Requirements for the timing and length of an employee’s meal break may vary from state to state. In Washington, an employee who works five or more consecutive hours must be provided a minimum 30-minute meal period, unless the employee chooses to waive the meal break period. The Washington Supreme Court recently clarified the standard to determine an employer’s liability for a missed meal break.
Specifically, the state supreme court stated that a when an employee provides evidence that he or she did not receive a timely meal break, a greater burden exists on employers to prove that no violation of the Washington Administrative Code § 296-126-092 truly occurred. An employer merely providing an employee the opportunity to take a meal break may not be sufficient to resolve employer liability. Rather, the employer must demonstrate either that no violation occurred and that the employee was actually provided a meal break, or that a valid meal waiver exists.
California: Arbitration May be Enforced For Certain Wage and Hour Claims
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with CA Employees
EFFECTIVE
August 3 and 21, 2017
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Two recent state Court of Appeal cases permit arbitration of certain wage and hour claims, including representative actions under the Private Attorney Generals Act (“PAGA”) and an administrative wage claim filed before the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”), under certain circumstances.
California: New Bills on Background Checks, Overtime Exemptions, and More
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with CA Employees in Education or Law Enforcement
EFFECTIVE
January 1, 2018
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Gov. Brown recently signed a number of new bills that will impact a variety of employment practices, including background check requirements in certain industries, overtime exemption standards, and requirements for obtaining teaching credentials. A summary of the new bills are as follows:
California: Employers May Prohibit Employees From Earning Vacation in Their First Year
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with CA Employees
EFFECTIVE
July 28, 2017
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Although California does not require an employer to provide employees with vacation benefits, employers who elect to do so are obliged to pay attention to a host of regulations. For example, California forbids employers from causing employees to forfeit earned vacation time (e.g., by way of “use it or lose it” policies), because vacation benefits are considered a form of vested wages. In a recent case, however, a California Court of Appeal stated that employers may prohibit employees from earning any vacation in their first year of employment, provided that the vacation policy is properly worded.
Connecticut: Federal Law Does Not Preempt Medical Marijuana Protections for Employees under State Law
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with CT Employees
EFFECTIVE
August 8, 2017
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Company LLC, a Connecticut federal district court stated that federal law concerning unlawful marijuana use does not necessarily preempt state-level protections for marijuana users. In this case, Connecticut’s Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (“PUMA”) was found to preempt a handful of federal statutes when applied to the employment context. This decision could have a major impact on employers who currently implement a zero-tolerance substance abuse policy in the workplace.
Oregon: First State in the Nation to Pass Predictive Scheduling Law
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All OR Employers of 500+ Employees Worldwide in Retail, Food Service, or Hospitality Industries
EFFECTIVE
July 1, 2018
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Last year, Seattle and New York City both implemented secure scheduling ordinances. Although this type of employee-friendly legislation appears to be gaining ground, Oregon has become the first state in the nation to do so with the signing of its Fair Work Week Act (the “Act”) on August 8, 2017. The Act imposes a host of new requirements for employers in the retail, food service, or hospitality industries, with staggered effective dates for certain provisions of the Act.
Oregon: Changes to Manufacturing Overtime Rules (Again)
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with OR Employees in Manufacturing Industries
EFFECTIVE
August 8, 2017
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Early this year, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (“BOLI”) published a new interpretation of how employers must calculate overtime hours for employees in a mill, factory, or manufacturing establishment. This interpretation was swiftly overturned by a county court. Now, Governor Kate Brown has signed H.B. 3458 into law, which codifies the applicable method to calculate overtime for these employees.
New Hampshire: Franchisors are the Not Employers of its Franchisees/Franchisees’ Employees
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with NH Employees
EFFECTIVE
July 18, 2017
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In late July, New Hampshire Governor Jon Sununu signed Senate Bill 89, which clarifies how joint employer status is determined in reference to a franchisor/franchisee relationship. The method of determining joint-employment status has experienced some back-and-forth since the 2015 Browning-Ferris decision – the U.S. Department of Labor initially implemented broad guidance on interpreting joint employment status, then withdrew the guidance. New Hampshire is the ninth state this year to enact a statute reducing the likelihood a franchisor may be deemed a joint employer.
Although Browning-Ferris involved a staffing agency, many business groups were concerned that the joint-employer standard of a party having “control” over the working conditions of the employee could impact franchisors. New Hampshire’s Senate Bill 89 addresses this issue by stating that “a franchisor is only an employer if the franchisor agrees in writing to assume the role of employer or co-employer of the franchisee or the employee of the franchisee.”
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.
© 2017 ManagEase, Incorporated.
New York, NY: Final Regulations for “Ban the Box” Go into Effect, Expand Employee Rights
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with NY Employees
EFFECTIVE
August 5, 2017
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
New York City “banned the box” nearly two years ago with the implementation of the Fair Chance Act (the “Act”). Recently, the NYC Commission on Human Rights published final regulations that expand upon the enforcement guidance implementing the Fair Chance Act. These regulations clarify existing obligations and impose additional obligations on employers performing background checks on potential and existing employees.
Washington: Supreme Court Clarifies Meal Break Requirements
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with WA Employees
EFFECTIVE
August 10, 2017
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Requirements for the timing and length of an employee’s meal break may vary from state to state. In Washington, an employee who works five or more consecutive hours must be provided a minimum 30-minute meal period, unless the employee chooses to waive the meal break period. The Washington Supreme Court recently clarified the standard to determine an employer’s liability for a missed meal break.
Specifically, the state supreme court stated that a when an employee provides evidence that he or she did not receive a timely meal break, a greater burden exists on employers to prove that no violation of the Washington Administrative Code § 296-126-092 truly occurred. An employer merely providing an employee the opportunity to take a meal break may not be sufficient to resolve employer liability. Rather, the employer must demonstrate either that no violation occurred and that the employee was actually provided a meal break, or that a valid meal waiver exists.
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.
© 2017 ManagEase, Incorporated.
Washington: Pregnant Employees Must be Accommodated Regardless of Disability
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with WA Employees
EFFECTIVE
July 23, 2017
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Washington’s Health Starts Act (the “Act”) imposes new obligations on employers with pregnant employees. In a departure from the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Act requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant employees regardless of whether or not the employee is disabled by their pregnancy. The Act provides a list of reasonable accommodations employers may need to provide, and includes other important restrictions on medical certification and the “undue hardship” exemption.