Governor Carney recently signed HB 360 implementing new sexual harassment protections and employee training requirements.
Who does the bill apply to? The bill applies to employers with 4 or more employees. It also applies to state employees, unpaid interns, applicants, joint employees, and apprentices.
What does the bill prohibit? The bill prohibits sexual harassment, including unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when (1) it is explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of employment, (2) submission or rejection of such conduct is used as a basis for employment decisions, or (3) it has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an employee’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.
Delaware: New Sexual Harassment Protections and Training Requirements
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
Employers with 4 or more DE Employees
EFFECTIVE
January 1, 2019
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Governor Carney recently signed HB 360 implementing new sexual harassment protections and employee training requirements.
Who does the bill apply to? The bill applies to employers with 4 or more employees. It also applies to state employees, unpaid interns, applicants, joint employees, and apprentices.
What does the bill prohibit? The bill prohibits sexual harassment, including unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when (1) it is explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of employment, (2) submission or rejection of such conduct is used as a basis for employment decisions, or (3) it has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an employee’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.
Illinois: New Accommodations for Lactating Mothers
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
Employers with 5 or more IL Employees
EFFECTIVE
August 21, 2018
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Governor Rauner recently signed HB 1595 revising employer requirements for accommodating lactating mothers. Specifically, employers must now provide “reasonable break time” each time an employee needs to expresses milk for up to one year after the child’s birth, unless doing so would create an “undue hardship” on the employer. Employers have the burden to prove an undue hardship based on the nature and cost of the accommodation, overall financial resources of the facility and employer, and type of operation of the employer. Further, the employee’s break time “may” run concurrently with break time already provided, but is not required to.
Massachusetts: Significant New Limitations on Noncompete Agreements
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
All Employers with MA Employees
EFFECTIVE
October 1, 2018
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Governor Baker recently signed “An Act Relative to Economic Development in the Commonwealth” that significantly changes the way Massachusetts employers may use noncompete agreements. The following are key changes to be aware of.
San Antonio, TX: Paid Sick Leave is On the Way – Maybe
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
All Employers of 5 or more San Antonio Employees
EFFECTIVE
August 1, 2019
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
On August 16, 2018, a citizen-driven petition pushed the San Antonio City Council to vote and approve mandatory paid sick leave. Like Austin, San Antonio’s paid sick leave ordinance will require employers of five or more employees to begin providing paid time off next year, with a staggered effective date for smaller size employers. However, also like Austin, the San Antonio paid sick leave (PSL) ordinance may not go into effect if the Texas legislature passes a state preemption law prohibiting localities from issuing their own PSL laws. Look for updates in 2019. In the meantime, key provisions from the San Antonio paid sick leave (PSL) ordinance include:
September Updates
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
Varies
EFFECTIVE
Varies
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Read more
California: De Minimis Time Just Got Smaller – A New Wage and Hour Challenge
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
All Employers with CA Employees
EFFECTIVE
July 26, 2018
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Employers should take immediate action! Recently, in Troester v. Starbucks, the California Supreme Court stated that 4-10 minutes of time worked on a regular basis after clocking out must be compensated. Historically, federal law and the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement stated that employers do not have to pay employees for small amounts of time irregularly worked off-the-clock, where the administrative burden in recording such time is impractical or unreasonable. This de minimis time covers brief pre-shift or post-shift tasks, such as when turning on a computer or locking up. However, California employers may not be able to rely on the de minimis doctrine any longer.
Third Circuit: Employee’s Refusal to Report Sexual Harassment Does Not Bar Claims Against Employer
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
All Employers with DE, NJ, and PA Employees
EFFECTIVE
July 3, 2018
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Minarsky v. Susquehanna Cty., the Third Circuit Court of Appeal recently rejected the notion that an employee’s refusal to report sexual harassment automatically invalidated the employee’s harassment claim against the employer. There, the employee’s supervisor made unwanted sexual advances towards her and other women for years. The supervisor was reprimanded for incidents involving other women, but no further action was taken against him. In this case, the employee did not report her supervisor’s conduct for fear of losing her job. The County later terminated the supervisor after discovering the persistent harassment of the employee. Subsequently, the employee sued.
Sixth Circuit: Full-Time Work is Not an Essential Job Function Under the ADA
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
Employers with KY, MI, OH, and TN Employees
EFFECTIVE
July 17, 2018
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Hostettler v. College of Wooster, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal recently determined that an employer could not make full-time work an essential function of a job so as to justify failing to accommodate an employee under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). There, the employee suffered from post-partum depression and, based on her physician’s instruction, obtained approval to work part-time. However, her supervisor felt that the employee’s part-time work schedule burdened others in the department. When the employee submitted an updated medical certification requiring continued part-time employment, the supervisor terminated her based on her inability to return full-time.
Ninth Circuit: Fair Credit Reporting Act Pre-Adverse Action Notice Is a Procedural Requirement and Not an Actionable Right
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
Employers with AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA, Guam, and Northern Mariana Islands Employees
EFFECTIVE
July 13, 2018
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Dutta v. State Farm, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal stated that an employee did not have standing to sue a prospective employer for failing to comply with the pre-adverse action notice requirements under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The FCRA requires employers to give applicants notice before they take any adverse employment action based on the results of a consumer report (e.g., credit report). This requirement is meant to give the applicant an opportunity to contest or correct information in the credit report. After providing such pre-adverse action notice and certain timing requirements are met, an employer may then take the adverse action if it still intends to do so.
Eleventh Circuit: Valet Uniforms May Be “Materials” Requiring FLSA Coverage of Employees
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
Employers with AL, FL, and GA Employees
EFFECTIVE
June 29, 2018
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Asalde v. First Class Parking Sys. LLC, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal stated that a jury may determine whether valet uniforms meet the “materials” definition for “enterprise coverage” which would allow them the protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA applies, in part, to employers who have “employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for [interstate or international] commerce by any person” and have an annual volume of business of at least $500,000. (Emphasis added.)