Discussion:

Recently signed Executive Order 14286 directs the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to enforce existing English proficiency requirements for commercial truck drivers. Titled, “Enforcing Commonsense Rules of the Road For America’s Truck Drivers,” it cites the need for drivers to “read and understand traffic signs, communicate with traffic safety, border patrol, agricultural checkpoints, and cargo weight-limit station officers.  Drivers need to provide feedback to their employers and customers and receive related directions in English.” This Order is a further extension of Executive Order 14224, “Designating English as the Official Language of the United States,” that was effective as of March 1, 2025.

Additionally, the Executive Order instructs the FMCSA to “(a) review non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) issued by relevant State agencies to identify any unusual patterns or numbers or other irregularities with respect to non-domiciled CDL issuance; and (b) evaluate and take appropriate actions to improve the effectiveness of current protocols for verifying the authenticity and validity of both domestic and international commercial driving credentials.”

FMCSA has historically penalized Existing regulations require commercial motor vehicle drivers to “read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, to understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to respond to official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records.” English proficiency violations by issuing citations to the driver and the driver’s employer. The Executive Order now directs the FMCSA to place drivers out-of-service who violate the regulations.

The Executive Order also seeks to improve the working conditions of America’s truck drivers and remove “needless regulatory burdens” that undermine their working conditions. Further guidance is expected on inspection procedures for compliance with regulatory requirements.

Action Items

1. Review the Executive Order here.
2. Evaluate existing commercial driver’s English proficiency to meet regulatory requirements.
3. Update hiring and training practices to implement procedures that facilitate compliance with regulations.

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. © 2025 ManagEase

Discussion:

In Pickens v. Hamilton-Ryker IT Solutions, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals said that an employee cannot be paid a daily rate and still be classified as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Here, an employee regularly worked more than 50 hours per week at $100 per hour but was guaranteed pay each week for the equivalent of 8 hours (based on 8 hours of pay at his $100 hourly rate), with every subsequent hour paid hourly. His employer classified him as salaried exempt, and therefore did not pay him overtime.

The FLSA allows salaried exempt employees to be paid in two ways. First, an employee must be paid “a predetermined amount” “on a weekly[] or less frequent basis” and be paid the full amount for any work performed in a workweek.” Second, employees whose earnings are “computed on an hourly, a daily, or a shift basis” nonetheless receive a “salary” if they are guaranteed a certain amount per week that is “roughly equivalent” to their “usual earnings.”

The court said that to be paid on a weekly basis, an employee must be paid for a regular week’s worth of work. The fact that the “payment is weekly must not be merely incidental to the payment; the week must serve as the fundamental unit around which the payment is structured.” The court here said the employee was guaranteed payment for a single day’s work, but was not paid a salary. Unlike a weekly rate, which compensates an employee for a week’s work, no matter the number of hours worked, the rate the employee received compensated him for either an hour’s work or eight hours’ work. Moreover, the employee’s hourly rate (paid on average for 52 hours a week) cannot be described as merely “additional compensation” to his eight-hour “salary.” All of his pay was based on a fixed hourly rate for hours worked within the normal workweek, which meant that he was improperly classified as overtime exempt.

Action Items

1. Review exempt salaries for compliance.
2. Review historical corrections with legal counsel.

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. © 2025 ManagEase

Discussion:

On March 21, 2025, the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) voted to approve final regulations titled “Employment Regulations Regarding Automated-Decision Systems,” which clarify that it is unlawful to use AI and automated decision-making tools to make employment-related decisions that discriminate against applicants or employees in violation of California laws. Key aspects of the final regulations are summarized below.

Definitions. The following key terms are defined under the final regulations:

• “Automated-Decision System” is defined as “[a] computational process that makes a decision or facilitates human decision making regarding an employment benefit,” including processes that “may be derived from and/or use artificial intelligence, machine-learning, algorithms, statistics, and/or other data processing techniques.” Covered systems include a range of technological processes, including tests, games, or puzzles used to assess applicants or employees, processes for targeting job advertisements, screening resumes, processes to analyze “facial expression, word choice, and/or voice in online interviews,” or processes to “analyz[e] employee or applicant data acquired from third parties.” Such systems do not include typical software or programs such as word processors, spreadsheets, map navigation systems, web hosting, firewalls, and common security software, “provided that these technologies do not make a decision regarding an employment benefit.”
• “Agent” is defined as “any person acting on behalf of an employer, directly or indirectly, to exercise a function traditionally exercised by the employer or any other FEHA-regulated activity … including when such activities and decisions are conducted in whole or in part through the use of an automated decision system.” The final regulations consider an employer’s “agent” to be an “employer” under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) regulations.
• “Automated-Decision System Data” means “[a]ny data used to develop or customize an automated-decision system for use by a particular employer or other covered entity.”
• “Artificial Intelligence” is defined as “[a] machine-based system that infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs,” which can include “predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions.”
• “Machine Learning” means the “ability for a computer to use and learn from its own analysis of data or experience and apply this learning automatically in future calculations or tasks.”

Unlawful Selection Criteria. The final regulations confirm that it is “unlawful for an employer or other covered entity to use an automated-decision system or selection criteria (including a qualification standard, employment test, or proxy) that discriminates against an applicant or employee or a class of applicants or employees on a basis protected” by FEHA.

Pre-Employment Practices. The final regulations clarify that online application technologies and automated-decision systems that screen, rank, or prioritize applicants based on certain criteria may result in unlawful discrimination against individuals with protected characteristics, such as religious creed, disability, or medical condition, unless accommodations are provided. These systems, which may assess skills, reaction times, or analyze physical characteristics, must ensure reasonable accommodations to avoid discrimination based on race, national origin, gender, or other protected traits.

Criminal History Inquiries. California law requires employers to make an individualized assessment of an applicant’s criminal record to determine its relevance to the job before denying employment. The final regulations confirm that employers must continue to comply with these requirements even when using an automated system to consider criminal histories.

Medical Inquiries. The final regulations reaffirm that the rules against asking unlawful medical or psychological questions apply even when using an automated-decision system. This includes specifically, any puzzles or games administered by an automated-decision system that are “likely to elicit information about a disability.”

Third-Party Liability. The final regulations state that prohibitions on aiding and abetting unlawful employment practices apply to automated decision-making systems, potentially implicating third parties involved in their design or implementation. Evidence of anti-bias testing and efforts to avoid discrimination is relevant to claims of unlawful discrimination. However, the regulations do not establish third-party liability for the design, development, advertising, promotion, or sale of these systems.

The final regulations have been submitted to the California Office of Administrative Law for review and approval. Once the final regulations are approved by the Office of Administrative Law and published by the Secretary of State, they will likely become effective on July 1, 2025. Employers should continue to monitor their use of AI to assess compliance with applicable anti-discrimination laws and requirements.

Action Items

1. Review use of AI and automated-decision systems for compliance with applicable anti-discrimination laws.
2. Have appropriate personnel trained on the proper use of automated-decision systems for making consequential employment decisions.
3. Consult with legal counsel when developing or implementing new AI technologies or automated-decision systems in the workplace.

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. © 2025 ManagEase

Discussion:

In Williams v. Alacrity Solutions Group, LLC, the California Court of Appeal said that a plaintiff whose individual Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claim was barred by the statute of limitations may not revive their claim through a representative-only PAGA claim. Here, the employee filed a PAGA claim beyond the one-year statute of limitations period. When challenged as being time-barred, the plaintiff claimed that even though the individual PAGA claim may be time-barred, the representative claim could still proceed.

PAGA establishes three “prerequisites” that a private individual must satisfy before serving as a PAGA plaintiff: (1) a private individual must be an “aggrieved employee;” (2) advance written notice of the claim must be given to the employer and the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency; and (3) the plaintiff must satisfy the statute of limitations. The court determined that the statute of limitations is tied to the PAGA plaintiff’s individual claims. Absent an individual claim, there is no way for a court to evaluate whether any claim is timely because PAGA does not obligate the PAGA plaintiff to “define” who the “‘aggrieved employees’ [are] in the prelitigation notice.” Moreover, the court said that to be a PAGA plaintiff (under the statutes in effect prior to July 1, 2024), a private individual must, among other things, seek to recover civil penalties on his own behalf for that violation, which means that his individual claim must be timely.

Action Items

1. Review PAGA claims with legal counsel to determine appropriate next steps.

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. © 2025 ManagEase

Discussion:

Effective July 1, 2025, SB 241 amends the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act clarifying the types of agreements that are not intended to unreasonably restrain trade or commerce. There was prior confusion as to whether the Act also covered non-solicitation agreements. The amendment now clearly addresses non-solicitation agreements and also requires Kansas courts to modify unenforceable agreements and enforce the modification.

A written non-solicitation agreement is enforceable under the following circumstances.

• Business-to-Business Employee Interference. An owner agrees to not solicit, recruit, induce, persuade, encourage, direct or otherwise interfere with one or more employees or owners of a business entity for the purpose of interfering with their employment or ownership relationship, and the covenant does not continue for more than four years following the end of the owner’s business relationship with the business entity.

• Business Customer Interference. An owner agrees to not solicit, induce, persuade, encourage, service, direct or otherwise interfere with a business entity’s customers, including any reduction, termination, acceptance or transfer of any customer’s business for the purpose of providing any product or service that is competitive with those provided by the business entity and is limited to material contact customers, and the covenant does not continue for more than four years following the end of the owner’s business relationship with the business entity.

• Employee Protection of Trade Secrets. An employee of a business entity agrees to not solicit, recruit, induce, persuade, encourage, direct or otherwise interfere with one or more employees or owners of a business entity for the purpose of interfering with their employment or ownership relationship if the covenant is between an employer and one or more employees, and the covenant: (A) is not more than two years long, and (B) seeks to protect confidential or trade secret business information or customer or supplier relationships, goodwill, or loyalty.

• Employee Protection of Business Customers. An employee agrees not to solicit, recruit, induce, persuade, encourage, direct or otherwise interfere with a business entity’s customers, including any reduction, termination, acceptance or transfer of any customer’s business for the purpose of providing any product or service that is competitive with those provided by the employer if the covenant is limited to material contact customers and the covenant is between an employer and an employee and does not continue for more than two years following the end of the employee’s employment with the employer.

Kansas employers utilizing non-solicitation agreements should review and update them with legal counsel to ensure they are compliant with the amended requirements.

Action Items

1. Review the bill here.
2. Review non-solicitations with legal counsel for compliance.

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. © 2025 ManagEase