|
APPLIES TO All Employers with IL, IN, and WI Employees |
EFFECTIVE April 26, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
In a split from an Eleventh Circuit ruling last year, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently stated that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”) provides protections not only to current employees aged 40 or older, but to similarly situated job applicants as well.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, and WA Employees |
EFFECTIVE April 26, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, even self-governed tribal land must obey the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). In National Labor Relations Board v. Casino Pauma, the circuit court stated that the casino violated the NLRA by attempting to limit protected union activity.
Under the NLRA, employees have the right to engage in specified protected activities relating to improving or discussing working conditions, free of employer retaliation or adverse action. At Casino Pauma, operated by the Pauma Band of Mission Indians and located on the tribe’s reservation, a number of casino workers began distributing union leaflets to customers entering the casino. The employees were originally removed by security. When they attempted to distribute leaflets some weeks later, the employees were disciplined.
The NLRB filed a complaint on behalf of the employees. An administrative law judge found that the casino violated the NLRA by attempting to interfere with protected union activities, and the circuit court agreed, stating that the NLRA applies to tribal employers.
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, KS, NM, OK, UT, and WY Employees |
EFFECTIVE May 15, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
The Tenth Circuit Court’s decision in Fassbender v. Correct Care Sols., LLC, reminds employers of the importance of weighing termination decisions with care. In Fassbender, an employer’s decision to terminate a pregnant employee was determined to be a pretext for discrimination, due in part to the employer’s inconsistent reasoning for the termination.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with CA Employees |
EFFECTIVE July 1, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
The Office of Administrative Law recently approved amendments to the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which include, in part, changes to the state’s anti-harassment, discrimination, and retaliation requirements related to the national origin of employees and job applicants, regardless of documented status. These amendments go into effect July 1, 2018.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with CA Employees |
EFFECTIVE May 22 and 23, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Two recent California cases have greatly expanded the ability for employees to sue employers under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). A favorite of plaintiffs’ attorneys, PAGA allows an employee to bring a suit against an employer on behalf of other aggrieved employees, potentially recovering significant penalties as well as attorneys’ fees. PAGA suits can and have been used against employers for even minor technical violations, such as a business listing an abbreviated name rather than the legal name of the organization on pay stubs.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with San Francisco Employees |
EFFECTIVE June 7 and July 1, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
San Francisco is home to a bevy of local ordinances controlling minimum wage, paid sick leave, and pay parity, among others. Though these ordinances have been in place for some time, each has new guidance or important updates that are effective within the next two months.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with CT Employees |
EFFECTIVE January 1, 2019 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Connecticut joins a growing list of states with salary history inquiry bans designed to promote wage equality among genders. Public Act No. 18-8, An Act Concerning Pay Equity (the “Act”), goes into effect on January 1, 2019, and bans Connecticut employers from making inquiries into an applicant’s prior wage information at any point during the hiring process. The ban also prohibits third parties from making salary history inquiries on behalf of the employer, which would include staffing agencies and recruiters. However, applicants may choose to volunteer this information. Additionally, employers may inquire about components of an applicant’s compensation structure (e.g., previous stock options, equity incentives, etc.), provided that the employer does not inquire about the value of those components.
Currently, Connecticut already has a number of applicant protections in place. Employers have already been prohibited from certain actions, such as preventing employees from inquiring into or disclosing wage information from or to another employee, forcing employees to waive their right to discuss wage information as a condition of employment, or penalizing employees for discussing wage information.
Under the Act, an aggrieved employee or applicant may sue an employer within two years of any alleged violation of the Act.
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 GA Employees Who Provide Care to Elderly or Disabled Adults |
EFFECTIVE October 1, 2019 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Effective October 1, 2019, the Georgia Long-Term Care Background Check Program imposes significantly greater background screening requirements on employers who hire individuals with direct access to elderly adults. Abuse of the elderly and adults with disabilities has increased in recent years, and the new law is intended to help protect the vulnerable adult population.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with NV Employees |
EFFECTIVE May 31, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Nevada employers are permitted to pay the state’s lower-tier minimum wage rate if they offer health benefits. In MDC Restaurants, LLC v. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, the Nevada Supreme Court recently clarified what constitutes “health benefits.” Because the difference between the upper-tier and lower-tier minimum wage rates is $1.00, the court used “common sense” in stating that health benefits must be “at least equivalent to the one dollar per hour in wages that the employee would otherwise receive” and cost the employer at least an additional dollar in wages.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with NJ Hotel/Motel Employees |
EFFECTIVE January 16, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
The 2013 New Jersey Human Trafficking Prevention, Protection, and Treatment Act required the Department of Community Affairs (“DCA”) to develop training for hotels/motel workers to recognize and respond to cases of human trafficking. Accordingly, the DCA adopted regulations in December that went into effect on January 16, 2018, imposing new posting and training obligations.