OR – ManagEase

Oregon: Employers MUST Ensure Meal Periods are Taken

December 4, 2019/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEase

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Oregon Employees

EFFECTIVE

November 14, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Maza v. Waterford Operations, LLC, the Oregon Court of Appeal stated that it was not sufficient that an employer provide employees with the opportunity to take required meal breaks, but that meal premiums must be paid if an employee does not take the required minimum 30-minute break if working shifts longer than six hours, and a second meal break for shifts of 14 hours or more.

There, the employer’s meal break policy stated it was mandatory that employees took the required meal periods and did not permit waiver of a meal period. It also required employees to report if an employee was required to work off the clock. However, the court stated these were insufficient steps and that the employer was strictly liable for a missed or insufficient meal period, regardless of the reason.

Action Items

Implement timekeeping procedures for meal periods to document meal periods taken.
Have payroll administrators and managers trained on meal period requirements.
Update payroll processes to ensure employees are paid the required premium for missed meal periods.
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.

Oregon: Senate Bill Implements Fixes to Equal Pay Law

December 4, 2019/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEase

APPLIES TO

All Employers with OR Employees

EFFECTIVE

January 1, 2020

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Senate Bill 123 provides clarity to a few aspects of the Oregon Equal Pay Act (EPA), as well as a voluntary equal pay analysis safe harbor.

Under the EPA, employers are required to pay employees the same rate for work of comparable character, unless the pay differential can be attributed to one or more bona fide factors, such as a seniority system, merit system or system that measures earnings by quantity or quality. SB 123 updates the definition of a “system” to mean “a consistent and verifiable method in use at the time that a violation is alleged.”

Oregon: Recent Employment Updates

September 27, 2019/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEase

APPLIES TO

All Employers with OR Employees

EFFECTIVE

As Indicated

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Oregon enacted several new laws before the close of this year’s legislative session; key provisions are summarized below.

Immigration Enforcement Notice. As of June 6, 2019, SB 370 requires employers to notify employees within three business days of receiving a notice of inspection from a federal agency (e.g., USCIS, ICE) requiring the employer to provide access to employment eligibility and identity verification documents. The notice must be posted in a conspicuous place in English and the language the employer typically uses to communicate with employees, and attempt to distribute the notice to employees in their preferred language. The Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) is required to issue a sample notice by the end of the year.

Oregon: Updates to Discrimination and Harassment Protections

August 12, 2019/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEase

APPLIES TO

All Employers with OR Employees

EFFECTIVE

As indicated

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

SB 726, also known as the “Oregon Workplace Fairness Act,” extends discrimination and harassment protections for employees. On October 1, 2019, the statute of limitations for discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims will be extended from one to five years. On October 1, 2020, with limited exception, employee agreements cannot require confidentiality, nondisclosure, nondisparagement, no-rehire provisions, or similar restrictions that prevent employees from disclosing sexual harassment or discrimination. Similarly, golden parachute clauses in employment agreements may be voided if the employer determines through a “good faith investigation” that the employee engaged in discrimination that was a “substantial contributing factor” in the employee’s termination.

Oregon: NEW Pregnancy Accommodation Requirements for Employers

June 17, 2019/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEase

APPLIES TO

All Employers with 6 or more OR Employees

EFFECTIVE

January 1, 2020

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Next year, employers with six or more employees will need to provide job applicants and employees with reasonable accommodations for medical conditions related to pregnancy, including childbirth and lactation. Accommodations may include acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, more frequent or longer rest periods, assistance with manual labor, or modification of work schedules or job assignments.

Oregon: Employers Must Remind Employees of Non-Compete Agreements on Exit

June 17, 2019/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEase

APPLIES TO

All Employers with OR Employees

EFFECTIVE

January 1, 2020

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

HB 2992 makes noncompete agreements unenforceable unless the employer provides an employee with a signed copy of the agreement within 30 days after the employee’s date of termination. Presumably, “after the date of … termination” does not include the day on which termination takes place. Best practice would be to send a copy of the agreement with proof of receipt to the employee after termination, such as return receipt requested, certified mail, express mail with signature required, etc.

This requirement only applies to noncompete agreements entered into on or after January 1, 2020. Although generally a good practice, the requirement does not apply to noncompete agreements entered into before that time, or to other types of agreements like nonsolicitation agreements or garden leave clauses.

Action Items

Update termination procedures to include sending a copy of executed noncompete agreements to terminated employees within the required timeline.
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.

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

March 7, 2019/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEase

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.

March Updates

March 7, 2019/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEase

APPLIES TO

Varies

EFFECTIVE

Varies

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

This Short List addresses the following topics:

U.S. Supreme Court Reversed Ninth Circuit Equal Pay Ruling Based on Judge’s Death
Fifth Circuit: Restated Its Position that Title VII Does Not Protect Sexual Orientation
California: Guidance on New Agricultural Overtime Pay Requirements
Alameda, CA: City Minimum Wage Increases to $13.50 in July, Regardless of Employer Size
Florida: Miami Beach Minimum Wage Struck Down
Illinois: $9.25 Minimum Wage by January 2020, With New Possible Penalties
Minneapolis, MN: Minimum Wage Increase Approved
New Jersey: $10 Minimum Wage in July 2019, $15 by 2024
Westchester County, New York: Bans the Box
Portland, Oregon: Prohibits Discrimination Against Atheists and Agnostics
West Virginia: Federal Law Enforcement Pension Freed From State Taxes

Ninth Circuit: FCRA Disclosure Notice to Employees Must Stand Alone

February 7, 2019/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEase

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.

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

October 9, 2018/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEase

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.

Posts

Action Items