|
APPLIES TO All Employers with California Employees |
EFFECTIVE Varies; see below |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
On July 22, 2016, Governor Brown signed a number of bills into law. The bills become effective January 1, 2017, unless otherwise noted. Key provisions from each bill are summarized below:
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with California Employees |
EFFECTIVE April 4, 2016 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
A California Court of Appeals recently stated that employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations to individuals who are associated with a disabled individual. In other words, reasonable accommodations must be provided not only to those who are themselves disabled, but the disabled individuals who are associated with applicants or employees.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with San Diego, CA Employees |
EFFECTIVE September 2, 2016 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
The City of San Diego finally certified the Minimum Wage and Sick Leave Ordinance (“Ordinance”) voters passed in June. Though the Ordinance went into effect on July 11, 2016, there are additional pending amendments to the bill that will require a second reading before becoming effective. The amendments are expected to become effective after the second reading, 30 days after the original Ordinance’s effective date.
The amendments cover several key areas employers had raised concerns about.
|
APPLIES TO Employers with at least one covered employee in Chicago, Illinois |
EFFECTIVE July 1, 2017 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with Massachusetts Employees |
EFFECTIVE Varies; See below |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Governor Charlie Baker recently signed two bills that will significantly impact employer responsibilities: The Act to Establish Pay Equity, which boosts practices intended to close the gender wage gap, and the transgender public accommodations bill, which prohibits discriminatory advertising on the basis of gender identity and discrimination against transgender individuals in places of public accommodation.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with Philadelphia, PA Employees |
EFFECTIVE Varies; See below |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Philadelphia has recently implemented two new ordinances affecting employers: (1) an expansion of the obligations under the current anti-wage theft ordinance, and (2) the prohibition of credit checks and credit-related information when making employment decisions.
|
APPLIES TO Varies |
EFFECTIVE Varies |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456 |
|
APPLIES TO All Employers |
EFFECTIVE August 1, 2016 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
This week, the federal government revised two of its required posters. These posters must be displayed by ALL employers as of Monday, August 1, 2016.
The affected posters can be downloaded for free from the Department of Labor’s website. Click on the links below to visit the DOL’s page for instructions.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington Employees |
EFFECTIVE June 2, 2016 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Offering a flexible benefits plan is an oft-cited tool for organizations to improve employee satisfaction, recruitment, and retention. However, employers should be very careful when designing benefits plans that permit cash-in-lieu of payments, as the City of San Gabriel discovered in a recent case.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee Employees |
EFFECTIVE May 19, 2016 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
The Sixth Circuit recently stated in Craig v. Bridges Bros. Trucking LLC. that an employer has constructive knowledge of an employee working overtime if it would have discovered the overtime by “exercising reasonable diligence.” The plaintiff, Donna Craig, was a bookkeeper for Bridges who processed payroll, including her own compensation. Craig frequently worked over 40 hour weeks and recorded her hours worked in time sheets, including overtime. However, Bridges only paid Craig overtime once. Craig alleged that Bridges told her she was not eligible for overtime. On the other hand, Bridges argued that Craig should have known she was eligible for overtime, and that the company was unaware that Craig worked overtime.