|
APPLIES TO
All Employers with CA Employees
|
EFFECTIVE
January 31, 2020 |
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
|
As of January 1, 2020, AB 51 prohibited employers from requiring job applicants and employees to enter into arbitration agreements. However, on December 30, 2019, a federal district court issued a temporary restraining order preventing the state from enforcing the bill while a request for preliminary injunction was reviewed. After extensive legal argument, on January 31, 2020, the court issued a preliminary injunction with respect to arbitration agreements covered by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), preventing the bill from going into effect while its legality is resolved in court. On February 10, 2020, the court issued its ruling supporting the preliminary injunction. Employers with arbitration agreements that are not covered by the FAA (e.g., agreements with interstate truckers) are still subject to the terms of AB 51.
The legal community appears to uniformly indicate that this development means that employers subject to the FAA can continue to use mandatory arbitration agreements until further development in the federal court case challenging the bill. However, employers are recommended to consult with legal counsel on the best course of action before determining next steps.
Action Items
- Review arbitration agreements with legal counsel in light of the recent development.
- 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.
© 2020 ManagEase
New Form W-4 Does Not Apply to All State Tax Withholding – Are You Using the Right Forms?
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers
EFFECTIVE
January 1, 2020
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In December 2019, the IRS issued a new Form W-4 to reflect the elimination of withholding allowances because individuals can no longer claim personal or dependency exemptions. While this was intended to allow for more accurate federal tax withholding calculations, it raises the question of what employers should do with respect to state tax withholding requirements.
Read more
Federal DOL Updates: Clarification on the “Joint Employer” Standard, Overtime Calculation in Multi-Week Bonus Periods, and Per-Project Pay for Exempt Salary Threshold
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers
EFFECTIVE
As indicated
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) published a final rule concerning the joint employer standard, as well as two Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) opinion letters providing guidance on specific wage and hour inquiries. Below are key takeaways from each of these updates.
Read more
The SECURE Act Changes Retirement Plan Rules
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with ERISA Retirement Plans
EFFECTIVE
January 1, 2020, unless otherwise indicated
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
As part of the federal spending bill, the government enacted the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Act of 2019, or the “SECURE Act.” It includes extensive changes to pension and retirement plan rules. Here are some of the key highlights.
Read more
Second Circuit: Equal Pay Claims are Easier to Reach for Employees
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with CT, NY, and VT Employees
EFFECTIVE
December 6, 2019
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Lenzi v. Systemax, Inc., the Second Circuit Court of Appeal addressed a gender discrimination claim under Title VII based on unequal pay. There, the court stated that a female employee, claiming she was paid less than the men who also held Vice President titles within the company, only needed to show that she was discriminated against based on her sex. She did not need to show that she was paid less than her male peers or that they held substantially equal positions to hers.
Essentially, the court distinguished the standards of proof required between unequal pay claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 versus under the Equal Pay Act of 1963, making the bar for equal pay claims lower under Title VII. Employers should expect to see more Title VII claims for allegations of unequal pay based on sex discrimination.
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: AB 5 Updates for Independent Contractors
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Businesses with CA Independent Contractors
EFFECTIVE
As Indicated
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
On January 1, 2020, AB 5 went into effect. It essentially codified the ruling in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, which implemented an ABC test for determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. However, the bill also broadened the application of the ABC test and add a slew of exemptions for certain types of workers under certain circumstances.
Read more
California: AB 51 Update – Mandatory Arbitration Agreements are Back In?
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with CA Employees
EFFECTIVE
January 31, 2020
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
As of January 1, 2020, AB 51 prohibited employers from requiring job applicants and employees to enter into arbitration agreements. However, on December 30, 2019, a federal district court issued a temporary restraining order preventing the state from enforcing the bill while a request for preliminary injunction was reviewed. After extensive legal argument, on January 31, 2020, the court issued a preliminary injunction with respect to arbitration agreements covered by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), preventing the bill from going into effect while its legality is resolved in court. On February 10, 2020, the court issued its ruling supporting the preliminary injunction. Employers with arbitration agreements that are not covered by the FAA (e.g., agreements with interstate truckers) are still subject to the terms of AB 51.
The legal community appears to uniformly indicate that this development means that employers subject to the FAA can continue to use mandatory arbitration agreements until further development in the federal court case challenging the bill. However, employers are recommended to consult with legal counsel on the best course of action before determining next steps.
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: FMCSA Preempts State Meal and Rest Requirements, But Don’t Jump on the Bandwagon Yet!
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
Employers of CA Passenger-Carrying Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers
EFFECTIVE
January 13, 2020
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) recently granted a petition from the American Bus Association (ABA), stating that California’s meal and rest period rules are preempted by federal law, which governs passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicle drivers’ hours of service requirements. Specifically, in contrast with prior challenges, the FMCSA said that state meal and rest period requirements are laws on commercial motor vehicle safety, which is regulated by federal law. Moreover, the meal and rest period rules have no safety benefit, are incompatible with federal regulations, and cause an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.
While this may seem like a done deal, employers must still be cautious of enforcement of meal and rest period requirements in California. It is unclear if California will challenge FMCSA’s ruling, or what its next steps will be. Employers are strongly urged to consult with legal counsel before taking any steps that would violate state wage and hour laws. Continue to look for updates on this topic.
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
Colorado: Wage and Hour Change is a Comin’!
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with CO Employees
EFFECTIVE
March 16, 2020
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
On January 22, 2020, the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) published a final rule for the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards (COMPS) Order #36, with sweeping changes to the state’s wage and hour laws. Specifically, COMPS replaces the Colorado Minimum Wage Order in an attempt to provide clarity to the rules. Most significantly, COMPS will now apply to all industries.
Read more
Connecticut: New Law Codifies “80/20” Rule for Compensating Tipped Employees
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with CT Employees in Hospitality and Service Industries
EFFECTIVE
April 1, 2020*
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Hospitality employers who take tip credits when compensating employees will be relieved to hear that Connecticut’s legislation has made new strides to clarifying how tipped employees must be paid. The recently-passed Public Act 19-1 requires the Connecticut Labor Commissioner to adopt regulations codifying the federal “80/20” rule. The Act requires the Labor Commissioner to post a notice of intent to adopt these regulations by April 1, 2020, though the actual effective date of the rule is not yet clear.
Read more
New Jersey: Final Regulations for Statewide Paid Sick Leave Now Available
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with NJ Employees
EFFECTIVE
January 6, 2020
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
The New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development recently released a 53-page document providing final regulations and enforcement guidance on the statewide Earned Sick Leave Law (ESLL). The final regulations do not make any substantive changes to the ESLL, but rather provide responses and clarification to concerns expressed during the public comment period of the proposed regulations.
Read more