Posts

December Updates

APPLIES TO

Varies

EFFECTIVE

Varies

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

This Short List addresses the following topics:
  1. 2020 Minimum Wage Increases for Federal Contractors
  2. Second Circuit: Sexual Harassment vs. Sex Discrimination
  3. Third Circuit: Blue Penciling Noncompete Agreements is Okay
  4. Sixth Circuit: Statute of Limitations Cannot be Shortened for Title VII Cases
  5. Ninth Circuit: Home Care Workers’ Overtime Rule Retroactive Effective Date Applied
  6. Tenth Circuit: FLSA Applies to Workers in Cannabis Industry
  7. California: Calculating Meal and Rest Premiums Clarified
  8. California: Mandatory Service Charges May be Gratuities
  9. Bernalillo County, NM: PTO Start Date Moved Up
  10. New York: Reproductive Health Decisions Protected
  11. New York City, NY: Guidance on National Origin/Immigrant Status-based Discrimination
  12. Oregon: Don’t Retaliate – Even After Termination
  13. Columbia, SC: Criminal and Salary History Inquiries Banned
  14. San Antonio, TX: Paid Sick Leave on Hold – Again

Read more

Colorado: Employer Policy Controls Vacation Payout on Termination

APPLIES TO

All Employers with CO Employees

EFFECTIVE

June 27, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Nieto v. Clark’s Market, Inc., the Colorado Court of Appeal stated that the employer and employee’s agreement determines how accrued vacation time is handled at termination. Specifically, the state Wage Claim Act, which states in part that the employer must pay all earned vacation upon termination “in accordance with the terms of any agreement between the employer and the employee,” does not create an independent right of employees to receive vacation payout upon termination.

There, the employer’s vacation policy provided for payout of earned vacation time upon termination if the employee provided at least two weeks’ advance notice of leaving employment; however, vacation benefits are forfeited if insufficient notice was provided or the employee is terminated. The court stated that the employer’s policy controlled, and the employee did not meet the requirements. Employers should have vacation policies reviewed accordingly, and should seek legal counsel before refusing to pay out earned vacation upon termination where a vacation policy is silent on those terms.

Action Items

  1. Have vacation policies and termination procedures reviewed for compliance.
  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

Tenth Circuit: Changing Termination Reasons Held as Pretext for Employment Discrimination

APPLIES TO

All Employers with CO, KS, NM, OK, UT, and WY Employees

EFFECTIVE

May 15, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

The Tenth Circuit Court’s decision in Fassbender v. Correct Care Sols., LLC, reminds employers of the importance of weighing termination decisions with care.  In Fassbender, an employer’s decision to terminate a pregnant employee was determined to be a pretext for discrimination, due in part to the employer’s inconsistent reasoning for the termination.

Florida: Employees May Be Prohibited from Using Employer Referral Sources After Termination

APPLIES TO

All Employers with FL Employees

EFFECTIVE

September 14, 2017

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Florida, non-compete agreements are used to protect an employer’s “legitimate business interests.” The Florida Supreme Court recently stated that referral sources may be considered a legitimate business interest. In both White v. Mederi Caretenders Visiting Services of Southeast Florida and Americare Home Therapy, Inc. v. Hiles, the employers hired an individual whose job duties included soliciting health care providers for home health care service referrals.  The employees were required to sign a non-compete agreement that restricted their ability to work for competitors for a year after termination; in both instances, the employers sued when their respective ex-employee went to work for a competitor after their termination.

The Florida Supreme Court identified the crux of both cases as determining whether or not the home health care service referrals qualified as a legitimate business interest.  Ultimately, the court stated that the statute did not specifically preclude a referral source from being recognized as a legitimate business interest.  However, the court cautioned that employers should not consider these cases as a ticket to consider all referral sources as a legitimate business interest.  Instead, courts must analyze the facts of any similar case to determine how critical the referral source is to the business, the nature of the business, and the scope of business’s investment in developing referral relationships.

Action Items

  1. Review restrictive covenants or non-compete agreements with labor counsel to ensure agreements cover all legitimate business interests.
  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.

© 2017 ManagEase, Incorporated.