APPLIES TO Employers with CA Agricultural Employees

EFFECTIVE January 1, 2023

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

Agricultural workers in California now have easier options to vote for or against unionization. AB 2089 expands voting options by allowing voting at a physical location or by mailing or dropping off a representation ballot card to the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) office. Agricultural workers can also receive assistance to fill out and return their representation ballot card so long as the person who is assisting them co-signs the card and it is returned in a sealed and signed envelope. This is a significant change from the existing law which requires a secret ballot vote at a polling place designated by the ALRB. Workers must present their identification card or check stub to receive a ballot and cast a confidential vote. If eligibility is questioned, then the ballot is submitted to the ALRB for review.  

 

The law further allows a labor organization to be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of a bargaining unit through either a labor peace election or a non-labor peace election, depending on whether an employer agrees to a labor peace election. A labor peace election would be a mail ballot election and a non-labor peace election would allow a process for the submission of a petition with proof of majority support subject to certification by the board. For a labor peace compact, an employer would agree to make no statements for or against union representation to its employees or publicly, in any written or oral form, at any time during employee hire, rehire, or orientation, or after certain documents regarding organization are filed with the board. An employer is allowed to communicate truthful statements to employees regarding workplace policies or benefits.  

 

An agricultural employer who commits an unfair labor practice could be fined an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each violation and not to exceed $25,000 for specified violations. Employers with agricultural workers should review the law with legal counsel to be aware of specific changes to the existing unionization process. 

 

Action Items 

1. Review the bill here. 
2. Consult with legal counsel to determine how specific provisions may apply. 
3. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance. 

 

---

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. © 2022 ManagEase

APPLIES TO All Employers with CO Employees

EFFECTIVE August 9, 2022

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

HB 22-1367 makes significant changes to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA). Specifically, the bill extends the statute of limitations to file a discrimination charge under CADA from six months to 300 days, which aligns the rule with federal antidiscrimination laws. The bill also expands the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s jurisdiction over a discrimination charge from 270 days to 450 days after the initial filing of the charge, which gives the Commission additional time to investigate a complaint and issue a finding. 

 

The definition of “employee” is expanded to include a person engaged in domestic service, e.g., babysitters, housekeepers, or caretakers. These individuals are protected by CADA and may bring a discrimination claim against their domestic employers. Finally, the bill expands the remedies available for age discrimination claim to include recovery of compensatory and punitive damages. If suing under both the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and CADA, claimants may be entitled to liquidated damages under the ADEA’s provisions and compensatory and punitive damages under CADA. 

 

Action Items 

1. Review discrimination claims with legal counsel for proper handling. 
2. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance. 

 

---

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. © 2022 ManagEase

APPLIES TO All Employers with Chicago, IL Employees

EFFECTIVE July 1, 2022

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

Recent amendments to Chicago’s sexual harassment Ordinance now add new requirements for training, recordkeeping, and written policies. The definition of “sexual harassment” now includes sexual misconduct which is “any behavior of a sexual nature which also involves coercion, abuse of authority, or misuse of an individual’s employment position.” Annual sexual harassment training must include: 1) one hour of sexual harassment prevention for all employees and two hours for supervisors and managers; and 2) one hour of “bystander” training for all employees. Bystander training should teach employees what they can and should do if they witness sexual harassment. The Ordinance states the initial round of trainings should be completed by June 30, 2023. For new hires thereafter, best practice would be to make sure training is completed within a year of an employee’s first day of employment, if not sooner. The Chicago Commission on Human Relations has provided training modules on all of these components here. However, employers should be aware these training modules are not compliant with the Ordinance’s own requirements.  

 

Chicago employers also must have a written sexual harassment policy that includes the following minimum requirements: 1) be in writing; 2) be in the employee’s primary language; 3) state the definition of sexual harassment; 4) state that sexual harassment is illegal; 5) be provided to employees within their first week of employment; 5) provide a training plan that all employees must participate in on an annual basis; 6) provide examples of the prohibited conduct that constitutes sexual harassment; 7) identify a confidential process to report harassment; 8) provide a list of legal services, including governmental agencies, that are available to employees who may be victims of sexual harassment; and 9) include a statement that retaliation for reporting sexual harassment is illegal in Chicago. 

 

In addition, employers must display posters in at least one location where employees commonly gather. Posters must be in both English and Spanish. The written policy, training, and other records necessary to demonstrate compliance must be kept for five years or for the duration of any claim, civil action, or investigation pending under the Ordinance. Violations of the Ordinance come with fines between $500 and $1,000 per day for each violation and each day the violation continues. Substantive violations of the Ordinance will result in fines between $5,000 and $10,000. Examples of such violations include an employer engaging in sexual harassment or an employer failing to take reasonable corrective measures after becoming aware of sexual harassment by nonemployees or nonmanagerial or nonsupervisory employees. 

 

Action Items 

1. Read the amendments here. 
2. Revise harassment policies and training materials. 
3. Implement training schedules to comply with applicable deadlines. 
4. Have appropriate personnel trained on the requirements. 
5. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance. 

 

---

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. © 2022 ManagEase

APPLIES TO All Employers with MI Employees

EFFECTIVE July 28, 2022

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

In Rouch World, LLC v. Department of Civil Rights, the Michigan Supreme Court said that Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), which prohibits sex-based discrimination, also prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. The ELCRA applies to employers of all sizes and applies as well to housing, education facilities, and places of public accommodation and service. This case was made up of two investigations conducted by the Michigan Department of Civil Rights (MDCR). In the first case, a venue declined hosting a same-sex wedding ceremony on the grounds of a violation of religious beliefs. In the second case, a transgender woman was denied services due to her sex identity on the grounds of a violation of religious beliefs. Both defendants sued MDCR and sought to stop the investigations on the grounds that the ELCRA does not apply to sexual orientation and gender identity. 

 

The Michigan Supreme Court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s analysis of Title VII in Bostock v. Clayton County in reaching its decision. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that sexual orientation is “inextricably bound up with sex” because a person’s sexual orientation is determined by reference to their own sex. Also, discrimination based on sexual orientation requires someone to intentionally treat individuals differently because of their sex. Ultimately the Michigan Supreme Court agreed that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation inherently involves discrimination on the basis of sex, and the ELCRA language of “because of…sex” includes sexual orientation. 

 

Action Items 

1. Revise discrimination and harassment policies and training materials, as applicable. 
2. Have appropriate personnel trained on the definition of sex discrimination. 
3. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance. 

 

---

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. © 2022 ManagEase

APPLIES TO All Employers with NV Employees

EFFECTIVE August 11, 2022

QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456

In Martel v. HG Staffing, LLC, the Nevada Supreme Court upheld a grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer in a class action alleging violations of minimum wage and overtime laws. In this case, the employees alleged they were not paid wages for completing tasks like attending meetings or classes, getting into uniform, or reconciling cash amounts without pay. The ruling in favor of the employers addressed four issues: 1) statute of limitations for wage claims; 2) validity of collective bargaining agreements; 3) overtime exemptions under state law; and 4) extension of statute of limitations for underlying wage claims. Employers should take note of this ruling as it addresses several Nevada wage and hour statutes. 

 

Statute of limitations for wage claims. The former employees alleged violations under the statutes for pay for each hour worked, overtime, and final paychecks and requested their claims should fall under a three-year statute of limitations period. The Nevada Supreme Court disagreed and stated minimum wage claims under the Nevada Minimum Wage Amendment are subject to a two-year statute of limitations period which begins to accrue after the employee’s final shift. Therefore, the employees’ claims are barred under this statute of limitations. This parallels the requirement that employers retain employee wage records for two years. 

 

Validity of collective bargaining agreements. A collective bargaining agreement does not have to have a signature, date, or the names of both parties to be valid. The Nevada Supreme Court said that so long as the union and the employer manifested assent to the agreement it is valid. Evidence that grievances were filed and arbitrations were conducted under the collective bargaining agreement shows both parties agreed to the collective bargaining agreement as valid. 

 

Overtime exemptions under state law. NRS § 608.018(3)(e) provides an exemption from overtime for employees covered by collective bargaining agreements that otherwise provide for overtime. The employees in this case argued the collective bargaining agreement must have a premium overtime rate in order for the exemption to apply. The Nevada Supreme Court disagreed and found the collective bargaining agreement provided for overtime in a sufficiently different manner to qualify for the overtime exemption within the statute. 

 

Extension of statute of limitations for underlying wage claims. The Nevada Supreme Court also stated that the employees’ unpaid wage claims were also barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The employees argued that even though the complaint was filed two years and one day after their final shifts, they should still be able to recover penalties for wages which could be recovered. The Nevada Supreme Court disagreed.  

 

Action Items 

1. Review procedures for retention of employee wage records. 
2. Review procedures for payment of overtime and final paychecks. 
3. Consult with legal counsel for any terminations involving a potential wage claim. 
4. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance. 

 

---

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. © 2022 ManagEase