The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment just published proposed regulations that will dramatically overhaul the state’s wage and hour laws. This sweeping reform has the potential to impact every employer doing business in Colorado, addressing overtime, salary requirements, rest breaks, and a host of other factors. While the final version of these rules may slightly vary from their current form, and they won’t be effective until at least March 2020, you should take steps right now to understand them and plan for the finalization and implementation of these new laws.
Colorado employers will soon face two big changes that will impact your workplaces. In a matter of weeks, the state will adopt a new rule on use-it-or-lose-it vacation policies, and Denver will begin the process of increasing its minimum wage. With the new year approaching, now is the perfect time to get up to speed on these changes ad adjust your policies and practices.
It’s that time of the year again. Cyber Monday — the first work day following the Thanksgiving break — is expected break online shopping records. In 2018, retailers saw a 20% increase in Cyber Monday revenue as consumers spent over $7.9 billion on online transactions. Surprisingly, Cyber Monday has begun to outpace Black Friday, which only generated $6.2 billion in revenue.
The Oregon Court of Appeals just held that employers may be held liable not only for failing to allow employees to take meal breaks, but also for failing to ensure that employees take meal breaks to which they are entitled. This significant decision handed down on November 14 clarifies that Oregon employers have a legal duty to police their employees to ensure that they take their full meal breaks – merely providing employees with the opportunity to take such breaks is insufficient. Pursuant to the Maza v. Waterford Operations, LLC decision, if you fail to force an employee who works six or more hours to take a duty-free meal period for a continuous, uninterrupted 30 minutes, you might be responsible for paying the employee for the full 30 minutes.
Mere days before San Antonio’s Sick and Safe Leave ordinance was set to go into effect, the law was once again put on hold. In a ruling today, Bexar County Judge Peter Sakai temporarily delayed the start of the paid leave ordinance, which was set to take effect on December 1.
Joint employment took center stage yesterday during the release of the Fall Regulatory Agenda, as three separate federal agencies announced plans to move forward with revised joint employment rules in December. While the Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board had already released versions of their draft rules, it came as somewhat of a surprise to see the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission also announcing that it would weigh in on the topic before the end of 2019. With the uncertainty of an election year coming up in 2020, it appears that the agencies are kicking into overdrive in order to clarify joint employment standards as soon as possible.
Following a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court several months ago allowing a former employee to pursue a religious discrimination claim, a Texas federal jury recently ordered her former employer to pay her $350,000. The November 1 jury verdict came after the Supreme Court permitted her to pursue a claim under Title VII despite her failure to include the claim in her original charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The verdict reaffirms the risks and significant costs employers face in defending a claim — even one never filed with the EEOC — if it does not move to dismiss a complaint for failure to exhaust or, at a minimum, include this as an affirmative defense when answering the complaint.
In just a few short weeks, New Jersey employers will no longer be allowed to ask prospective employees about their salary history during the application or interview process or rely upon salary history in setting compensation. The rationale for the new statewide law is that setting compensation based on prior salary may perpetuate an unlawful pay disparity. By excluding salary history from the mix, employers will only be able to set compensation based on lawful considerations, including the specific job duties of the position and the applicant’s skill, education, training, and experience.
A recent $93.6 million verdict from an Oregon jury has the potential to bankrupt a union that some describe as one of the strongest and most militant in the United States—the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU).
A New York federal judge just struck down a rule that was about to permit the government to withhold federal funds from healthcare providers that don’t allow workers to refuse to perform procedures because they violate their religious beliefs or conscience. Judge Paul Engelmayer’s 147-page ruling, handed down yesterday, has led to heated reactions and spin from both sides of the controversy. However, the decision may not have a big effect on the daily operations of healthcare institutions and employees who want to be excused from participating in certain procedures. Similar laws and accreditation requirements remain in effect.
A California appellate court just held that mandatory service charges added by banquet facilities to their contracts may need to be paid to banquet service employees essentially as a form of a gratuity. The October 31, 2019 decision changes up what some considered to be a settled area of law and may require you to immediately adjust your pay practices in order to get into compliance.
The iconic sports movie, Major League, premiered 30 years ago. Three decades later, nearly everyone remembers the classic comedic scenes with characters such as Ricky “Wild Thing” Vaughn (Charlie Sheen), Jake Taylor (Tom Berenger), Willie Mayes Hayes (Wesley Snipes), and Pedro Cerrano (Dennis Haysbert).
Despite his predecessor vetoing two similar proposals, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill into law on October 10, 2019 that will prohibit employers from entering into mandatory arbitration agreements for nearly all types of employment law claims in California. The new law could have significant impacts on California employers across all industries – if it ever goes into effect. There are significant questions around whether the new statute is invalid. We could see it scaled back or completely tossed out before ever being enforced based on an argument that it is preempted by federal law. Legal challenges are inevitable, and will likely require years of litigation before a final resolution. In the meantime, what do California employers need to know about this development?
First-year Governor Gavin Newsom signed some significant pieces of legislation in recent days that will impact employers across California – ranging from a ban on mandatory arbitration agreements, to a complete rewrite to the rules for the use of independent contractors, to a general prohibition on “no-rehire” clauses in settlement agreements. This legal alert highlights the top employment legislation signed into law, including several signed in the last few days leading up to yesterday’s deadline for bills to be signed or vetoed. It also includes links to much deeper dives into these specific measures. California employers will want to read each of these articles closely.
A federal appeals court just ruled an employee for a cannabis business could bring a claim for federal wage and hour violations against his employer despite the fact that another federal law continues to criminalize the drug. The September 20, 2019 ruling from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals washes away a defense that other businesses have tried to use to their benefit. The ruling only directly applies to cannabis-related employers in Colorado, Kansas, and other nearby states. However, all employers in this field should pay attention to this decision as it may soon apply to you.
The suspense is over – the Department of Labor just this morning announced the revised Overtime Rule, which will set the minimum salary threshold for the Fair Labor Standard Act’s white-collar exemptions at $684 per week, or $35,568 per year. The rule, which will expand overtime pay obligations to an estimated 1.3 million additional workers, will take effect on January 1, 2020. What do you need to know about this breaking news?
The National Labor Relations Board took the latest step in the long-simmering debate over whether college teaching and research assistants could unionize when it released a proposed rule on Friday that would once again block such efforts. Declaring that university students should not qualify as employees under federal labor law, the Board took the first step to reverse a 2016 ruling by the Obama-era NLRB that opened the door for certain graduate and undergraduate students to form unions. The proposed rule still has a way to go before it is finalized and adopted, but you will want to familiarize yourself with this development to the extent it may soon upend the current state of the law and your campus practices.
With his signature on AB 5 on September 18, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom has completed the year-long overhaul of the state’s independent contractor test. What was once governed by a balancing test that provided breathing room for businesses to deploy contractors with relative ease has now been transformed into a bright-line standard that will challenge businesses across the state when it comes to compliance. Companies will soon face an increased risk of misclassification claims from workers unless they take immediate steps to get in line with the new law.
The California Supreme Court recently handed down an intriguing decision which casts doubt on – and in some cases even condemns – some of the most common practices used by employers in both drafting and presenting arbitration agreements to their employees. In doing so, the court highlighted circumstances under which similar agreements with “an unusually high degree” of procedural unconscionability may be blocked from being enforced. Accordingly, it’s important that you understand which of the employer’s terms and practices were criticized by the court so you can avoid those same pitfalls in your own arbitration programs moving forward.
In a blow to national union organization efforts, the National Labor Relations Board just clarified the test for determining whether “micro-units” of employees within a larger workforce can organize on their own. In its September 9 Boeing Company decision, the NLRB addressed a union’s efforts to utilize a “micro-unit” strategy to target a petitioned-for unit that made up of only two job classifications from a significantly larger, integrated workforce. In reversing a Regional Director’s decision to allow a representation election with this smaller subset of employees, the NLRB clarified its traditional community-of-interest standard for evaluating the appropriateness of petition for bargaining units.
The California legislature today approved a controversial new law that will reshape the way businesses across the state classify workers. While supporters of the bill have emphasized its impact on independent contractors, the bill also severely impacts legal obligations governing businesses that hire other businesses. In short, the law will make it much more difficult for many companies to treat workers in California as independent contractors, and more difficult for businesses to hire smaller, entrepreneurial businesses. The governor has already promised to sign the law into effect; once he does, hundreds of thousands of workers across the state will be entitled to increased pay, benefits, and employment law protections – not to mention the opportunity to organize into labor unions. Many businesses, especially those in the gig economy, will need to radically restructure their operations or transform these workers into employees in order to comply with the law. What do you need to know about today’s developments?
Citing the high burden on employers and the unproven usefulness of the program, the EEOC announced today that it will halt further collection of pay data during future EEO-1 reporting cycles. While you still need to turn over compensation information from both 2017 and 2018 when you submit your Component 2 pay data as part of your EEO-1 submission by September 30, today’s announcement may mean this will be a one-time effort that may not need to be repeated in 2020. What do you need to know about today’s news?
In yet another ruling that levels the labor relations playing field, the National Labor Relations Board ruled on Friday that employers could rightfully eject outside union representatives soliciting petition signatures from a shared shopping center parking area. When read in conjunction with a June decision conferring greater rights to limit on-premises union activity by abolishing the “public space” exception, and a more recent ruling extending greater latitude when it comes to excluding contractor employees, the Board has significantly restricted union access to private employer property. These rulings have supplied employers with powerful tools to combat prohibited solicitation on their premises. What do you need to know about this latest decision?