Posts

Oregon: Employers MUST Ensure Meal Periods are Taken

/0 Comments/in /by

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

  1. Implement timekeeping procedures for meal periods to document meal periods taken.
  2. Have payroll administrators and managers trained on meal period requirements.
  3. Update payroll processes to ensure employees are paid the required premium for missed meal periods.
  4. 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.

© 2019 ManagEase

Oregon: Senate Bill Implements Fixes to Equal Pay Law

/0 Comments/in /by

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.”

Read more

Oregon: Recent Employment Updates

/0 Comments/in /by

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.

Read more

Oregon: Updates to Discrimination and Harassment Protections

/0 Comments/in /by

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.

Read more

Oregon: NEW Pregnancy Accommodation Requirements for Employers

/0 Comments/in /by

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.

Read more

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

/0 Comments/in /by

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

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

© 2019 ManagEase

March Updates

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

Varies

EFFECTIVE

Varies

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456
This Short List addresses the following topics:
  1. U.S. Supreme Court Reversed Ninth Circuit Equal Pay Ruling Based on Judge’s Death
  2. Fifth Circuit: Restated Its Position that Title VII Does Not Protect Sexual Orientation
  3. California: Guidance on New Agricultural Overtime Pay Requirements
  4. Alameda, CA: City Minimum Wage Increases to $13.50 in July, Regardless of Employer Size
  5. Florida: Miami Beach Minimum Wage Struck Down
  6. Illinois: $9.25 Minimum Wage by January 2020, With New Possible Penalties
  7. Minneapolis, MN: Minimum Wage Increase Approved
  8. New Jersey: $10 Minimum Wage in July 2019, $15 by 2024
  9. Westchester County, New York: Bans the Box
  10. Portland, Oregon: Prohibits Discrimination Against Atheists and Agnostics
  11. West Virginia: Federal Law Enforcement Pension Freed From State Taxes

Read more

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

/0 Comments/in /by

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.

Read more

Upcoming Minimum Wage Increases

/0 Comments/in /by

APPLIES TO

Certain Employers with Employees in CA, DC, IL, ME, MD, MN, OR

EFFECTIVE

July 1, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Minimum wage increases typically fall into the beginning or middle of each calendar year, with many states or localities increasing minimum wage rates in July.  Below is a short list of localities with upcoming minimum wage increases effective July 1, 2018.

Read more

Ninth Circuit: Tribal Casinos Must Obey NLRA

/0 Comments/in /by

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