A recent New Jersey Supreme Court case said that employers could face a disability discrimination claim if they fail to consider reasonable accommodations for medical marijuana use, even outside the workplace and after working hours. Although the state’s Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act (CUMMA) does not require employers to accommodate marijuana use in the workplace, the court indicated that CUMMA does not protect an employer from actions that violate the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) – such as discriminating against someone for using medical marijuana after hours.
https://www.managease.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ManagEase-Logo-Trans.png00ManagEasehttps://www.managease.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ManagEase-Logo-Trans.pngManagEase2020-04-14 20:32:312020-04-14 20:32:31New Jersey: After Hours Medical Marijuana May Have to be Accommodated
Governor Michelle Grisham recently signed a draft of bills that impact employer obligations in New Mexico, including revisions to the statewide minimum wage, addition of a “red flag” firearm law, statewide retirement, and more. Below is a summary of the new bills, all of which go into effect May 20, 2020, unless otherwise noted.
Beginning April 2, 2020, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) will require employers to provide protected paid leave and paid sick leave to employees through December 31, 2020.
First, the FFCRA’s Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act extends employee leave protections under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) as follows:
Applicability: Private employers with fewer than 500 employees.
Eligibility: Employees employed for 30 calendar days or more may request FMLA benefits for leave where the employee is unable to work (or telework) due to a need for leave to care for the son or daughter under 18 years of age of such employee if the school or place of care has been closed, or the child care provider of such son or daughter is unavailable, due to a public health emergency.
Paid Leave: The first 10 days of leave are unpaid after which the employer pays the following:
at least 2/3 of an employee’s regular pay rate;
for the number of hours an employee is otherwise normally scheduled to work (for those with varying schedules, employers should use an average number of scheduled work hours over the six-month period just prior to the date of leave); and
up to a maximum of $200 per day and $10,000 in aggregate.
https://www.managease.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ManagEase-Logo-Trans.png00ManagEasehttps://www.managease.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ManagEase-Logo-Trans.pngManagEase2020-03-20 14:19:332020-03-20 15:03:50What Does the Families First Coronavirus Response Act Mean for Employers?
The subject on top of everyone’s mind right now is the coronavirus. What is happening, what does it mean for employers, how bad is it going to get? While no one has all the answers at this point, there are things that employers can do and should be thinking about to protect their employees and their businesses. First and foremost – don’t panic!
What to know … Check resources regularly for updates and information on the virus, because things are changing quickly around the world; this includes, but is not limited to, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), World Health Organization (WHO), and Johns Hopkins University.
https://www.managease.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ManagEase-Logo-Trans.png00ManagEasehttps://www.managease.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ManagEase-Logo-Trans.pngManagEase2020-03-17 17:42:362020-03-17 17:42:36Coronavirus: How Can Employers Manage This Fast-Changing Situation?
The Browning-Ferris saga appears to be coming to a close. In 2015, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a ruling saying that joint employer status can be determined based on control, direct or indirect, of the worker’s terms and conditions of employment. After some back and forth on the validity of this rule, the NLRB recently issued its final rule defining joint employer status under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), aligning it with the U.S. Department of Labor’s own rule, and invalidating the standard set forth in Browning.
https://www.managease.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ManagEase-Logo-Trans.png00ManagEasehttps://www.managease.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ManagEase-Logo-Trans.pngManagEase2020-03-17 17:18:192020-03-17 17:18:19NLRB Issues Final Rule on Joint Employer Standard, Eliminates Browning-Ferris Test
For the last two years, employers subject to EEO-1 reporting had to notate compensation information and submit pay data alongside demographic data. This February, a D.C. district court recently approved the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) request to consider its 2017 and 2018 pay data collection complete.
https://www.managease.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ManagEase-Logo-Trans.png00ManagEasehttps://www.managease.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ManagEase-Logo-Trans.pngManagEase2020-03-17 17:13:442020-03-17 17:13:44EEOC Ends EEO-1 Pay Data Collection Component; 2019 Filing Timeline Still Up in the Air
In The Safeway Wage and Hour Cases, the California Court of Appeal revisited how to determine whether a manager’s duties qualify as exempt or nonexempt. Generally, the court identified two types of work that each qualify as exempt from overtime.
In Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Ctr., the California Court of Appeal stated that an employee’s settlement of a wage and hour claim with a staffing agency does not prevent the employee from later suing the staffing agency’s client on the same wage and hour claims, where the settlement agreement does not expressly release the staffing agency’s clients.
In Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., the California Supreme Court stated that employers must pay employees for time spent undergoing security checks before exiting the workplace. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal asked the California Supreme Court to decide the rule in this case two years ago. There, employees were required to clock out and then undergo a security check while still on the premises. The security check was extensive, requiring employees to open and take things out of their bags, and verify the serial numbers of their own Apple products. If they didn’t complete the security check, employees were disciplined. The Court stated that because the employer retained sufficient control over the employee during this process, it was considered working time that should have been compensated.
https://www.managease.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ManagEase-Logo-Trans.png00ManagEasehttps://www.managease.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ManagEase-Logo-Trans.pngManagEase2020-03-17 16:25:482020-03-17 16:25:48California: Employers Must Pay for Screening Time
New Jersey: After Hours Medical Marijuana May Have to be Accommodated
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with NJ Employees
EFFECTIVE
March 10, 2020
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
A recent New Jersey Supreme Court case said that employers could face a disability discrimination claim if they fail to consider reasonable accommodations for medical marijuana use, even outside the workplace and after working hours. Although the state’s Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act (CUMMA) does not require employers to accommodate marijuana use in the workplace, the court indicated that CUMMA does not protect an employer from actions that violate the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) – such as discriminating against someone for using medical marijuana after hours.
Read more
New Mexico: Updates Minimum Wage, Pregnancy Accommodations, “Red Flag” Gun Law, and More
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with NM Employees
EFFECTIVE
As Indicated
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Governor Michelle Grisham recently signed a draft of bills that impact employer obligations in New Mexico, including revisions to the statewide minimum wage, addition of a “red flag” firearm law, statewide retirement, and more. Below is a summary of the new bills, all of which go into effect May 20, 2020, unless otherwise noted.
Read more
April Updates
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
Varies
EFFECTIVE
Varies
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Read more
What Does the Families First Coronavirus Response Act Mean for Employers?
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with fewer than 500 Employees
EFFECTIVE
April 2, 2020
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Beginning April 2, 2020, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) will require employers to provide protected paid leave and paid sick leave to employees through December 31, 2020.
First, the FFCRA’s Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act extends employee leave protections under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) as follows:
Read more
Coronavirus: How Can Employers Manage This Fast-Changing Situation?
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers
EFFECTIVE
Going Forward
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
The subject on top of everyone’s mind right now is the coronavirus. What is happening, what does it mean for employers, how bad is it going to get? While no one has all the answers at this point, there are things that employers can do and should be thinking about to protect their employees and their businesses. First and foremost – don’t panic!
What to know … Check resources regularly for updates and information on the virus, because things are changing quickly around the world; this includes, but is not limited to, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), World Health Organization (WHO), and Johns Hopkins University.
Read more
NLRB Issues Final Rule on Joint Employer Standard, Eliminates Browning-Ferris Test
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers
EFFECTIVE
April 27, 2020
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
The Browning-Ferris saga appears to be coming to a close. In 2015, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a ruling saying that joint employer status can be determined based on control, direct or indirect, of the worker’s terms and conditions of employment. After some back and forth on the validity of this rule, the NLRB recently issued its final rule defining joint employer status under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), aligning it with the U.S. Department of Labor’s own rule, and invalidating the standard set forth in Browning.
Read more
EEOC Ends EEO-1 Pay Data Collection Component; 2019 Filing Timeline Still Up in the Air
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers
EFFECTIVE
February 10, 2020
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
For the last two years, employers subject to EEO-1 reporting had to notate compensation information and submit pay data alongside demographic data. This February, a D.C. district court recently approved the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) request to consider its 2017 and 2018 pay data collection complete.
Read more
California: Clarification on Defining Exempt Managerial Duties
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with CA Employees
EFFECTIVE
December 18, 2019
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In The Safeway Wage and Hour Cases, the California Court of Appeal revisited how to determine whether a manager’s duties qualify as exempt or nonexempt. Generally, the court identified two types of work that each qualify as exempt from overtime.
Read more
California: Settlement Agreements with Staffing Agencies Don’t Necessarily Cover Staffing Clients
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with CA Employees
EFFECTIVE
February 6, 2020
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Grande v. Eisenhower Medical Ctr., the California Court of Appeal stated that an employee’s settlement of a wage and hour claim with a staffing agency does not prevent the employee from later suing the staffing agency’s client on the same wage and hour claims, where the settlement agreement does not expressly release the staffing agency’s clients.
Read more
California: Employers Must Pay for Screening Time
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with CA Employees
EFFECTIVE
February 13, 2020
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., the California Supreme Court stated that employers must pay employees for time spent undergoing security checks before exiting the workplace. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal asked the California Supreme Court to decide the rule in this case two years ago. There, employees were required to clock out and then undergo a security check while still on the premises. The security check was extensive, requiring employees to open and take things out of their bags, and verify the serial numbers of their own Apple products. If they didn’t complete the security check, employees were disciplined. The Court stated that because the employer retained sufficient control over the employee during this process, it was considered working time that should have been compensated.
Read more