|
APPLIES TO All Employers Using E-Verify or Subject to EEO-1 Reporting |
EFFECTIVE January 28, 2019 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
The recent partial government shutdown touched everyone in one way or another. For employers, this meant no access to E-Verify and EEO-1 reporting.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers |
EFFECTIVE As Indicated |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in two scenarios where it could and could not enforce an arbitration agreement. On January 8, 2019, in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., the Supreme Court stated that a court cannot decide what claims are covered under an arbitration agreement where the agreement states that the arbitrator must decide.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers Subject to the NLRA |
EFFECTIVE January 25, 2019 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently issued a board decision in SuperShuttle DFW, Inc., stating a return to the common law “entrepreneurial opportunity” analysis for independent contractors and rejecting the previous FedEx Home Delivery “economic realities” test. The common law analysis looks at a variety of factors, with no one factor being decisive: (1) extent of control, (2) engagement in a distinct occupation or business, (3) whether the work in is usually done with or without supervision from the employer, (4) skill required, (5) who supplies the tools and place of work, (6) length of time employed, (7) payment by time or by job, (8) whether the work is part of the regular business of the employer, (9) whether there is a “master and servant” relationship, and (10) whether the worker is or is not in business.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with DC Employees |
EFFECTIVE December 28, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
In Browning-Ferris Industries v. NLRB, the D.C. Circuit Court stated that the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) standards of “right to control” and “indirect control” are appropriate factors to determine joint-employer status on a fact-based, case-by-case basis.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers |
EFFECTIVE January 1, 2019 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Effective January 1, 2019, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) removed the incentives section of its final regulations on wellness programs under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC regulations previously addressed how the ADA and GINA applied to employee health and wellness programs, including set limits on incentives that could be offered by wellness programs (e.g., for submitting to a wellness medical exam).
In light of the EEOC’S actions, employers are now faced with limited guidance on how financial incentives may be offered as part of their wellness programs. The EEOC stated new proposed regulations may be forthcoming, but are unlikely to be released before June 2019. Employers should review wellness programs with legal counsel and look for the EEOC’s updated guidance in the future.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.
© 2019 ManagEase
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with IL, IN, and WI Employees |
EFFECTIVE January 23, 2019 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
In Kleber v. CareFusion Corporation, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal stated that the disparate impact protections under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) do not apply to job applicants who are not current employees. Specifically, Section 4(a)(2) of the ADEA specifically states that it applies to “employees.” There, a job posting indicated a position available for an individual with “3 to 7 years (no more than 7 years)” of experience. A 58-year old applicant did not get an interview, and sued for disparate impact under the ADEA because the stated experience requirement necessarily excluded him due to his age.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA, Guam, and Northern Mariana Islands Employees |
EFFECTIVE January 29, 2019 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
In Gilberg v. Cal. Check Cashing Stores, the Ninth Circuit stated that the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) prohibits including “extraneous” information with the required notice of rights, including legal rights individuals have under state fair credit reporting laws. The FCRA applies to employers who obtain background or credit reports on applicants and employees in the employment context. Specifically, the FCRA requires employers to provide the individual with a disclosure of their right to obtain a copy of the report, and obtain written authorization before obtaining the reports. Although the authorization may be on the same page as the disclosure, no other information may be present. Additionally, because the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) mirrors the FCRA, the same segregation requirements apply to California-required disclosures.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with CA Employees |
EFFECTIVE February 4, 2019 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
In Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc., the California Court of Appeal stated that employees required to call in two hours before a shift starts, to see whether or not they need to report to work, must be paid a minimum of two hours of work even if the employee is told they do not need to report for work.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with DE Employees |
EFFECTIVE December 17, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
In Chance v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, a Delaware Superior Court judge recently stated that the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) does not preempt employee protections under the state’s medical marijuana law (DMMA). Specifically, it relied on Connecticut and Rhode Island cases that distinguish the CSA as merely making marijuana usage illegal, but not prohibiting the employment of marijuana users.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with IL Employees |
EFFECTIVE January 25, 2019 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
In Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, the Illinois Supreme Court stated that any time a covered entity fails to comply with the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), even if there is no injury to the person, the person may sue the entity for the violations. Specifically, any time a person’s “legal right is invaded” under BIPA, the person is “aggrieved” and can bring a claim.