therefore, a confidentiality provision in a settlement agreement could not prevent an individual from discussing the factual information related to sexual harassment or sex discrimination allegedly experienced in the workplace, but could preclude an individual from discussing factual information related to harassment or discrimination based upon any other protected characteristic (e.g., race, age, gender, etc.).  You can read our prior blog article here.

Continue Reading California’s SB 331 Extends Sweeping Changes to Workplace Settlement and Separation Agreements