Washington: Agricultural Workers Must be Paid Separate Piece-Rate and Hourly Rates

/in

APPLIES TO

All Employers with WA Employees in Agricultural Industry

EFFECTIVE

May 10, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In a narrow majority, the Washington Supreme Court recently stated that agricultural employees engaged in piece-rate work must also be compensated on a separate, hourly basis for tasks outside the scope of piece-rate work.  This means that employers of agricultural employees will need to track and compensate employees at two different pay rates, depending on the work that the individual completes.

Read more

June Updates

/in

APPLIES TO

Varies

EFFECTIVE

Varies

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456
This Short List addresses the following topics:
  1. Trump Rolls Back Federal Contractor Disclosure and Employment Requirements
  2. Redwood City, CA: City Adopts New Minimum Wage Ordinance
  3. Sacramento, CA: City Requires Panic Buttons for Hospitality Industry
  4. Philadelphia, PA: Judge Blocks Parts of Pay Equity Regulations

Read more

THE SCOTUS DECISION IS FINALLY HERE – Revisit Your Arbitration Agreements!

/in

APPLIES TO

All Employers

EFFECTIVE

May 21, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

At long last, the U.S. Supreme Court finally issued its ruling on whether or not class action waivers in arbitration agreements violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) – short answer, they don’t.

Read more

Ninth Circuit Overrules Itself: Prior Salary History Cannot Justify Wage Differential Between Men and Women

/in

APPLIES TO

All Employers with AL, AZ, CA, HI, ID, OR, MT, NV, and WA Employees

EFFECTIVE

April 9, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In April 2017, the Ninth Circuit previously confirmed that employers could consider an individual’s prior salary history when justifying a wage differential.  Now, a year later, the circuit court has reversed its own decision, stating that prior salary history cannot be used to justify pay disparities prohibited by the federal Equal Pay Act.

Read more

U.S. DOL Issues Several Guidance Documents Clarifying Wage and Hour Regulations

/in

APPLIES TO

All Employers

EFFECTIVE

April 6 and 12, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

April has been a busy month for the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”).  The Wage and Hour Division issued a number of opinion letters, a bulletin, and a revised fact sheet addressing different employee pay practices, such as tip credits, travel time, and rest periods.  Employers should review the different letters for applicability to their workforce.

Read more

California: Employers Face New Hurdles with Independent Contractor Classifications

/in

APPLIES TO

All Employers with CA Employees

EFFECTIVE

April 30, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (Lee), the California Supreme Court created a new test for determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor for purposes of wage and hour claims, making it one of the strictest standards in the country. A class action was filed against a delivery service employer who converted its employee drivers to independent contractors in 2004 for economic reasons. The class alleged, in part, that they were misclassified and Dynamex failed to pay overtime, provide itemized wage statements, and reimburse business expenses.

Read more

Washington: Domestic Violence Leave Law Amended to Include Safety Accommodations

/in

APPLIES TO

All Employers with WA Employees

EFFECTIVE

June 7, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Washington’s existing Domestic Violence Leave law was recently amended to require employers to provide reasonable safety accommodations to employees who are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Specifically, employers must consider an individual’s request for a reasonable safety accommodation, unless the accommodation causes an undue hardship on the business (defined as an action requiring significant difficulty or expense).  Employers may require the individual to furnish verification that the employee and their covered family member is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.  The amendments provide a non-comprehensive list of potential safety accommodations, including:

Read more

San Francisco, CA: Updates to San Francisco’s Ban-the-Box Ordinance

/in

APPLIES TO

Employers with 5 or more San Francisco Employees

EFFECTIVE

October 1, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

San Francisco has amended its Fair Chance Ordinance for restrictions on employee criminal history inquiries. Effective October 1, 2018, the Fair Chance Ordinance will now apply to employers with 5 or more employees, rather than the currently stated 20 or more employees. Additionally, employers will be prohibited from making pre-employment conviction history inquiries until after a conditional offer of employment, to bring the Ordinance in line with current California requirements.

Of particular note, employers will be prohibited from inquiring about or requiring disclosure of convictions of decriminalized behavior, including convictions for the non-commercial use and cultivation of marijuana, regardless of when they occurred. California employers are already prohibited from inquiring about certain non-felony marijuana convictions that are more than two years old. This departure from state requirements will mean that employers need to carefully reexamine background check procedures to ensure compliance with the local Ordinance.

Action Items

  1. Have background check procedures reviewed and revised consistent with the Ordinance amendments.
  2. Have hiring personnel trained on updated requirements.
  3. Have applicable policies and documents, such as employment applications, offer letters, etc., updated to reflect changes to the Ordinance.
  4. 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.

© 2018 ManagEase

CO, ID, UT: Recent Restrictive Covenants Updates in Colorado, Idaho, and Utah

/in

APPLIES TO

Certain Employers with Employees in CO, ID, UT

EFFECTIVE

Varies; See Below

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Colorado

On April 2, 2018, the Colorado governor signed SB 18-082, which amended state law related to physician noncompete agreements, allowing physicians to disclose their continuing practice and contact information to a patient with a rare disorder whom they have been providing treatment. This amendment is meant to avoid disruptions in treatment for patients with rare disorders. Review the recent bill here.

Read more

Louisiana: Pregnancy Disability Has Different Meanings Under the State’s Employment Discrimination Laws

/in

APPLIES TO

All Employers with LA Employees

EFFECTIVE

March 15, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Brown v. The Blood Center, the Louisiana Court of Appeal recently stated that the standard for pregnancy disability under the state’s Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) does not apply to the definition of disability under the Employment Discrimination Law (EDL), because of limiting language in the PDA. The EDL states that a disability includes a physical impairment that limits one or more major life activities, while the PDA states that pregnancy or related conditions are treated as any other temporary disability.

There, a pregnant employee became ill and abandoned her post without first notifying her supervisor. Two hours later, she called her supervisor to tell him what happened.  The employer had a policy of termination for post abandonment and terminated the employee.  She claimed that she was discriminated against for a pregnancy disability, but only claimed she was having a difficult pregnancy. Because the pregnancy disability definition did not apply to the EDL, the court stated, in part, the employee did not demonstrate that she suffered from an applicable disability.

Action Items

  1. Review policies and procedures related to attendance and notification, as well as disability claims, for changes consistent with this ruling.
  2. 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.

© 2018 ManagEase