On August 30, 2019, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed SB 778, which effectively delayed employer sexual harassment training requirements established in 2018. As we have covered in previous articles, in the wake of the #MeToo movement, California lawmakers passed legislation intended to curb sexual harassment in the workplace. One such example was SB 1343, signed into law on September 30, 2018 by then Governor Jerry Brown. SB 1343 required employers with 5 or more employees, including temporary or seasonable employees, to provide at least 2 hours of sexual harassment training to all supervisors and at least one hour of sexual harassment training to all nonsupervisory employees by January 1, 2020, and once every two years thereafter. The law specified that an employer who had provided this training to an employee after January 1, 2019 was not required to provide sexual harassment training and education by the January 1, 2020 deadline. However, as discussed in prior blog entries, this led to confusion among employers who were already providing anti-harassment training to their nonsupervisory employees. Under the letter of the current law, some of these employees would have to participate in the training twice in a 2-year period, at cost to the employer and providing little additional benefit to the employee.
Continue Reading One Year Reprieve: California Delays Employer Sexual Harassment Training Requirements to 2021

A New York appeals court recently ruled in Edwards v. Nicolai (153 A.D.3d 440 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2017)) that an employment termination motivated by the sexual jealousy of an employer’s spouse may support a claim for gender discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”).
Continue Reading Yoga and Massage Therapist Fired for Being “Too Cute” Sees Gender Discrimination Claim Revived on Grounds of Unjustified Spousal Jealousy

Are you finally caught up on all of the new California laws taking effect in 2017?  Then begin preparing for 2018 because the California legislature has been busy drafting another set of employment related laws.  Here is a sneak peak of some of the more notable proposals that may be coming down the pike.  For now, these are only proposed laws that have neither passed the legislature nor been signed into law.  If they do become laws, their substance may ultimately change substantially.
Continue Reading 2018: California Employment Laws on the Horizon

As we previously reported here, the New York State Department of Labor (“NYSDOL”) issued final regulations in September 2016 imposing new notice and consent requirements on employers who pay wages via direct deposit and debit card.  The regulations, which were scheduled to take effect on March 7, 2017, have been invalidated and revoked by the New York State Industrial Board of Appeals (“IBA”) which recently issued a decision finding, among other things, that the NYSDOL’s regulations exceeded its rulemaking authority by imposing restrictions on financial institutions.
Continue Reading *UPDATE* New York State Department of Labor’s Direct Deposit and Debit Card Notice Regulations Held Invalid and Revoked

Effective March 7, 2017, employers who pay wages via direct deposit and/or payroll debit card will need to comply with more stringent requirements.  The New York State Department of Labor (the “NYSDOL”) recently issued final regulations governing the methods that New York employers may use to pay most “non-exempt” employees.  The regulations impose a number of new requirements on employers who remit wages via direct deposit and payroll debit card, including new notice and consent requirements that employers must comply with prior to utilizing such payment methods.
Continue Reading New York State Department of Labor Issues Final Wage Regulations Imposing New Notice and Consent Requirements on Direct Deposit and Debit Card Wage Payments

At the end August, the National Labor Relations Board released an advice memorandum, originally drafted in December 2015, concluding that a group of drivers who worked for a drayage company called Pacific 9 Transportation were misclassified as independent contractors and that this misclassification constituted a violation of the National Labor Relations Act. This advice memorandum comes on the heels of a handful of Board decisions, which have reached similar conclusions following the Board’s new and expansive definition of who constitutes a statutory employee under the Act, in FedEx Home Delivery & Teamsters, Local 671. 361 NLRB No. 55 (2014).
Continue Reading NLRB Releases Advice Memorandum Affirming Misclassification Constitutes Unfair Labor Practice

A recent ruling by the New York State Court of Appeals underscores the Federal Arbitration Act’s (“FAA”) strong policy favoring enforcement of arbitration agreements—even in the insurance industry and despite federal policy generally favoring state regulation of the business of insurance. 
Continue Reading New York’s Highest Court Enforces Arbitration Provision in California Workers’ Compensation Insurance Agreement, Rejecting McCarran-Ferguson “Reverse Preemption”

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Labor-Management Standards (“OLMS”) recently issued its long-debated “persuader” regulations which, as of July 1, 2016, will require employers and their labor relations consultants, including legal counsel, to publicly disclose relationships which had long been permitted to remain confidential under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”).
Continue Reading Department of Labor’s Long-Debated “Persuader” Regulations Expand the Scope of the Consulting Relationships that Must be Reported Under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act

As a reminder that non-union employees are also protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago recently upheld a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision holding that Staffing Network Holdings, LLC (“Staffing Network”) violated the NLRA by twice threatening non-union employees with discharge for engaging in protected, concerted activity, and for actually discharging an employee Griselda Barrera for the same. See Staffing Network Holdings, LLC v. NLRB.
Continue Reading Non-Union Employee’s “Bad Attitude” Protected by the NLRA

On February 11, 2016, the New Jersey Senate passed a new bill (S992) (the “Bill”) in an effort to undo the often-discussed gender pay gap.  The Bill would enhance unequal pay claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (the “LAD”) and extend the statute of limitations for those claims.  The vote was 28-to-4 in the Senate despite strong opposition from many New Jersey business groups.  The bill was received in the New Jersey Assembly on February 16, and immediately referred to the Assembly Labor Committee.  Last Thursday, March 3, the bill was transferred to the Assembly State and Local Government Committee.
Continue Reading New Jersey’s Equal Pay Bill Could Increase Liability for Employers