Posts

September Updates

APPLIES TO

Varies

EFFECTIVE

Varies

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

This Short List addresses the following topics:
  1. REMINDER! EEO-1 Component 2 Reporting is Due September 30th
  2. DOL Says DOT Drivers Sleeping in Berths While Off-Duty is Unpaid Time
  3. 2nd Circuit: Collectively Bargained Arbitration is Governed by the Scope of the Agreement
  4. 9th Circuit: The Dynamex Independent Contractor Test Does Not Apply Retroactively – For Now
  5. New Noncompete Restrictions in Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island
  6. Arizona: Mini-COBRA and Bona Fide Associations Updates
  7. California: Hairstyles Soon to Be Protected From Discrimination
  8. Emeryville, CA: Small Independent Restaurant Minimum Wage Hold Repealed
  9. Florida: Unemployment Compensation Protections for Domestic Violence Victims
  10. Indiana: Direct Sellers are Exempt from Minimum Wage Rules
  11. Iowa: Enacts Negligent Hiring Protections for Employers
  12. Louisiana: Electronic Notice to Employees Permitted for Group Health Insurance Plans
  13. Kansas City, MO: Enacts Salary History Inquiry Ban
  14. New Hampshire: Child Labor Hours Restricted
  15. New York: Paid Family Leave Benefit Schedule Update
  16. New York: Whistleblower’s Immigration Status is Protected
  17. Ohio: Motor Carrier Drivers Excluded from Definition of “Employee”
  18. Pittsburgh, PA: Paid Sick Leave is Revived by State Supreme Court
  19. Vermont: Expunged Records Make Criminal Convictions Vanish
  20. Virginia: Updates to Minimum Wage Exemptions and Nondisclosure Agreements
  21. West Virginia: Effect of Expunged Criminal Convictions

Read more

Ninth Circuit: Joint Employers Are Liable for Non-Workplace Matters Under Title VII for H-2A Workers

APPLIES TO

All Employers with AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA, Guam, or Northern Mariana Islands Employees with H-2A Visas

EFFECTIVE

February 6, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In EEOC v. Global Horizons, Inc., the Ninth Circuit stated that because employers of H-2A workers are required to provide housing, meals and transportation as “material terms and conditions” of their employment, these employers can be liable for such non-workplace matters under Title VII, even if the employers contract with a third party to provide those work benefits. There, two orchard growers hired Global Horizons as their staffing firm to recruit agricultural workers using H-2A visa authorizations. Two of the workers filed a discrimination claim against the growers and Global Horizons, claiming poor working conditions, substandard living conditions, and unsafe transportation based on their race and national origin.

Read more

Ninth Circuit: FCRA Disclosure Notice to Employees Must Stand Alone

APPLIES TO

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

EFFECTIVE

January 29, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Gilberg v. Cal. Check Cashing Stores, the Ninth Circuit stated that the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) prohibits including “extraneous” information with the required notice of rights, including legal rights individuals have under state fair credit reporting laws. The FCRA applies to employers who obtain background or credit reports on applicants and employees in the employment context. Specifically, the FCRA requires employers to provide the individual with a disclosure of their right to obtain a copy of the report, and obtain written authorization before obtaining the reports. Although the authorization may be on the same page as the disclosure, no other information may be present. Additionally, because the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) mirrors the FCRA, the same segregation requirements apply to California-required disclosures.

Read more

Ninth Circuit: Requiring Applicant to Pay for Pre-Hire Medical Testing Violated ADA

APPLIES TO

Employers with 15 or more AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA, Guam, and Northern Mariana Islands Employees

EFFECTIVE

August 29, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal recently stated that an employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by requiring a job applicant to obtain, and pay for, additional medical testing as part of a condition of employment.

Ninth Circuit: The Federal Railway Labor Act Does Not Necessarily Preempt State Leave Laws

APPLIES TO

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

EFFECTIVE

August 1, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Alaska Airlines v. Shurke, the Ninth Circuit stated that because an employee’s state law claim did not arise entirely from or require interpretation of the employee’s collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the employee’s Washington Family Care Act (WFCA) claim was not preempted.

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.