|
APPLIES TO
All Employers with CA Employees
|
EFFECTIVE
August 30, 2019 |
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
|
On August 30, 2019, Governor Newsom signed SB 778 which extends the current harassment training deadline for employers from January 1, 2020 to January 1, 2021. This basically gives employers an extra year to train supervisors and employees in order to meet SB 1343’s requirements. Don’t panic! If you already did your training this year, your organization gets credit for it with the extended deadline, and will only need to re-train two years from now (i.e., by the end of 2021) as previously planned. Similarly, if your already-established, two-year training schedule means you are required to provide training by the end of this year, the amended rules do not give you an extension of time, but allow this year’s training to count toward the new requirement and you will just remain on your set two-year training schedule.
Essentially, this bill does not change the timeline for those who have already completed their training this year, and gives extra time to those who completed training last year and have not yet done the next round of required training. Employers should note they must also still provide harassment training to employees within 6 months of hire, and to supervisors within 6 months of attaining the position.
Action Items
- Track harassment training compliance.
- Have harassment training scheduled within the required time periods.
- 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.
© 2019 ManagEase
Washington: Salary History Inquiry Ban and Sexual Harassment Updates
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
Certain Employers with WA Employees, as indicated
EFFECTIVE
As Indicated
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
The Washington Legislature has enacted a number of laws over the past few months. Below is a summary of legislative updates and key court decisions that impact employers.
Salary History Inquiry Prohibition
Yet another statewide salary history ban! Like Illinois and Nevada, the Washington legislature amended the state’s Equal Pay Act to prohibit salary history inquiries in an effort to promote fair pay practices. As of July 28, 2019, employers may not seek salary history information from applicants, though employers are permitted to verify information voluntarily disclosed by the applicant, or after the employer has extended an offer of employment containing compensation.
Read more
October Updates
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
Varies
EFFECTIVE
Varies
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Read more
DOL Issues Final Rule on Changes to Overtime Exemptions
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers Subject to the FLSA
EFFECTIVE
January 1, 2020
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued the final rule updating the salary requirements for overtime exempt classifications. For executive, administrative, professional, and computer professional exemptions, the salary threshold will increase from $455 to $684 per week (equivalent to $35,568 per year). Where state overtime exemptions are more strict, the federal rule will not impact those jurisdictions.
Read more
DOL Issues Opinion Letter on Using FMLA Leave for Child IEP Management
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers Subject to FMLA
EFFECTIVE
August 8, 2019
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently announced a new opinion letter from the Department’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) on whether or not leave may be taken under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in order to attend a Committee on Special Education (CSE) meeting to discuss the Individualized Education Program (IEP) of the employee’s child.
Read more
Expanded Moral Exemptions to ACA’s Contraception Mandate Struck Down Again
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers Subject to the ACA
EFFECTIVE
July 12, 2019
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. President of the United States, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal stated that the Trump administration’s rules expanding employer exemptions to the contraceptive mandate for religious or moral objections were not enforceable. Specifically, the final rules failed to follow the proper administrative procedures for enacting rules, because no public comment period was offered. Additionally, the court stated that the rules were not authorized by law, making them arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.
Read more
8th Circuit: Arbitration Agreements Must Be Enforceable Contracts
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with AR, IA, MN, MO, NE, ND, and SD Employees
EFFECTIVE
July 15, 2019
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Shockley v. PrimeLending, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeal reminded employers that arbitration agreements must be enforceable contracts. There, the employer’s mandatory arbitration agreement and delegation clause existed only in its Handbook Addendum. The employee had received the Addendum electronically, which only required her to click on the Addendum link to generate an automatic acknowledgement that it was reviewed. There was no evidence that the employee had actually ever opened the Handbook or Addendum and reviewed the arbitration policy.
Read more
9th Circuit: De Minimis Rule Does Not Apply to Regular Work Activity Regardless of How Little Time is Spent
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with CA Employees
EFFECTIVE
June 28, 2019
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Rodriguez v. Nike Retail Servs., Inc., the Ninth Circuit refused to apply the de minimis rule to time employees spent participating in security checks after clocking out, even though the time spent could have been less than a minute. The de minimis rule allows employers to forego paying employees for short, uncertain and indefinite periods of time that are irregularly worked off the clock.
Read more
IMPORTANT! California: Harassment Training Requirement Extended One Year
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with CA Employees
EFFECTIVE
August 30, 2019
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
On August 30, 2019, Governor Newsom signed SB 778 which extends the current harassment training deadline for employers from January 1, 2020 to January 1, 2021. This basically gives employers an extra year to train supervisors and employees in order to meet SB 1343’s requirements. Don’t panic! If you already did your training this year, your organization gets credit for it with the extended deadline, and will only need to re-train two years from now (i.e., by the end of 2021) as previously planned. Similarly, if your already-established, two-year training schedule means you are required to provide training by the end of this year, the amended rules do not give you an extension of time, but allow this year’s training to count toward the new requirement and you will just remain on your set two-year training schedule.
Essentially, this bill does not change the timeline for those who have already completed their training this year, and gives extra time to those who completed training last year and have not yet done the next round of required training. Employers should note they must also still provide harassment training to employees within 6 months of hire, and to supervisors within 6 months of attaining the position.
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.
© 2019 ManagEase
California: State Supreme Court Takes a Heavy-Handed Look at Unconscionability in Arbitration Agreements
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with CA Employees
EFFECTIVE
August 29, 2019
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Oto, LLC v. Kho, the California Supreme Court again pushed back on arbitration agreements in employment. The U.S. Supreme Court historically has said that states cannot discriminate against arbitration as a forum for resolving disputes or in favor of some disputes over others. Here, the California Supreme Court attacked the unconscionability of the agreement, meaning that the agreement was unfair in how it was presented to the employee.
Read more
California: AB 5 Cements the Dynamex Independent Contractor Test
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with CA Employees
EFFECTIVE
January 1, 2020
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In 2018, in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (Lee), the California Supreme Court set forth an ABC test for determining when an individual is an independent contractor rather than an employee for wage and hour-related claims. Specifically, the Court stated that a workers is presumed to be an employee unless the business proves: (A) the worker is free from control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, based in contract and in fact; (B) the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity. The previous Borello standard was left in place for determining independent contractor status for non-wage and hour claims.
Read more