|
APPLIES TO
All Employers Hiring in City of Philadelphia
|
EFFECTIVE
February 20, 2021 |
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
|
In 2016, the City of Philadelphia passed the “Fair Practices Ordinance,” prohibiting employers from discriminating against applicants and employees on the basis of credit history and credit-related information. On January 20, 2021, an amendment to this ordinance was enacted, decreasing certain employer and job-specific exemptions.
The ordinance prohibits employers from inquiring into, obtaining, or otherwise using credit-related information to take adverse employment actions, such as hiring, firing, promoting, or disciplining an employee or applicant. Specific exemptions to this provision applied, but under the latest amendments effective February 20, 2021, law enforcement agencies and financial institutions (inclusive of insurance companies, banks, credit unions, etc.) are no longer exempt.
If employers intend to rely on any exceptions, the employer must first (1) disclose reliance upon credit history to the applicant or employee in writing, and provide the specific information the employer references; and (2) give the applicant or employee an opportunity to explain the circumstances surrounding the information prior to taking any adverse action.
- Review the text of the bill here.
- Update hiring and background screening practices for compliance with the amended ordinance.
- 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
9th Circuit: State Wage Statement Rules Apply to Interstate Transportation Workers Based in California
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
Employers with AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA, Guam,
and the Northern Mariana Islands Interstate Transportation Employees
EFFECTIVE
February 2, 2021
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Ward v. United Airlines, Inc., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal stated that wage statement requirements under Labor Code § 226 are not preempted by federal law. There, airline pilot and flight attendant employees claimed they did not receive wage statements that complied with California law.
Read more
9th Circuit: California Labor Laws May Apply to Aviation Workers
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
Aviation Employers with AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA,
Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands Employees
EFFECTIVE
February 23, 2021
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Bernstein v. Virgin America, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal stated that California’s wage and hour laws are not preempted by federal law in the aviation context. Specifically, employees there alleged that Virgin failed to pay state minimum wage, overtime, and for every hour worked; failed to provide required meal periods, rest breaks, and accurate wage statements; failed to pay waiting time penalties; and violated the Unfair Competition Law. Employees also sought compensation under the California Labor Code’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).
Read more
Arizona: Anti-Discrimination Laws Expanded to Prohibit Pregnancy Discrimination
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with 15+ AZ Employees
EFFECTIVE
July 19, 2021
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
On February 4, 2021, Arizona Governor Ducey signed House Bill 2045 into law, amending the Arizona Civil Rights Act definition of the phrase “on the basis of sex” to protect workers from pregnancy or childbirth-related discrimination. This Civil Rights Act applies to employers of fifteen or more employees.
Like other pregnancy anti-discrimination provisions, the amended Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from discriminating against employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Such employees must be treated the same way as non-pregnant employees with similar limitations in their ability to work.
This amendment brings the Arizona Civil Rights Act in alignment with the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act. It also grants the Arizona Civil Rights Division the authority to investigate pregnancy discrimination charges filed by employees.
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
California: Rounding Time is OUT!!!
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with CA Employees
EFFECTIVE
February 25, 2021
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, the California Supreme Court said that rounding timekeeping practices cannot be used for purposes of applying meal period premiums. Interestingly, the Court did not say that rounding in general was prohibited, but the ruling essentially makes rounding obsolete.
Read more
Colorado: Emergency Paid Sick Leave Clarified
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with CO Employees
EFFECTIVE
April 14, 2021
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
On February 23, 2021, the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) clarified employers’ public health emergency leave (“PHEL”) obligations under the Healthy Families and Workplaces Act (HFWA).
First, employers must provide employees access to up to 80 hours of PHEL for full-time employees, and an equivalent amount to part-time employees based on the number of hours part-time employees work in a 14-day period. The rules clarified that part-time employees receive PHEL in “the greater of the number of hours the employee (a) is scheduled for work or paid leave in the 14-day period after the leave request, or (b) actually worked in the 14-day period prior to the declaration of the public health emergency or the leave request, whichever is later.”
Additionally, there was some question about whether newly hired employees would be entitled to PHEL. Because PHEL eligibility is tied to when an employee requests leave, all employees are entitled to PHEL regardless of their date of hire. Employers should review these changes immediately as they do not change existing rules, but merely clarify current requirements.
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
Minnesota: Handbook Disclaimers May not Preclude PTO Policy from Forming a Contract
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with MN Employees
EFFECTIVE
February 3, 2021
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Hall v. City of Plainview, the Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed whether general disclaimers contained in the employer’s handbook would be sufficient to prevent a PTO policy from forming a contract with employees.
Read more
Philadelphia, PA: Employer Limitations on Credit History Checks Further Expanded
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers Hiring in City of Philadelphia
EFFECTIVE
February 20, 2021
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In 2016, the City of Philadelphia passed the “Fair Practices Ordinance,” prohibiting employers from discriminating against applicants and employees on the basis of credit history and credit-related information. On January 20, 2021, an amendment to this ordinance was enacted, decreasing certain employer and job-specific exemptions.
The ordinance prohibits employers from inquiring into, obtaining, or otherwise using credit-related information to take adverse employment actions, such as hiring, firing, promoting, or disciplining an employee or applicant. Specific exemptions to this provision applied, but under the latest amendments effective February 20, 2021, law enforcement agencies and financial institutions (inclusive of insurance companies, banks, credit unions, etc.) are no longer exempt.
If employers intend to rely on any exceptions, the employer must first (1) disclose reliance upon credit history to the applicant or employee in writing, and provide the specific information the employer references; and (2) give the applicant or employee an opportunity to explain the circumstances surrounding the information prior to taking any adverse action.
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
March Updates
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
Varies
EFFECTIVE
Varies
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Read more
Required Employer Notices May Be Electronically Delivered
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers
EFFECTIVE
December 23, 2020
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a Field Assistance Bulletin that provides guidance for when employers may electronically post or deliver certain required notices to employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Section 14(c) of the FLSA (Section 14(c)), the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA), and the Service Contract Act (SCA).
Read more
New Independent Contractor Rule – Almost!
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers
EFFECTIVE
Delayed
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
On January 7, 2021, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) published a final rule clarifying independent contractor relationships. Specifically, the rule reaffirms using the “economic reality” test to determine whether an individual is in business for themselves (independent contractor) or is economically dependent on a potential employer for work.
The DOL identifies two “core factors” in making this determination: (1) the nature and degree of control over the work; and (2) the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss based on initiative and/or investment. There are three other factors that may serve as additional guideposts in the analysis, particularly when the two core factors do not point to the same classification, including (1) the amount of skill required for the work; (2) the degree of permanence of the working relationship between the worker and the potential employer; and (3) whether the work is part of an integrated unit of production. The actual practice of the worker and the potential employer is more relevant than what may be contractually or theoretically possible. The final rule also provides six fact-specific examples applying the factors.
The rule was set to go into effect on March 8, 2021. However, because of the pending regulatory review ordered by the current presidential administration, it is now proposed to take effect May 7, 2021, assuming it passes review. At this point, that would be a big assumption. The longer the rule is delayed the more likely there will be legal challenges to the rule. Continue to look for updates on this developing 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.
© 2021 ManagEase