Minnesota: “Severe or Pervasive” Harassment and Constructive Discharge Standards Clarified

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees in MN

EFFECTIVE

February 8, 2023

  

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • The “severe and pervasive” standard under the Minnesota Human Rights Act for proving a hostile work environment claim is a lower standard than under federal law.
  • Constructive discharge claims can arise from discrimination in the form of disparate treatment.

Discussion

In Henry v. Independent School District #625, the Minnesota Supreme Court provided important clarifications regarding employment discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). Here, a network technician for the school district received two substandard performance reviews for the first time in her 19 years of employment with the district. These reviews resulted in a performance improvement plan (PIP). A third negative performance review resulted in a written notice that the district was considering terminating her employment. The employee resigned and filed claims for age-related harassment due to a hostile work environment and age discrimination.

Hostile Work Environment. The Court’s existing standard for a hostile work environment was “severe or pervasive” harassment. However, the Court noted this standard was broader under the MHRA rather than federal law because state law had evolved to recognize changes in societal attitudes towards acceptable behavior in the workplace. Nonetheless, the Court found under the broader standard a reasonable juror could not find a severe or pervasive hostile work environment. Although the employee’s manager documented age-related comments and expressed her desire to get rid of her due to her age, there was no evidence the manager acted unprofessionally nor was there any other age-based verbal or physical harassment in the workplace.

Age Discrimination. Under Minnesota state law, constructive discharge can arise either through a hostile work environment or from discrimination in the form of disparate treatment. For this claim, the Court ruled the employee did have enough evidence to show that the district’s actions were intended to force her to quit, or it was reasonably foreseeable that she would quit based on the district’s actions.

Employers should be aware that based on this ruling the standard for a hostile work environment claim is a lower bar under Minnesota law than federal law. Also, both a hostile work environment and discrimination claim are very fact specific. Having updated policies as well as supporting documentation is necessary to defend a claim.

 

Action Items

  1. Have policies regarding unlawful workplace conduct updated.
  2. Provide regular harassment and discrimination training to employees and managers.
  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. © 2023 ManagEase

Minnesota: Employees with Past PTSD Not Entitled to Present Workers’ Compensation

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees in MN

EFFECTIVE

March 8, 2023

  

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • Workers’ compensation benefits for PTSD end when a licensed professional using the DSM determines the condition has resolved or is no longer experienced by the injured worker.

Discussion

In Chrz v. Mower County, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled employees who formerly suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are not entitled to workers’ compensation in the present when they no longer suffer from PTSD. Here, a Mower County sheriff’s deputy experienced trauma due to witnessing violence and death. In 2019, he punched a handcuffed teenager in the face and was charged with two counts of misconduct and two counts of fifth-degree assault. He was evaluated by a licensed psychologist and was diagnosed with PTSD that was in partial remission. The psychologist submitted a report stating that the deputy would be unable to work effective September 2019. The deputy then retired in March 2020 and alleged a claim for workers’ compensation benefits starting in April 2020. Mower County requested the review of a different psychologist who stated the deputy suffered from a short-term adjustment disorder. The original psychologist also agreed the deputy no longer suffered from PTSD. At a hearing, the workers’ compensation judge agreed with the original diagnosis and awarded the deputy temporary total disability, rehabilitation, PPD, mileage expenses and medical care benefits from April 1, 2020 to the present. Mower County appealed the decision.

In its analysis, the Court noted the Workers’ Compensation Act covers PTSD as a mental impairment that is an occupational disease. For an employee to recover workers’ compensation benefits for PTSD, the employee must prove that: 1) a psychiatrist or psychologist has diagnosed the employee with PTSD; and 2) the professional based the employee’s diagnosis on the latest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders by the American Psychiatric Association (DSM). It is undisputed that as of March 30, 2021, the deputy no longer had a diagnosis of PTSD from any licensed professional using the DSM, and therefore, he no longer met the occupational disease element establishing a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. If he were eligible for continued benefit, it would allow a diagnosis of PTSD to be effectively perpetual. The only work injury for which the deputy was entitled to compensation resolved on March 30, 2021, so there is no continuing liability to pay him workers’ compensation benefits.

 

Action Items

  1. Review extended workers’ compensation claims with legal counsel.
  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. © 2023 ManagEase

New York: Amendments to Pay Transparency Law Provide Clarifications

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees and Applicants in NY

EFFECTIVE

March 3, 2023

  

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • New York’s new pay transparency law has been amended to provided additional clarifications for the jobs affected, the definition of “advertise,” and recordkeeping requirements.

Discussion

With New York’s pay transparency law set to go into effect on September 17, 2023, a new amendment both expands and narrows some aspects of the law. The pay transparency law requires employers to disclose the compensation or range of compensation in any advertisement for a job, promotion, or transfer opportunity. In addition, employers must disclose the job description for a position, if one exists. SB S1326 makes the following changes to the law.

Employees Affected. The range of compensation must be included for positions that will be physically performed, at least in part, in the state of New York. Also, positions that are physically performed outside of New York but report to a supervisor, office, or other worksite in New York are also included.

Definition of Advertise. “Advertise” is defined as “to make available to a pool of potential applicants for internal or public viewing, including electronically, a written description of an employment opportunity.”

Recordkeeping. There is no longer a recordkeeping requirement. However, it is best practice to keep records of compliance to defend against a claim for violating the law.

Employers already taking steps to comply with the law should make adjustments to comply with the new amendment.

 

Action Items

  1. Review and revise job postings and job descriptions.
  2. Have appropriate personnel trained on the updated requirements.
  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. © 2023 ManagEase

New York: Employees Can Avoid Arbitration for Claims Included with Sexual Harassment

APPLIES TO

All Employers with NY Employees

EFFECTIVE

As Indicated

  

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • Employees under an arbitration agreement with plausibly pled claims for sexual harassment can have all their claims avoid arbitration under the EFAA.
  • Employees under an arbitration agreement with insufficiently pled harassment claims can have their remaining claims arbitrated.

Discussion

A pair of cases in the Southern District of New York analyzed the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA). The EFAA prohibits employers from enforcing arbitration agreements for disputes involving sexual harassment or sexual assault. The two rulings state employees can also avoid arbitrating other claims brought alongside sexual harassment claims in the same case.

Johnson v. Everyrealm, Inc. On February 24, 2023, the District Court ruled the plaintiff’s entire case was exempt from arbitration under the EFAA because he plausibly pled claims for sexual harassment. Here, the plaintiff signed an employment agreement where he agreed to arbitrate any dispute or controversy arising out of or relating to a breach of the employment agreement. The plaintiff claimed during his employment, the Chief Executive Officer subjected him to comments that were unsolicited and unwanted sexual harassment in addition to jokes and comments about his race. After a series of questionable professional assignments, the plaintiff was placed on a thirty-day performance improvement plan. Ultimately, he was terminated without severance pay or a separation agreement. The plaintiff brought claims for race discrimination, pay discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and aiding and abetting claims.

The court agreed with the plaintiff that because his complaint included sexual harassment claims, it was not subject to arbitration. The court looked to the congressional intent of the EFAA in order to come to its ruling. The EFAA makes an arbitration agreement invalid “with respect to a case which is filed under Federal, Tribal, or State law and relates to the…sexual harassment dispute.” The text refers to a case and not a claim, therefore it extends to the entire dispute. Congress would have known the difference between the terms case and claim, therefore the intent was to void arbitration for an entire case that included sexual harassment or sexual assault claims.

Yost v. Everyrealm. On a separate case decided the same day against the same employer, the District Court ruled implausibly pled sexual harassment claims cannot be used to avoid arbitration of other claims. Here, the plaintiff was an independent contractor prior to becoming an employee working as the chief HR officer. As an independent contractor and an employee, the plaintiff signed agreements including mandatory arbitration clauses. While working for the employer, the employee said she was the target of and witness to sexually offensive remarks, jokes, comments, and questions. This included comments about the plaintiff’s open bisexuality. In addition, she suffered from attention deficit hyperactivity (ADHD) and alcohol-use disorders. The plaintiff also heard comments that mocked other employees with autism, ADHD, and intoxication. After the plaintiff and her children were diagnosed with COVID-19 and she was on sick and caregiver leave, the employer claimed she was violating or taking advantage of leave policies and the relationship rapidly deteriorated. The plaintiff objected to an allegedly discriminatory policy, and the employer interpreted her objection as a resignation. The plaintiff filed claims for pay discrimination, sexual harassment, hostile work environment, disability discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, and discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, disability, and marital status.

In this ruling, the court found that the plaintiff’s evidence for the sexual harassment claim was insufficient. The statements that the plaintiff used to show sexual harassment were about other employees and were not addressed to the plaintiff. There were a handful of crude remarks that were disconnected from any protected characteristics of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff’s lawsuit no longer concerned sexual harassment even in part, the EFAA no longer had any bearing on this case. The remaining claims were covered by a valid arbitration agreement and should be resolved in arbitration.

 

Action Items

  1. Review all claims covered by arbitration agreements with legal counsel.
  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. © 2023 ManagEase

Philadelphia, PA: New Regulations for Promoting Healthy Families and Workplaces Ordinance

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees in Philadelphia, PA

EFFECTIVE

February 21, 2023

  

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

 

Quick Look

  • Additional regulations provide clarifications for Philadelphia’s Promoting Healthy Families and Workplaces Ordinance.

Discussion

Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor released its third round of regulations addressing job-protected paid leave under the Promoting Healthy Families and Workplaces Ordinance (PHFWO).

Paid Sick and Safe Time During COVID-19. Employers must provide employees with up to 40 hours of sick leave per year. A covered use no longer involves absences connected to an employee or family member having a greater risk of harm than the general population if they contract COVID-19 or self-quarantining for two weeks after returning to the United States from travel abroad. Preventive medical care including testing and vaccination (including boosters) is covered. Employers are encouraged not to require documentation from a healthcare professional for absences. A signed statement from the employee affirming physical illness or a health condition exhibiting symptoms is sufficient.

COVID-19 Paid Sick Leave. The requirements apply to employers with 25 or more employees who work in Philadelphia, normally work in Philadelphia but currently telework from another location due to COVID-19, or work from multiple locations or from mobile locations and 51% or more of their work time is in Philadelphia. Employees can use this leave for the following qualifying reasons: 1) being subject to a determination by a public official or public health authority with jurisdiction; 2) advice given by a Health Care provider; or 3) a direction given by the COVID-19 Employer related to the public health emergency that is applicable to the type of business or work the employee engages in or specific to the employee because the employee’s presence on the job or in the community would jeopardize the health of others because of the employee’s exposure to COVID-19 or because the employee is exhibiting symptoms of COVID-19. Employers can comply with the law by providing a policy of their own that complies with the requirements of the law regardless of when it was adopted. Employers do not have to cash out the balance of any unused COVID-19 paid sick leave when employment ends.

Pool & Healthcare Employee Pay & Benefits Continuation. Health care services are defined as: any inpatient or outpatient medical or behavioral health, dental, nursing, medical first responder, pharmacological, assisted living residence, intermediate care, adult daycare, long term care facility, acupuncture, audiology, drug and alcohol, hearing aid, chiropractic care, naturopathic care, occupational therapy, physical therapy, athletic training as defined in Second Amendment to the Emergency Regulation Governing the Control and Prevention of COVID-19 Mandating Vaccines For Healthcare Workers and in Higher Education, Healthcare, and Related Settings, optometry, ophthalmology, or speech language pathology services. The requirements for pay and benefit continuation only apply to those employees that work in person and not telework. There is also no limitation for how long an employee can be absent. An absence can be longer than the Philadelphia Department of Public Health’s recommendation for isolation if there is a medical opinion stating the employee cannot return to work due to COVID-19 illness. A general direction or recommendation to quarantine is insufficient documentation to substantiate the need for leave. Pay is in addition to other benefits an employer may provide and cannot be covered by existing leave policies.

 

Action Items

  1. Have leave policies updated.
  2. Have appropriate personnel trained on the updated requirements.
  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. © 2023 ManagEase

Utah: Employers Can Obtain Workplace Violence Protective Orders

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees in UT

EFFECTIVE

July 1, 2023

  

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • Employers can seek a workplace violence protective order in the event of an act or threat of workplace violence.
  • Employers are immune from civil liability if they sought a protective order in good faith or failed to seek a protective order.

Discussion

HB 324 allows employers to petition for a workplace violence protective order against individuals who have engaged in or threatened workplace violence. Workplace violence is knowingly causing or threatening to cause bodily injury to, or significant damage to the property of an employer or employee performing their duties as an employee. To obtain a protective order, an employer must prove an action or threat has occurred which would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or harassed. Additionally, a threat must also cause a reasonable person to fear that the threat will be carried out. Non-threatening speech and speech involving labor disputes are protected and not prohibited.

If an employer petitions for a workplace violence protective order and has knowledge that a specific individual is the target, the employer must notify the targeted individual that they are seeking a workplace violence protective order. The courts may immediately enter an ex parte workplace violence protective order to protect the petitioner or any individual named in the petition. The court can grant any of the following as relief under the protective order: 1) enjoin the perpetrator from committing workplace violence; 2) enjoin the perpetrator from threatening the employer or employee of the petitioner while performing the employee’s duties; and 3) order the perpetrator to stay away from the petitioner’s workplace. Violating a workplace violence protective order is a class A misdemeanor. Employers are also immune from civil liability if they sought the protective order in good faith. They are also immune from civil liability for failing to seek a workplace violence protective order.

 

Action Items

  1. Have workplace violence policies updated.
  2. Consult with legal counsel in the event of an act or threat of workplace violence.
  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. © 2023 ManagEase

April Updates

APPLIES TO

Varies

EFFECTIVE

Varies

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

USCIS Redesigned Green Cards and EADs

Personnel who inspect work authorization documents should note that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) have announced new designs to Permanent Resident Cards (Green Cards) and Employment Authorization Documents (EADs). The changes are meant to improve the security of the documents and are part of the routine update process. USCIS started issuing the new cards on January 30, 2023. Appropriate personnel should review samples of the redesigns to familiarize themselves with the new design of the documents.

Updated FCRA Summary of Consumer Rights

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released a new version of the Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act on March 17, 2023. Employers must use the updated document by March 20, 2024. Employers must include the Summary with pre-adverse action notices in addition to providing it to applicants and employees to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The updates to the Summary are largely non-substantive and are technical corrections.

Arizona: Updated Recordkeeping Requirements for Paid Sick Leave

Arizona amended its general recordkeeping requirements under the Earned Paid Sick Time Act. Employers no longer have to maintain records of the employee’s earned paid sick time balance that is carried over to the current year, accrued to date in the current year, or provided to date in the current year. Employers also no longer have to record total premium pay for overtime hours and an explanation of how the premium pay was calculated exclusive of straight-time wages for overtime hours recorded. Employers still must record the amount of earned paid sick time available, the amount of earned paid sick time taken to date in the year, and the amount of pay received as earned paid sick time.

California: Proposition 22 Work Classification Law Mostly Upheld

On March 13, 2023, in Castellanos v. State of California, the California Court of Appeal mostly upheld a voter approved worker classification law. Proposition 22 classified certain app-based rideshare and delivery drivers as independent contractors but mandated companies using their services to provide at least 120% minimum wage during engaged time, payment per mile, healthcare coverage for certain number of hours worked, and anti-harassment policies. After a legal challenge, the court ruled Proposition 22 was valid but struck down the portion that defined what constituted an amendment of the Proposition since it intruded on legislative and judiciary authority.

California: CDPH Follows CDC Guidance on COVID-19 Isolation and Quarantine

Effective March 13, 2023, the California Department of Public Health’s guidance on COVID-19 isolation and quarantine mostly follows the Centers for Disease Control’s revised guidance. Of note, there is no longer a testing obligation in order to leave isolation before Day 10 if symptoms are absent or mild and improving and the individual is fever-free for 24 hours without using fever-reducing medication. This is a change to the definition of “infectious period.” Individuals returning from isolation can also remove their masks before Day 10 if they have two sequential negative tests at least one day apart. Close contacts must still mask for 10 days.

California: Outdoor Workers Must Have Access to Drinking Water

On February 6, 2023, California’s Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (OSHAB) held that employers must provide drinking water “as close as practicable” to outdoor workers. Under the Heat Illness Prevention Standard, employees must have access to potable drinking water “located as close as practicable to the areas where employees are working.” In the Rios Farming Company, LLC, an OSHAB administrative law judge found “as close as practicable” to mean employers are required to locate water as close to the areas where employees are working as can be reasonably accomplished in order to encourage frequent water consumption, while taking into consideration the specific jobsite conditions. In this case, the employer’s location of water jugs forced employees to move through trellises, sometimes at great distances, creating tripping hazards as well as the need for repetitive bending and balancing. This created a deterrent effect to frequent water consumption. Employers should evaluate their current locations for drinking water and make changes if the location deters frequent consumption.

California: CPRA Final Regulations Approved and in Effect

California’s Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved the California Privacy Rights Act’s (CPRA) long-awaited final regulations. Although the CPRA went into effect on January 1, 2023, the final regulations are effective as of March 29, 2023 and provide additional guidance on the implementation of the CPRA. Employers should take specific note that the consumer rights protections of the CPRA now apply to workforce personal information. The workforce includes employees, applicants, and independent contractors. Employers should consult with legal counsel to evaluate their compliance obligations.

Berkeley, CA: Fair Work Week Ordinance Adopted

As of January 1, 2024, businesses in Berkeley with at least 10 employees within the city will need to comply with the Fair Work Week Ordinance. Employers will have to provide a written, good-faith estimate of employees’ work schedules to all current employees and before hiring new employees. A new employee may ask to modify the estimated work schedule and the employer has sole discretion to accept or reject the request. The estimate of the work schedule must be provided with at least two weeks’ notice either through posting in a conspicuous place or through electronic means. Additional work hours and shifts must be offered to current employees first before hiring new employees. Any changes to a schedule must be provided within 24 hours of a change, and the employee has the right to decline any previously unscheduled hours added to the employee’s schedule if the notice was provided less than 14 days before the first day of the schedule. Changes to schedules require an hour of predictability pay at the employee’s regular rate of pay whenever changes in an employee’s schedule occur with certain limitations.

Connecticut: Continued At-Will Employment is Consideration for Restrictive Covenants

In Schimenti Construction Company, LLC v. Schimenti, the Connecticut Appellate Court ruled continued at-will employment is sufficient consideration for restrictive covenant agreements like non-disclosure, non-compete, or non-solicit agreements. Here, an employee entered into a non-disclosure agreement in 2014 with a two-year non-compete and resigned in 2018. The employer filed a claim that the employee breached the duties owed under the non-disclosure agreement. In its ruling, the court relied on precedent that the underlying purpose of the employee entering into such agreements was to continue employment at a mutually agreeable salary. The benefit offered to the employee was continued employment in exchange for services provided to the employer. The court remanded the case to the trial court for additional proceedings including the opportunity for the employee to present evidence that there was no connection between the non-disclosure and continued employment. Continue to look for updates on this case.

Kentucky: Economic Realities Test for Independent Contractor Classification

In Oufafa v. Taxi, LLC, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled it would adopt the economic realities test to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor to determine eligibility for workers’ compensation. Here, a taxicab company allegedly sought to avoid workers’ compensation benefits for a driver who was shot in the shoulder by claiming he was an independent contractor and not an employee. The economic realities test consists of six factors: 1) the permanency of the relationship between the parties; 2) the degree of skill required for the rendering of the services; 3) the worker’s investment in equipment or materials for the task; 4) the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss, depending upon their skill; 5) the degree of the alleged employer’s right to control the manner in which the work is performed; and 6) whether the service rendered is an integral part of the alleged employer’s business. Employers should note that there are multiple different independent contractor tests depending on the applicable law and governmental agency involved.

Maryland: Montgomery County Minimum Wage Increase

On July 1, 2023, the minimum wage in Montgomery County will increase to $16.70 per hour for employers with 51 or more employees. Employers with 50 or fewer employees will see an increase to $15.00 per hour. Employers with 10 or fewer employees must pay $14.50 per hour. Bill 28-17 requires the minimum wage to be raised incrementally each July 1. Employees aged 18 and under, working under 20 hours per week, are exempt from this rate but must earn at least 85% of the state minimum wage rate.

Michigan: Amendment to Protect LGBTQ Rights

SB 4 expands the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) to protect against discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. The amendment defines gender identity or expression as “having or being perceived as having a gender-related self-identity or expression, whether or not associated with an individual’s assigned sex at birth.” Sexual orientation means “having an orientation for heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality or having a history of such an orientation or being identified with such an orientation.” The amendment codifies existing case law but expands it by adding protections for gender identity and expression. Employers should update existing policies and trainings.

New York: Warehouse Worker Protection Act Delayed

The Warehouse Worker Protection Act has been amended to delay its enactment to June 19, 2023 and change several provisions. It no longer applies to drivers or couriers to or from a warehouse distribution center. The threshold for coverage has been increased from 500 to 1,000 employees in the aggregate for multiple warehouses. The deadline for notices of quotas also reflects the new enactment date of June 19, 2023. The recordkeeping requirement has been changed to a three-year requirement. Employers now have 14 calendar days to respond to employee requests for records. Former employees are limited to one request for records. There is also a rebuttable presumption of unlawful retaliation for adverse actions taken against employees within 90 days of initiating a request for quota data or making a complaint. Employers should review the changes and make updates as necessary prior to June.

New York: Criminal Charges for Wage Theft

The Manhattan District Attorney’s office is partnering with the New York State Department of Labor and local law enforcement to create the “Worker Protection Unit and “Stolen Wages Fund.” The Worker Protection Unit will focus on criminal charges against companies and their executives and managers who commit wage theft. The Stolen Wage Fund will compensate victims of wage theft. Employers who engage in wage theft can face charges of property theft and be prohibited from receiving future New York City contracts. SB S2832 is also pending approval to add wage theft to the list of activities included in the crime of larceny.

Utah: Restrictions on Use of Vaccination or Immunity Status for Employment Decisions

Effective May 3, 2023, HB 131 prohibits employers, government entities, and places of public accommodation from using proof of immunity or vaccination status as a restriction including when making employment decisions. Prohibited acts include: 1) refusing employment to an individual; 2) barring an individual from employment; or 3) discriminating against an individual in compensation or in any term, condition, or privilege of employment. The restrictions on discrimination do not apply to: 1) federal contractors; 2) regulated entities whose compliance with the law would affect funding from federal agencies; 3) employees who have direct exposure to infectious materials that may expose them to hepatitis or tuberculosis; 4) employers who have a nexus or external requirement for vaccination related to the employee’s duties and responsibilities; and 5) contracts for goods and services entered into before May 3, 2023 where compliance with the law would substantially impair the contract (excludes contracts between employers and employees). There is no prohibition on recommending that employees receive vaccinations. Employers should update their health and safety policies and train appropriate personnel prior to the effective date.

Seattle, WA: Caste Discrimination Prohibited

Effective March 22, 2023, the Seattle City Council passed a first-in-the-nation ordinance prohibiting discrimination in employment, education, and housing based on a person’s caste. Caste is defined as a system of rigid social stratification characterized by hereditary status, endogamy, and social barriers sanctioned by custom, law, or religion. It is a system that is primarily associated with the South Asian region where its existence is linked to the social structure of Hinduism. The majority of affected communities live in or originate from India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. The ordinance cites that the South Asian population is the fastest growing major ethnic group in Seattle and have brough the concept of caste and associated discrimination with them to Seattle communities. The ordinance also cited a recent high-profile case in which the former California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (now Civil Rights Department) sued a tech company for discrimination under ancestry and race where the employee alleged discrimination based on caste by his managers. The case demonstrated that caste discrimination needed to be specifically addressed by law. Employers should update their policies and trainings to reflect that caste discrimination is prohibited.


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. © 2023 ManagEase