|
APPLIES TO
All Employers with WA Employees
|
EFFECTIVE
January 1, 2022 |
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
|
The recently enacted WA Cares Fund creates mandatory long-term care insurance for workers. Workers, not employers, fund the program through payroll deductions equal to $0.58 per $100 of earnings. Employers must start facilitating these payroll deductions as of January 1, 2022, and begin reporting employee wages to the state on a quarterly basis. However, employees can opt out of the program if they purchase long-term care insurance before November 1, 2021, and apply to the state for an exemption between October 1, 2021 and December 31, 2022. This is the only exemption period available to employees. There is no limit to employee contributions, but there is a $36,500 lifetime cap (adjusted for inflation) on the program benefits an employee may receive.
The state will provide applicable employees with a formal exemption approval letter that the employees must in turn provide to their current and future employers in order to abstain from the required payroll deductions. Once employees are exempted, they are unable to reenter the program.
Although employers do not contribute to the employee’s financial obligations under the program, employers are subject to penalties if they do not make the required payments on behalf of their employees. Self-employed individuals are not required to participate, but may opt-in to the program. Benefits are available for qualifying employees beginning January 1, 2025.
- Review the WA Cares Fund website here for more information, as well as the.
- Have payroll processes updated to comply with the new deduction and employer reporting requirements.
- Review the employer toolkit for communications to share with employees regarding upcoming payroll changes and program requirements.
- 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.
© 2021 ManagEase
New York, NY: Fair Chance Act Guidance Clarifies Requirements
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with NYC Employees
EFFECTIVE
July 29, 2021
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
The New York City Fair Chance Act (FCA) went into effect on July 29, 2021. Recently, the New York City Commission on Human Rights (NYCCHR) issued guidance clarifying FCA requirements for employers. The following are key updates employers should note.
Read more
Oregon: Legislative Employment Updates
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with OR Employees
EFFECTIVE
As Indicated
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Oregon’s 2021 legislative session closed in June, passing a number of bills impacting several areas of employment practices. Key highlights include:
HB 2935: Anti-Discrimination Based on Hair. Effective January 1, 2022, Oregon’s CROWN Act expands anti-discrimination laws to cover physical characteristics historically associated with race, including specified hair styles and textures.
Read more
Oregon: Third Parties Liable for “Aiding and Abetting” Employment Discrimination
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with OR Employees
EFFECTIVE
June 23, 2021
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Charlton v. Ed Staub and Sons Petroleum, Inc. and Quicksilver Contracting Company, the Oregon Court of Appeal recently stated that aiding and abetting employment discrimination extends beyond employers and employees to third parties, such as customers. There, an employee reported a customer’s emaciated dog to the authorities. Subsequently, the customer told the employer it would take its business elsewhere. The employee was then terminated for poor customer service.
The court stated that anyone qualifying as a “person” under Oregon’s anti-discrimination laws may be subject to liability as an aider or abettor of an employer’s unlawful employment discrimination practice. There, an employee claimed that he engaged in protected whistleblowing conduct for which he was terminated as a result of the customer’s retaliatory conduct.
Employers must take care in responding to customer complaints or actions regarding employees, to ensure that employment actions are not the result of an employee’s protected activity. Similarly, employers should implement internal processes to manage employee complaints about third parties before they are relayed to the third party.
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.
© 2021 ManagEase
Pennsylvania: Final Rule Increase Salary Exempt Threshold Repealed
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with PA Employees
EFFECTIVE
September 7, 2021
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Last year, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry (DLI) published a final rule that was set to increase the salary threshold for the executive, administrative, and professional (EAP) exemption. The rule gradually increased the threshold on October 3rd of each year, with the first increase taking effect last year on October 3, 2020.
HB 336 not only repeals the salary exemption increase and restores it to its pre-2020 threshold, it also repeals the regulatory framework that defined the EAP exemption under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA). Effective September 7, 2021, the provisions regulating the definition of the executive, administrative, or professional exempt employee status will be repealed in their entirety. However, the EAP exemption itself still exists under the PMWA statute. The question then becomes “what are the criteria to qualify for the EAP exemption?”
Pennsylvania courts typically consider the federal authority that exists at the time of a state law enactment. With this change, courts may potentially interpret the PMWA’s EAP exemption by referring to the federal FLSA EAP exemptions existing when the PMWA was first enacted in 1968. However, given that the FLSA EAP exemptions have been revised in the years since, Pennsylvania employers may need to consider the EAP exemption with both historical and contemporary FLSA regulations in mind.
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.
© 2021 ManagEase
Pennsylvania: Time Spent During Employee Security Screenings Must Be Paid
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with PA Employees
EFFECTIVE
July 21, 2021
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In In re: Amazon.com, Inc., et al., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently stated that time employees spend undergoing security screening must be compensated. This ruling came in response to questions certified to the state supreme court by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal. Specifically, the court answered the questions: (1) whether time spent on an employer’s premises waiting to undergo, and undergoing, mandatory security screening is compensable as “hours worked” within the meaning of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act1 (PMWA); and (2) whether the de minimis doctrine bars claims brought under the PMWA. There, workers were required to undergo security screening before being allowed to exit the premises at the end of their shift.
First, the court noted that the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry defines “hours worked” to include the time an employer requires an employee to remain on company premises. Because employees there were not permitted to leave before completing the security screening, time spent waiting for and undergoing screening was deemed “hours worked.” Second, the court noted that the PMWA specifically requires payment for all “hours worked,” which means that the de minimis doctrine is not recognized under the PMWA. Rather, the de minimis doctrine has only been used in conjunction with the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
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.
© 2021 ManagEase
Texas: Sexual Harassment Protections Expanded
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with TX Employees
EFFECTIVE
September 1, 2021
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Texas recently passed a couple of bills expanding protections for victims of sexual harassment in the workplace. Note that the new rules are exclusive to sexual harassment claims, and do not apply to discrimination on any other protected category basis.
HB 21 extends the time employees must file a sexual harassment claim with the Texas Workforce Commission from 180 days to 300 days. The new timeframe applies to alleged sexual harassment occurring on or after September 1, 2021.
SB 45 creates individual liability for supervisors, managers, human resource professionals, coworkers, and other third parties who are found to violate sexual harassment prohibitions. Specifically, the definition of “employer” will now also include any person who “acts directly in the interests of an employer in relation to an employee.” The bill also changes the standard of liability for an “employer” to when they “(1) know or should have known that the conduct constituting sexual harassment was occurring; and (2) fail to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.” Employers should ensure robust reporting and investigation procedures are in place to respond to claims of sexual harassment in the workplace.
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.
© 2021 ManagEase
Washington: State Cares Fund Exemption Period Closing Soon!
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with WA Employees
EFFECTIVE
January 1, 2022
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
The recently enacted WA Cares Fund creates mandatory long-term care insurance for workers. Workers, not employers, fund the program through payroll deductions equal to $0.58 per $100 of earnings. Employers must start facilitating these payroll deductions as of January 1, 2022, and begin reporting employee wages to the state on a quarterly basis. However, employees can opt out of the program if they purchase long-term care insurance before November 1, 2021, and apply to the state for an exemption between October 1, 2021 and December 31, 2022. This is the only exemption period available to employees. There is no limit to employee contributions, but there is a $36,500 lifetime cap (adjusted for inflation) on the program benefits an employee may receive.
The state will provide applicable employees with a formal exemption approval letter that the employees must in turn provide to their current and future employers in order to abstain from the required payroll deductions. Once employees are exempted, they are unable to reenter the program.
Although employers do not contribute to the employee’s financial obligations under the program, employers are subject to penalties if they do not make the required payments on behalf of their employees. Self-employed individuals are not required to participate, but may opt-in to the program. Benefits are available for qualifying employees beginning January 1, 2025.
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.
© 2021 ManagEase
August Updates
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
Varies
EFFECTIVE
Varies
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Read more
OSHA Issues ETS for Certain Healthcare Providers
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
Certain Healthcare and Healthcare Support Employers
EFFECTIVE
June 21, 2021
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) recently issued an emergency temporary standard (ETS) for employers whose employees provide healthcare services or healthcare support services (e.g., hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, emergency responders, home healthcare workers, and employees in ambulatory care facilities where suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients are treated. Because the ETS is directed at unvaccinated workers most likely to be involved in caring for patients who have COVID-19, it specifically exempts certain healthcare workers:
Read more
Second Circuit: OSHA Compliance Overrides ADA Accommodation Protections
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers subject to the ADA in CT, NY, VT
EFFECTIVE
June 9, 2021
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Bey v. City of New York, the Second Circuit Court of Appeal stated that because OSHA regulations require a clean-shaven face when wearing a self-contained breathing apparatus (i.e., respirator), the firefighter plaintiffs with severe skin conditions could not be accommodated by allowing a small amount of facial hair growth.
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers must make “reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual” unless the employer “can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of [its] business.” The court here stated that “[a]n accommodation is not reasonable within the meaning of the ADA if it is specifically prohibited by a binding safety regulation promulgated by a federal agency.” Because OSHA’s regulation prohibits the accommodation the firefighters were seeking, they were not protected by the ADA under the circumstances.
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.
© 2021 ManagEase