|
APPLIES TO All Employers with CA Employees |
EFFECTIVE May 2, 2017 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
On May 2, 2017, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) announced updated information related to workplace harassment.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI, |
EFFECTIVE April 27, 2017 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Last week, the Ninth Circuit ruled on Rizo v. Yovino, a wage inequality claim brought under the federal Equal Pay Act. In reviewing this case, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a previous case, Kouba v. Allstate Insurance Co., and confirmed that prior salary history may be considered a “factor other than sex” for the purpose of justifying a wage differential.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with IL, IN, and WI Employees |
EFFECTIVE April 4, 2017 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
In Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, hearing the case en banc, the Seventh Circuit became the first federal court of appeals to determine that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court stated that “it is impossible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without discriminating on the basis of sex.”
This landmark decision effectively prohibits discrimination and retaliation against applicants and employees on the basis of sexual orientation under federal law.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with CT, NY and VT Employees |
EFFECTIVE April 21, 2017 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
A recent Second Circuit case confirmed that New York City “black car” drivers—workers who provide high-end transportation services, e.g., limousines—are independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with DE, NJ and PA Employees |
EFFECTIVE November 14, 2016 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
In Egan v. Delaware River Port Authority, the Third Circuit court stated that any time an employee’s use of FMLA leave is given any “negative weight” when taking an adverse employment action against an employee, it is considered to be retaliation. There, the plaintiff was granted intermittent FMLA leave for migraines. Though the employer approved the time off, the plaintiff believed that management was unhappy with him taking time off. When his position was later eliminated, the employee sued, alleging that that his employer had a “mixed-motive” for his termination, and that he was retaliated at least in part for taking FMLA leave.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR and WA Employees |
EFFECTIVE March 21, 2017 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
In Brunozzi v. Cable Communications, Inc., the Ninth Circuit stated that wage rates cannot be decreased in weeks when overtime is worked, as compared to weeks when no overtime is worked. There, two cable technicians were paid a piece rate per cable system installed, plus a contractually-based production bonus each pay period as part of their regular wages. When the employer calculated overtime, it reduced the production bonus by the amount of overtime paid for piece rate work, which meant that employees received lower wage rates than when they did not work overtime.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with AL, FL and GA Employees |
EFFECTIVE April 13, 2017 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
In Frexia v. Prestige Cruise Services, LLC, an employee alleged that his employer violated the FLSA because the employee’s compensation—a weekly fixed salary plus sales-based commission—fell below the overtime exemption threshold for certain weeks. The Eleventh Circuit’s review of the case confirmed that pay for work performed each workweek must be counted for that workweek, rather than counted across a span of several weeks, in order to meet the overtime exemption threshold.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with CA Employees |
EFFECTIVE March 29, 2017 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
The California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) Labor Commissioner recently updated the statewide Paid Sick Leave: Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQ”) page. The update is intended to provide further clarity to three commonly asked questions, which are summarized below.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with CA Employees |
EFFECTIVE April 6, 2017 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Arbitration agreement provisions that require an individual to waive their statutory right to seek public injunctive relief in any forum, including arbitration or in court, have been deemed unenforceable by the California Supreme Court in McGill v. Citibank.
|
APPLIES TO Varies |
EFFECTIVE Varies |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456 |