Posts

October Updates

APPLIES TO

Varies

EFFECTIVE

Varies

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

This Short List addresses the following topics:
  1. U.S. Department of Labor Issues Updated FMLA Forms
  2. EEO-1 Reporting Deadline Still March 31st
  3. NLRB: E-Verify Enrollment is a Mandatory Subject of Bargaining
  4. IRS Updates Paid Family Leave Tax Credit
  5. Sixth Circuit: Educational Institution’s Investigation Procedures Challenged in Title IX Case
  6. Seventh Circuit: Potential Back Pay in Hostile Work Environment Claims
  7. Ninth Circuit Affirms DOL Guidance on “20% Rule” for Tipped Employees
  8. California: IMPORTANT – Update on How Split Shifts Are Paid
  9. San Francisco, CA: Update Fair Chance Ordinance Notice/Poster
  10. New York: Home Care Workers’ “13-Hour Rule” is Invalid

Read more

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.

California: New Guidance Regarding the Fair Pay Act and Salary History Inquiry Ban

APPLIES TO

All Employers with CA Employees

EFFECTIVE

January 1, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

AB 2282, the Fair Pay Act Bill, takes effect on January 1, 2019 and clarifies California’s Fair Pay Act and salary history inquiry ban. Under California’s salary history ban, employers are prohibited from taking salary history into account when setting pay rates and are required to provide applicants with a pay scale for the position being applied to upon receipt of reasonable request. The new Bill makes clear that:

September Updates

APPLIES TO

Varies

EFFECTIVE

Varies

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

This Short List addresses the following topics:
  1. The DOL Created a New Department to Support Employer Compliance
  2. OFCCP Staff Must Account for Federal Contractors’ Religious Freedoms
  3. Federal Contractor Minimum Wage Increase for 2019
  4. Sixth Circuit: FLSA Does Not Invalidate Arbitration Agreements
  5. Eighth Circuit: USERRA Still Protects Employees Who Don’t Have Guaranteed Working Hours
  6. Ninth Circuit: Employers Can Prohibit Future Employment With Their Company
  7. California: Update to EDD Workplace Posting DE 1857A
  8. Massachusetts: Railway Unemployment Insurance Act Preempts Statewide Sick Leave
  9. New Jersey: New Bill Expands Ability to Claim Unemployment Insurance Benefits
  10. New Jersey: State and Federal Authorities Pledge Stronger Enforcement Against Misclassification
  11. New York City, NY: Anti-Sexual Harassment Poster and Fact Sheet Now Available
  12. South Carolina: Pregnancy Accommodations Poster Now Available
  13. Austin, Texas: The City’s Paid Sick Leave is On Hold – For Now
  14. Seattle, WA: New Employer Obligations for Domestic Workers

Read more

California: De Minimis Time Just Got Smaller – A New Wage and Hour Challenge

APPLIES TO

All Employers with CA Employees

EFFECTIVE

July 26, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Employers should take immediate action!  Recently, in Troester v. Starbucks, the California Supreme Court stated that 4-10 minutes of time worked on a regular basis after clocking out must be compensated. Historically, federal law and the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement stated that employers do not have to pay employees for small amounts of time irregularly worked off-the-clock, where the administrative burden in recording such time is impractical or unreasonable. This de minimis time covers brief pre-shift or post-shift tasks, such as when turning on a computer or locking up. However, California employers may not be able to rely on the de minimis doctrine any longer.

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.

California: Challenges to Protections from Immigration Enforcement Target Status as a “Sanctuary State”

APPLIES TO

All Employers with CA Employees

EFFECTIVE

July 4, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

California’s Immigrant Worker Protection Act (AB 450) (the “Act”) went into effect as of January 1st this year. The Act restricted employer cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agencies beyond what was required by federal law. However, a federal district judge recently blocked the state from enforcing some of the statutory restrictions against private employers. Specifically, employers cannot be prosecuted or fined for:

California: New Defamation Protections for Harassment Victims and Employers

APPLIES TO

All Employers with CA Employees

EFFECTIVE

January 1, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Governor Brown recently signed AB 2770 into law allowing (1) current and former employers to inform prospective employers they would not rehire the employee based on the employer’s determination that the former employee engaged in sexual harassment, and (2) employees to report credible complaints of sexual harassment to current employers. By allowing such disclosures, alleged harassers are prohibited from suing sexual harassment victims and employers for defamation.

August Updates

APPLIES TO

Varies

EFFECTIVE

Varies

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

This Short List addresses the following topics:
  1. Coming Soon: Visa Denial or Expiration Will Mean Deportation for Foreign Nationals
  2. New Guidance for Determining Whether Registries are Employers of Nurses and Caregivers
  3. Ninth Circuit: No Meal Period Violations if Employees Volunteer to Stay Onsite for Discounted Meals
  4. California: Court States Neutral 15-Minute Rounding Policies Lawful
  5. California: New Law Protects Members of the Armed Forces While in Uniform
  6. California: New Safety Information for Housekeeping Employees
  7. Delaware: New Minimum Wage Increases and Exceptions
  8. New York, NY: New Mandatory Posting and Guidance Issued for Fair Workweek Law
  9. Pennsylvania: Minimum Wage for State Employees Increases to $12/Hour
  10. South Carolina: Required Pregnancy Accommodations Act Poster is Now Available

Read more

California: Ignorance of the Law Doesn’t Excuse Employers from Waiting Time Penalties

APPLIES TO

All Employers with CA Employees

EFFECTIVE

May 24, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

The California Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Diaz v. Grill Concepts Services, Inc. confirms just how important it is to stay on top of local and federal employment regulations.  Substantial penalties were assessed against Grill Concepts Services, Inc. because the company was unaware of a local wage change and accidentally shortchanged its workers’ pay.  The court affirmed that a lack of malicious intent did not protect the employer from allegations of a “willful” failure to pay.

In Diaz, the employer operated a restaurant near the LAX airport, located within a unique zone that amended its living wage formula in 2010.  Unaware of the change in formula, the restaurant failed to adjust employees’ wages and shortchanged the workers, who filed a class action demanding unpaid wages and “waiting time” penalties.  Under California Labor Code, “waiting time” penalties in the form of up to 30 days’ wages may be assessed against employers that willfully fail to pay any part of an exiting employee’s wages.

The court stated that where the law is clear regarding an employer’s responsibilities, a “willful failure” occurs when the employer voluntarily acts in a manner that falls short of its legal obligations.  Because of the restaurant’s lack of due diligence in following the 2010 living wage amendment, and because the language of the relevant law was clear regarding the employer’s responsibility, the court stated that the restaurant’s ignorance of the law qualified as a willful failure.

The court’s determination in Diaz serves as a warning and a reminder to all employers of the importance of diligent follow-up and compliance with both local and federal regulations.

Action Items

  1. 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