EEOC Issues Guidance on the ADA, Rehabilitation Act & COVID-19 Written by Jeremy Mittman Last week, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) Commission issued guidance related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The EEOC specified that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act rules continue to apply, but they do not interfere with or prevent employers … Continue reading EEOC on COVID-19
Written by Brian Ragen and Daniel Innamorati
On March 17, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order EO N-31-20 suspending key provisions of the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“Cal-WARN”) in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Why This Matters
The Executive Order effectively eliminates Cal-WARN’s requirement that employers provide 60 days’ notice for mass layoffs, relocations and cessations of business related to COVID-19. These events have become widespread as business shut their doors for public health reasons, and compliance has been rendered virtually impossible in many instances.
Continue reading “Governor Newsom Suspends Key Provisions of Cal-WARN”
Are Your Employees Telecommuting Now? COVID-19 and Cybersecurity Concerns for Businesses
Written by Jeremy Mittman and Susan Kohn Ross
A topic of immediate concern to businesses that has not received a great deal of attention (but should) is cybersecurity. There are unscrupulous people out there who will try to take advantage of the situation! This is especially worrisome with the increased usage of telecommuting to facilitate business continuity.
Within the Dept. of Homeland Security sits the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency or CISA which is “responsible for protecting the Nation’s critical infrastructure from physical and cyber threats.” CISA, through its National Cyber Awareness System, released Defending Against COVID-19 Cyber Scams, see here for the full text. In short, beware of emails with malicious attachments and hyperlinks. Also be careful about social media pleas, texts and calls having to do with COVID-19.
The NCAS recommends:
Written by Jeremy Mittman and Stephen Franz
There are several new developments at the federal and state level regarding the Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak and its impact on California employers and workers. The United States House of Representatives passed the “Families First Coronavirus Response Act,” (H.R. 6201), tentatively creating new paid leave obligations related to the coronavirus for many employers. Moreover, two California government agencies have issued important new guidance on coronavirus and its impact on employers and workers: The California Labor Commissioner’s Office issued an FAQ Memo and the California Employment Development Department (EDD) also issued relevant guidance.
Continue reading “Three New Coronavirus Developments for Employers”
Why This Matters
The day after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court applies retroactively (see here), California’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) released an opinion letter concluding that Dynamex’s ABC test applies to both IWC Wage Order claims and certain Labor Code provisions that enforce Wage Order requirements. The California Court of Appeals has ruled that Dynamex applies only to claims brought under the IWC Wage Orders (see here) and the DLSE’s recent opinion letter seems to expand what that means.
While California state and federal courts are not bound by DLSE opinion letters (meaning they could reach a different conclusion as to exactly which California Labor Code claims fall under Dynamex), the DLSE’s opinion letter reflects the way that agency will be interpreting Dynamex moving forward. This will impact employers who face DLSE wage claims where employees contend they were improperly classified as independent contractors. Continue reading “The Ever-Expanding Dynamex Decision”
Why This Matters
On Thursday, May 2, in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court applies retroactively. In Dynamex, the Supreme Court adopted a new standard for determining whether a California worker is an employee or independent contractor under the California Industrial Welfare Commission’s (“IWC”) wage orders. As we have previously discussed (see here, here, and here), Dynamex’s reach continues to grow and the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Vazquez should be of particular concern to employers, who now face potential liability for their past decisions to classify workers as independent contractors rather than employees under a standard that did not exist at the time. Continue reading “Dynamex Goes Back in Time”
Why This Matters
In early March, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia revived an Obama-era rule that requires larger companies to report workers’ pay data broken down by gender, race, and ethnicity. Last week, the Court issued an order requiring employers to submit 2018 EEO-1 pay data by September 30, 2019. Just this morning, the EEOC announced it will also collect 2017 data. This means that employers with 100 or more employees (and federal contractors with 50 or more employees) will be required to report their employees’ 2017 and 2018 W-2 compensation information and hours worked by the September deadline. The deadline to submit all other EEO-1 data, such as race and gender information, remains May 31, 2019. Continue reading “2017 and 2018 EEO-1 Pay Data Reporting Requirements Due September 30th”
By Jeremy Mittman and Louise Truong
Recently, the California Court of Appeals ruled in a 2-1 split decision that employees who are required to call in two hours prior to the start of their shifts to ask whether they needed to report to work are entitled to reporting time pay. In Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc., the Court held that Tilly’s on-call policy triggered the “Reporting Time Pay” provision of California’s Wage Order 7, which applies to the retail industry. The Ward majority held that Wage Order 7’s Reporting Time Pay provision applied because Tilly’s workers “reported” for work when they called-in.
Under the Reporting Time Pay provision, employers are required to pay employees reporting time pay, as follows: “Each workday an employee is required to report for work and does report, but is not put to work or is furnished less than half said employee’s usual or scheduled day’s work, the employee shall be paid for half the usual or scheduled day’s work, but in no event for less than two (2) hours nor more than four (4) hours, at the employee’s regular rate of pay.” For example, if a sales clerk is scheduled to report to work for an eight-hour shift and only works for one hour, the employer is still obligated to pay the employee four hours of his or her regular rate of pay. Continue reading “California Court of Appeals Dials in on Call-In Practices”
By Jeremy Mittman and Stephen Rossi
Why This Matters
On November 21st, the California Court of Appeals ruled in Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC regarding meal breaks and how they get tracked. Overall, Donohue is a positive wage and hour development for California employers. The case is also helpful in providing a roadmap for a design of an exceptionally good (and now, court approved) electronic meal break recording system (further described in the explanation of the decision), which enables an employer to track the reason for a noncompliant meal period and obtain notification with minimal administrative burden. California employers would be well-served to consider adopting a similar meal break monitoring system, which—considering the cost of defending against meal break claims, a perennial favorite of plaintiffs’ attorneys—would be money well spent. The Court’s decision and the intricacies of the case are further described below. Continue reading “CA Employers Hungry for Time-Rounding Meal Breaks”
As states begin to focus heightened attention on sexual harassment in the workplace in the wake of the #MeToo movement, New York State (“NY State”) and New York City (“NYC”) have implemented stronger protections for employees against workplace harassment. The new requirements, which have been passed into law in NY State and NYC, will impact employers’ training, policies & procedures, and employment agreements for New York employees.
New York State: Continue reading “New York City & State Implement Stronger Protections Against Workplace Harassment”
MSK Blog 