|
APPLIES TO All Employers with CA Employees in the Hotel/ |
EFFECTIVE July 1, 2019 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Governor Jerry Brown recently approved SB 970 and AB 2034, two new laws that require employers in different industries to provide employee education and resources designed to combat human trafficking.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with CA Employees |
EFFECTIVE September 28, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
In Atempa v. Pedrazzani, a California Court of Appeal stated that individual owners and officers of a Company can be held personally liable for wage and hour violations. Specifically, Labor Code Section 558 and 1197.1 state both the employer and any “other person” who cause wage and hour violations are subject to civil penalties. The lawsuit dated back to 2013 when two former employees sued their employer and the business owner for a variety of wage and hour violations, including unpaid overtime and minimum wage violations.
The court ultimately stated the Company and owner were each liable for civil penalties based on those wage and hour violations. The court reasoned that there did not need to be an “allegation or finding of either an alter ego relationship between the individual officer or agent and the corporate employer or acts by the individual officer or agent outside the scope of the agency for the corporate employer.” “Neither of these statutes mentions the business structure of the employer, the benefits or protections of the corporate form, or any potential reason or basis for disregarding the corporate form.” The owner’s participation in the payment of wages in violation of the overtime pay and minimum wage laws were enough to qualify him as any “other person.”
The most important lesson from this case is that wage and hour violations expose an employer to civil penalties while simultaneously exposing individuals such as owners, officers, directors, or managers to personal liability for mishandled wage and hour compliance. Moreover, the court stated that private plaintiffs may pursue and collect these penalties for “aggrieved employees” from such “other persons” on behalf of the state of California through the Private Attorneys’ General Act (PAGA).
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
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with CO Employees |
EFFECTIVE September 20, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
In Digital Landscape Inc. v. Media Kings LLC, the Colorado Court of Appeal reviewed the scope of an arbitration agreement’s reach. Specifically, the agreement stated all claims “arising under” the contract at issue would be arbitrated. The court broadly interpreted the wording, stating that “arising under” had the same meaning as “relating to,” because the phrase “arising under” implies a broad scope consistent with both federal and Colorado policies favoring arbitration.
There, Digital Landscape claimed breach of contract for Media Kings’ failure to pay under the contract, and Media Kings claimed it was damaged when Digital Landscape took over one of Media Kings’ clients that Digital was supposed to be servicing as an agent of Media; the latter was disputed by Digital as being covered by the agreement to arbitrate. The court stated that Media’s claim was covered by the “arising under” language in the arbitration agreement; moreover, the parties could have drafted the arbitration clause to include limiting language or to explicitly exclude particular types of claims from its scope. There was no indication that the “arising under” was meant to limit the scope of arbitrated claims.
Additionally, the court interpreted Media’s claim against Digital to include an unpled duty-of-loyalty claim, because the description of Media’s claim was sufficient to be interpreted as such. Although Digital was not an employee of Media, it was found by the arbitrator to be an agent of Media as an independent contractor. This opens new avenues of protections for employers who may now be able to recover additional damages, such as disgorgement, lost assets, or lost profits, from former employees and independent contractors.
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
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with non-MA Employees |
EFFECTIVE September 7, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
In Oxford Global Resources, LLC v. Hernandez, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reviewed an employee’s confidentiality, non-solicitation, and non-compete agreement providing for the application of Massachusetts law, which is where the employer was headquartered, as well as a forum selection clause for Massachusetts. The employee left the employer to work for a competitor and allegedly violated the agreement. The employer filed suit for breach of the employee’s agreement in Massachusetts.
However, the employee at issue interviewed, hired, and worked only in California. Moreover, California prohibits non-compete agreements. The Court stated that choice of law provisions are only enforced in Massachusetts if they do not violate public policy. Under the circumstances, California substantive law applied over Massachusetts choice of law principles because of California’s policy favoring open competition and employee mobility. Additionally, the case was more properly heard in California because “everything relevant to [the] case happened in California,” “all relevant witnesses [were] located in California,” and the courts of California had an interest in seeing that California law was correctly applied to the dispute.
Employers who have out-of-state employees will need to be cautious about the restrictive covenants and choice of law provisions they have them sign.
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
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with Employees in Westchester County |
EFFECTIVE April 10, 2019 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
On October 12, 2018, Westchester County adopted the Earned Sick Leave Law (ESLL) requiring private employers with 5 or more employees (or one or more domestic workers) to provide paid sick leave, and employers with 4 or less employees to provide unpaid sick leave. Key portions of the ESLL are described as follows:
|
APPLIES TO Varies |
EFFECTIVE Varies |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456 |
|
APPLIES TO All Employers |
EFFECTIVE September 21, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
The federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently issued an updated version of “A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act” (Summary) that includes a new notice to consumers about their right to implement a free “security freeze” under certain circumstances, preventing consumer reporting agencies from disclosing the contents of a consumer report. Although the Summary has been updated with this new notice, “security freezes” do not apply to any person “using the information for employment … or background screening purposes.”
|
APPLIES TO All Employers |
EFFECTIVE August 28, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued an opinion letter stating that employers are not required to pay employees for time spent voluntarily attending certain wellness program-related activities, including health-based biometric screenings and benefit fairs.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers in the Banking Industry |
EFFECTIVE September 6, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) recently released revised guidelines easing hiring requirements for banking industry employers. Historically, Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (the Act) prohibited employers in the banking industry, with FDIC-insured designation, from hiring individuals with certain criminal convictions – namely, convictions pertaining to crimes of dishonesty, breach of trust, money laundering, or individuals who accepted entry into a pretrial diversion program in connection with prosecution for similar types of offenses. According to the FDIC, the changes were made in an attempt to lower the number of individuals precluded from employment in the banking industry who have minor offenses and are currently considered to be of low risk.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with Employees in AR, DE, IA, MN, MO, NE, ND, NJ, PA, SD |
EFFECTIVE September 6, 2018 and September 10, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Several Court of Appeal cases have come down recently on whether or not an applicant can sue an employer for failing to provide a pre-adverse action notice as required under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). There is a split in the courts between the Ninth Circuit (applicants cannot sue) and Seventh Circuit (applicants can sue). More recently, the Third Circuit issued its own ruling.