Posts

Ninth Circuit: Fair Credit Reporting Act Pre-Adverse Action Notice Is a Procedural Requirement and Not an Actionable Right

APPLIES TO

Employers with AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA, Guam, and Northern Mariana Islands Employees

EFFECTIVE

July 13, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Dutta v. State Farm, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal stated that an employee did not have standing to sue a prospective employer for failing to comply with the pre-adverse action notice requirements under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The FCRA requires employers to give applicants notice before they take any adverse employment action based on the results of a consumer report (e.g., credit report). This requirement is meant to give the applicant an opportunity to contest or correct information in the credit report. After providing such pre-adverse action notice and certain timing requirements are met, an employer may then take the adverse action if it still intends to do so.

Arizona: Increased Employer Responsibilities for Data Breaches, Protections for Employers Hiring Ex-Convicts

APPLIES TO

All Employers with AZ Employees

EFFECTIVE

August 3, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Two new bills, HB 2311 and 2154, are going into effect on August 3, 2018.  These bills increase an employer’s public notice responsibilities in the event of a data breach, and also increases limited liability protections for employers who hire employees or independent contractors who were previously convicted of criminal offenses.

HB 2154: Data Security Breaches

This law seeks to improve consumer data security in two ways.  First, the law expands the definition of protected personal information.  In addition to information such as Social Security numbers, bank account or credit/debit card numbers, medical information, or biometric data, the definition of “personal information” will also include e-mail addresses and passwords or security questions/answers that, when combined, grant access to online accounts.

Second, the new law increases an employer’s notice requirements. Once an employer is made aware of a “security incident,” the employer is required to conduct an investigation to determine if a security breach has occurred. If so, all affected individuals must be notified within 45 days of the discovery.  The notice must be made by e-mail, live telephone call, or a substitute notice that includes the following information:

  • Approximate breach date;
  • Information exposed by the breach;
  • Toll-free numbers of the three largest nationwide consumer reporting agencies; and
  • Numbers/addresses for the Federal Trade Commission and agencies that assist consumers with identity theft.

If the breach affects over 1,000 individuals, the employer is also required to notify the three largest nationwide consumer reporting agencies and the Arizona state attorney general.

HB 2311: Hiring Ex-Criminal Offenders

HB 2311 aims to improve fair-chance hiring and job opportunities for non-violent offenders, while providing employers limited protections from lawsuits associated with negligent hiring claims. In the event of a negligent hiring claim, the new law bars evidence of an employee’s or independent contractor’s “criminal offenses” prior to the date of hire with the employer.  “Criminal offense” is defined as “any criminal offense except violent offenses and sexual offenses.”

Employers will still need to exercise caution and carefully consider both the candidate and the role the candidate is being hired for.  Lawsuits alleging negligent supervision, or lawsuits where the employee’s prior conviction is directly related to the nature of their work and the conduct that led to the legal action, are not precluded. For example, in a claim related to the misuse of money by an employee/contractor hired to do accounting work where the employee/contractor had previous convictions associated with fraud prior to being hired, the employer may not be precluded from liability.

Action Items

  1. Review internal policies and procedures for secure data management.
  2. Review hiring policies and train hiring staff on hiring individuals with a criminal history.
  3. 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

Ninth Circuit: Tribal Casinos Must Obey NLRA

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

(888) 378-2456

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.

Action Items

  1. Review the full text of the case here.
  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

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

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.

Ninth Circuit: DOL’s 80/20 Tip Credit Rule is Invalid

APPLIES TO

All Employers of AK, AZ, CA, GA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA Employees

EFFECTIVE

September 6, 2017

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

The Department of Labor (“DOL”) permits employers to give a tip credit to tipped employees who spend no more than 20% of their time performing non-tipped duties. In Marsh v. J. Alexander’s, LLC, the Ninth Circuit noted that this rule is only found in the Field Operations Handbook used by the DOL as guidance for investigations by field officers, rather than in a statute or regulation; as a result, the court stated it was not valid.

September Updates

APPLIES TO

Varies

EFFECTIVE

Varies

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

This Short List addresses the following topics:
  1. The Recent Federal Overtime Exemption Rule is Diminishing
  2. NLRB: More Examples of What is or isn’t Protected Concerted Activities on Facebook
  3. EEOC Must Reconsider Wellness Regulations
  4. Seventh Circuit: EEOC May Investigate Despite Right-to-Sue Letter and Issue of Judgment
  5. Arizona, Maryland, Wyoming:  Now Part of the E-Verify RIDE Program
  6. Berkeley, CA: Minimum Wage Increase, Paid Sick Leave, and Work Schedule Rules Will Soon Be In Effect
  7. San Diego, CA:  Equal Pay Bill for City Contractors and Consultants
  8. Santa Clara, CA: Santa Clara City’s Minimum Wage to Increase in 2018
  9. Connecticut: Anti-Discrimination Protections Expanded for Veterans
  10. Georgia: Amended Law Now Preempts Predictive Scheduling Ordinances
  11. New Jersey:  Anti-Discrimination Protections for Military and Veterans Expanded
  12. New York: Guidance on Tax Treatment of PFL Contributions and Benefits now Available
  13. Nevada: Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act Poster Now Available
  14. North Carolina:  Fair Classification Act Emphasizes State Focus on Proper Employee Classification
  15. Texas: Hurricane Harvey Relief for Employees
  16. Washington:  New Biometric Information Protection law

Read more

Ninth Circuit: Prior Salary History may be used to Justify Wage Differentials Between Men and Women

APPLIES TO

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

EFFECTIVE

April 27, 2017

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Last week, the Ninth Circuit ruled on Rizo v. Yovino, a wage inequality claim brought under the federal Equal Pay Act.  In reviewing this case, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a previous case, Kouba v. Allstate Insurance Co., and confirmed that prior salary history may be considered a “factor other than sex” for the purpose of justifying a wage differential.

Ninth Circuit: Wage Rates Used for Overtime Hours Cannot Be Lower Than Those Used for Non-Overtime Hours

APPLIES TO

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

EFFECTIVE

March 21, 2017

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Brunozzi v. Cable Communications, Inc., the Ninth Circuit stated that wage rates cannot be decreased in weeks when overtime is worked, as compared to weeks when no overtime is worked. There, two cable technicians were paid a piece rate per cable system installed, plus a contractually-based production bonus each pay period as part of their regular wages.  When the employer calculated overtime, it reduced the production bonus by the amount of overtime paid for piece rate work, which meant that employees received lower wage rates than when they did not work overtime.

Ninth Circuit: Car Dealership Service Advisors Not Exempt from FLSA

APPLIES TO

All Employers with AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI,
ID, MT, NV, OR, WA Employees

EFFECTIVE

January 9, 2017

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

We previously reported on Navarro v. Encino Motorcars, LLC, wherein a group of service advisors at an auto dealership alleged that they did not receive owed overtime compensation. At that time, the Ninth Circuit decided to defer to the U.S. Department of Labor’s interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”); the U.S. Supreme Court reversed this decision and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit to determine how the FLSA statutes apply to auto dealership service advisors.

Ninth Circuit: Disclosures for Background Checks Cannot Contain a Liability Waiver

APPLIES TO

All Employers with AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI,
ID, MT, NV, OR, WA Employees

EFFECTIVE

January 20, 2017

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

On January 20, 2017, in Syed v. M-I, LLC, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the disclosure required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FRCA”) cannot also contain a liability waiver for conducting the background check in the same document.  Rather, only the disclosure notice and background authorization can be contained within the same document.  Having other language in the disclosure notice violates background check rules under the FRCA.