|
APPLIES TO
Businesses with Consumers in CA
|
EFFECTIVE
June 22, 2020 |
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
|
Website accessibility is an increasingly hot topic. As of January 1, 2020, businesses subject to the California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) must make the required consumer notices and information that are posted on company websites reasonably accessible to consumers with disabilities. Specifically, businesses must follow generally recognized industry standards, such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, version 2.1 of June 5, 2018, from the World Wide Web Consortium, or provide information on how a consumer with a disability may access the notices in an alternative format.
More recently, in Martinez v. San Diego County Credit Union, a California Court of Appeal recently stated that accessibility standards for public accommodations, as prescribed in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), can apply to a business’s website in cases where utilizing the website grants access to the business’s physical locations, goods, or services. There, a visually impaired plaintiff sued a credit union whose website was not easily accessible using screen-reading software.
The court noted that the website housed a store locator and information about the credit union’s services, which made it easier for sighted customers to find physical locations to access service. The link between the customer’s use of the website and their ability to access the physical location of the website and services triggered the ADA accessibility standard. Ultimately, the court did not determine if the credit union’s website violated the law, but rather stated there was a potential claim for violation of ADA standards.
Action Items
- Evaluate websites for ADA and CCPA compliance.10
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.
© 2020 ManagEase
August Updates
/in HR Alerts, UncategorizedAPPLIES TO
Varies
EFFECTIVE
Varies
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Read more
California: Accessibility Matters for Business Websites
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
Businesses with Consumers in CA
EFFECTIVE
June 22, 2020
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Website accessibility is an increasingly hot topic. As of January 1, 2020, businesses subject to the California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) must make the required consumer notices and information that are posted on company websites reasonably accessible to consumers with disabilities. Specifically, businesses must follow generally recognized industry standards, such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, version 2.1 of June 5, 2018, from the World Wide Web Consortium, or provide information on how a consumer with a disability may access the notices in an alternative format.
More recently, in Martinez v. San Diego County Credit Union, a California Court of Appeal recently stated that accessibility standards for public accommodations, as prescribed in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), can apply to a business’s website in cases where utilizing the website grants access to the business’s physical locations, goods, or services. There, a visually impaired plaintiff sued a credit union whose website was not easily accessible using screen-reading software.
The court noted that the website housed a store locator and information about the credit union’s services, which made it easier for sighted customers to find physical locations to access service. The link between the customer’s use of the website and their ability to access the physical location of the website and services triggered the ADA accessibility standard. Ultimately, the court did not determine if the credit union’s website violated the law, but rather stated there was a potential claim for violation of ADA standards.
Action Items
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.
© 2020 ManagEase
Supreme Court Allows Employers to Withhold Employee Birth Control Access
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers subject to the ACA
EFFECTIVE
July 8, 2020
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, U.S. Supreme Court stated that employers may refuse to provide contraception coverage in healthcare plans based on a sincere religious or moral objection. This ends the nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting employers from taking advantage of the interim and final rules that permitted these exemptions to the general rule that health plans must provide coverage for all FDA approved contraception methods.
Ultimately, the Court stated that the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury (Departments) had discretion to exempt religious employers, such as churches, from being required to provide contraceptive coverage to employees. Additionally, there were no procedural errors in how the Departments promulgated the two rules at issue. The first significantly expanded the church exemption to include an employer that “objects . . . based on its sincerely held religious beliefs,” “to its establishing, maintaining, providing, offering, or arranging [for] coverage or payments for some or all contraceptive services.” The second rule created a similar “moral exemption” for employers with sincerely held moral objections to providing some or all forms of contraceptive coverage.
However, the case is not over. It is being remanded back to the lower court for continued litigation, including a determination of whether the exemptions can survive the administrative law requirement of “reasoned decisionmaking” when agencies issue rules. Continue to look for further rulings on this issue.
Action Items
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.
© 2020 ManagEase
Supreme Court Says DACA Stays – For Now
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers of DACA Recipients
EFFECTIVE
June 18, 2020
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Dept. of Homeland Security v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., the U.S. Supreme Court recent ruled that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was improperly ended by the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS).
DACA allows certain unauthorized aliens who arrived in the United States as children to apply for a two-year forbearance of removal. Those granted relief become eligible for work authorization and various federal benefits. In June 2017, DHS announced it would no longer accept new applications, but that existing DACA recipients whose benefits were set to expire within six months could apply for a two-year renewal. For all other DACA recipients, previously issued grants of relief would expire on their own terms, with no prospect for renewal.
The Supreme Court said that required procedures were not followed when DHS ended the program, and DHS’s stated grounds for ending the program were insufficient. As a result, DACA recipients may continue to renew membership in the program, which includes work authorization in the U.S. and temporary protection from deportation. Employers should continue to look for updates on this topic should DHS attempt to end the program again.
Action Items
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.
© 2020 ManagEase
COVID-19: EEOC Updates Guidance on ADA and Other EEO Laws
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers
EFFECTIVE
June 11 and 17, 2020
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) continuously updates its “What You Should Know” guidance related to COVID-19. It recently provided updates on June 11th and 17th. Here are some of the key takeaways:
Action Items
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.
© 2020 ManagEase
PPP Extensions Provide Relief for Borrowers
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with PPP Loans
EFFECTIVE
June 5, 2020
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
HR 7010 recently extended certain provisions of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Flexibility Act of 2020.
Action Items
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.
© 2020 ManagEase
U.S. DOL Clarifies Overtime Exemption for Commissioned Employees
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers
EFFECTIVE
May 19, 2020
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), commission-paid employees may be exempt from overtime pay if they meet certain conditions, including a compensation test, regular rate test, and if the employer is a qualified “establishment.” As of May 19, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) clarified the “establishment” test by removing prior historical, and in some cases contradictory or confusing, interpretations of the exemption.
In order to qualify for the exemption, the commissioned employee must work for a retail or service establishment. The DOL and various courts looked at a variety of factors to identify what establishments counted for the purpose of this exemption, creating lists of establishments that were “covered” or “not covered.”
In the May 19 update, the DOL withdrew these lists, emphasizing the importance of not relying solely on labels. In the same way that an individual’s job title alone does not determine things like FLSA classification, employers will need to undergo fact-specific analysis of a particular establishment in order to determine if the establishment is not-retail.
Action Items
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.
© 2020 ManagEase
IRS Relaxes Restrictions on Making Mid-Year Health Coverage Changes
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers
EFFECTIVE
May 12, 2020
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Under normal circumstances, employees are typically only able to elect health coverage during open enrollment each plan year, unless the employee experiences qualifying life events. On May 12, 2020, the IRS issued IRS Notice 2020-29, which suspends the federal rule limiting mid-year plan changes. Notice 2020-29 allows employers to amend Section 125 plans to permit mid-year changes to coverage for 2020.
Examples of mid-year changes employers may permit include:
In addition to flexibility with plan elections, Notice 2020-29 allows health FSA grace periods that expire in 2020 to be extended through December 31, 2020, providing employees more time to set aside funds for medical expenses that may have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Action Items
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.
© 2020 ManagEase
California: CCPA Final Regulations Pending
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All For-Profit Employers with CA Employees subject to the CCPA
EFFECTIVE
TBD
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
On July 1, 2020, the California Attorney General began enforcing the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) which requires businesses to comply with certain privacy protections for consumers and employees who reside in California. However, California is still lacking guidance on compliance with the CCPA. On June 1, 2020, the California Attorney General released the final proposed regulations for the CCPA to the California Office of Administrative Law (OAL). OAL has up to 30 working days, plus an additional 60 calendar days under Executive Order N-40-20 related to the COVID-19 pandemic, to review the package for procedural compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act. Once approved by the OAL, the final regulation text will become enforceable.
Read more
California: Cal/OSHA Publishes Guidance on Reporting Requirements for COVID-19 on Safety Logs
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All CA Employers
EFFECTIVE
June 3, 2020
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Cal/OSHA, California’s state-specific workplace safety agency, recently published an FAQ regarding the recording and reporting requirements for COVID-19 cases. The FAQ confirms that employers must record COVID-19 illnesses if they are work-related and meet certain criteria.
Read more