As workplace issues have become more complex, human resource professionals and managers often turn to employment lawyers for advice in sorting out matters involving the interaction between business requirements and the requirements of employment laws and regulations. When is such advice protected from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege?

Attorneys Sarah Coats, Carly Compton, Christina Cordoza, Chris Johlie and Mark Flores share more about the nonpartisan election activities they have assisted with on a pro bono basis with Pro Bono Committee Member Breanne Martell.

As part of the annual National Celebration of Pro Bono hosted by the American Bar Association, Littler is highlighting various pro bono efforts from around the firm. Our attorneys and professional staff demonstrate their commitment to pro bono by providing significant efforts to organizations in their communities.
   

On October 4, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (Case No. 23-1039) to decide whether plaintiffs who are members of historically majority communities asserting “reverse discrimination” claims under Title VII must show there are “background circumstances” that support the inference that the defendant is the “unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”

The “Background Circumstances” Requirement

The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has created a host of challenges for employers while accelerating fundamental shifts already underway in the workplace. As the pandemic’s many lasting implications for the workplace and the way we work begin to emerge, Littler surveyed more than 900 employers, based in North America and with operations around the world, on their concerns and the actions they have taken in response.

Due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments across the world have implemented various measures to slow the spread of the virus, protect workers’ health and safety, and assist employers to recover from the economic crisis, among other programs.

With stay-at-home orders across the country being lifted, employers are navigating a host of legal and operational issues in bringing employees back to the workplace in the wake of COVID-19.

In Littler’s survey of more than 1,000 in-house counsel, HR professionals and C-suite executives, we gathered insights about when employers will reopen their workplaces (if at all), how they plan on doing so safely, what accommodations they will make for remote work, and their top liability concerns.

Many employers are hopeful that a vaccine for COVID-19 will be the silver bullet that will enable employers to return to some semblance of a pre-COVID workplace. Assuming a vaccine is developed, can an employer mandate that employees be vaccinated before coming back to work? What happens when an employee cannot or will not take this vaccine, either for religious, medical, or other personal reasons? Can a union or group of workers successfully challenge employer-mandated vaccines?

Government-ordered office closures that swept much of Europe early in 2020 appear to have helped convince employers across the continent that workers could be just as productive remotely as they could while gathered in offices.

The COVID-19 vaccine breakthroughs in late 2020 brought hope that the pandemic’s end could be in sight, but a return to normalcy will require widespread inoculation, raising an urgent question: Should employers mandate COVID-19 vaccinations for their workers?

Technology facilitates remote work in ways that, years ago, just were not possible. Take telecommuting. These days, all kinds of jobs that had to be performed at an employer site are now performed remotely. Some call center workers, for example, now work from home using home telephones — no brick-and-mortar call center needed. Some secretaries now telecommute using laptops and the internet. Some teachers now teach remotely using laptops and video links.

We have created a high-level guide that gives an “at a glance” snapshot of the severity of lockdown restrictions in 15 countries across Asia Pacific (APAC).  The guide covers the following topics: 

We have created a high-level guide that gives an “at a glance” snapshot of the severity of lockdown restrictions in 28 countries across Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA). As COVID-19 developments across EMEA slow, the June guide will be the final monthly update of this guide and we will next update the guide when the information substantially changes. We hope you have found the content we have provided over the last 12 months useful.

The Firm’s International Practice Group has once again updated its COVID-19 Vaccination: A Littler Global Guide on Legal & Practical Implications in the Workplace. Two years into the pandemic, experts agree that – in the absence of newly emerging and highly transmissible variants – COVID-19 might lose its pandemic status before the end of 2022 due to the development of various COVID-19 vaccines and increasing global vaccination rates.

While the national vaccination campaigns have made considerable progress lately, there are still many people who have not yet been vaccinated, some of whom are hesitant to receive the vaccine at all. At the same time, discussions emerge whether and when a follow-up vaccination of already vaccinated people might be required.

After more than a year of a crushing global pandemic, the early summer brought hope for a long-anticipated return to normal business operations, at least in the United States. But those plans were derailed by the rapid spread of the highly contagious delta variant and mounting COVID-19 infections. The abrupt change left companies – many of which had just updated plans with an eye toward a post-pandemic future – scrambling to adjust policies on such pressing issues as vaccination, return-to-office timing and mask wearing.

Generative AI, which is a type of artificial intelligence that can produce or create new content, has already started to impact the workplace in various ways. On the positive side, it can automate repetitive and time-consuming tasks, leading to increased efficiency and productivity. For example, it can assist with data entry, customer service, and content creation. Additionally, it can help businesses to analyze and make sense of large amounts of data, leading to better decision-making.

The Wisconsin Fair Employment Act (WFEA) prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees on the basis of their arrest and conviction records.¹  Generally, an employer cannot make decisions on the basis of an arrest or conviction record unless the crimes “substantially relate” to the circumstances of the job at issue.²  For many years, the state agencies responsible for enforcing this law—the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (DWD) and the Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC)—have taken the view that crimes of domestic violen

Background check industry groups have mounted a full-court press to remedy the recent slowdown in criminal record searches in California state courts caused by last year’s court of appeal decision in All of Us or None v.

On April 4, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit joined the Ninth Circuit in holding that a plaintiff lacked Article III standing to prosecute her statutory claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in federal court. The Eighth Circuit’s opinion in Schumacher v. SC Data Center, Inc. deepens the split between the circuit courts on standing and increases the chances that the U.S. Supreme Court eventually will have to weigh in on the issue again.

Background: Spokeo and Ramirez

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) is a federal law that governs employment-related background checks.  Most lawsuits asserting federal claims proceed in federal court.¹  The FCRA is atypical in that FCRA claims can proceed in either federal or state court.  A new opinion from a California court of appeal in Hebert v.

UPDATE: Governor Hochul signed this bill on November 16, 2023, which will take effect one year from signing.

*  *  *

Michael Paglialonga and Stephen Fuchs discuss New York’s new Clean Slate Act, which will prohibit employers from inquiring about sealed records or discriminating against applicants or employees based on sealed records.

SHRM Online

View (Subscription required.)

Pennsylvania and Philadelphia recently enacted changes that impact employer criminal background screening.

State Law

Enacted on December 14, 2023, and effective February 12, 2024, Pennsylvania’s House Bill No. 689 amends Pennsylvania law relating to the expungement of certain criminal record information and employer immunity when hiring individuals with expunged records. 

Employers with operations in California are all too familiar with how state and local officials continue to restrict the access employers have to public records, including criminal history information.¹ For example, lengthy delays in completing standard criminal background checks are now routine in California.² Apart from criminal background checks, many employers rely on motor vehicle record checks (MVRs) to vet candidates for positions that require driving as part of the job.  In Doe v. California Dept.

Hinna Upal discusses things employers should consider in the post-pandemic workplace, including employees’ work-from-home arrangements.

Rochester Business Journal

View (Subscription required.)

The federal Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has announced that certain employers can claim federal tax credits when employees use emergency paid leave to accompany an individual to obtain a COVID-19 vaccination and/or to care for an individual recovering from an injury, disability, illness, or condition related to the vaccine.

On November 10, 2021, the IRS released Revenue Procedure 2021-45, which contains its annual inflation adjustments for over 60 tax provisions, including not only individual income tax rates and deductions, but also many employer-provided benefits.

Dear Littler: Considering the recent passage of the federal Speak Out Act limiting the use of pre-dispute nondisclosure and non-disparagement clauses involving sexual assault and sexual harassment claims, what impact will this have on our template releases, separation agreements, and litigation settlement agreements? How do you recommend we revise those documents?

                                         —Revising Releases

Dear Revising,

On June 15, 2023, Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo signed SB 290, which requires early wage access (EWA) providers to obtain a license from the Commissioner of Financial Institutions. This is the first EWA law enacted by any state. 

Early Wage Access Generally

In Escano v. Innovative Financial Partners, LLC,¹ a magistrate judge held that the defendants’ decision to withhold funds from a payment required under a settlement agreement when the plaintiff refused to provide a Form W-9 did not violate the agreement.

Rebecca Goldstein talks about new workplace violence prevention laws in California and New York.

Bloomberg Law

View (Subscription required) 

Starting in January 2025, California’s Fair Employment & Housing Act (FEHA) will prohibit employers from including a statement in a job advertisement, posting, application, or other material that an applicant must have a driver’s license unless the employer “reasonably” anticipates driving to be an essential job function that cannot be comparably performed by alternative means. The stated purpose of the new FEHA amendment is to help facilitate employment for non-drivers who rely on ride hails, public transportation, biking, and walking as their primary means of transportation.

Kerry E. Notestine, Chad J. Kaldor, Shawn Matthew Clark and Garrick D. Josephs compare and contrast the Maryland WARN Act and its federal counterpart, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act.

SHRM

View (Subscription required)

The United States has announced that Qatar will soon be officially admitted to the U.S. Visa Waiver Program (VWP), allowing visa-free travel to the United States by Qatari citizens for up to 90 days. Per the Final Rule published by the Department of Homeland Security on September 26, 2024, Qatar will be added to the VWP no later than December 1, 2024.

Kerry Notestine, Chad Kaldor, Shawn Matthew Clark and Garrick Josephs discuss the Maryland WARN Act and compares and contrasts it with its federal counterpart, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act.

Wolters Kluwer

View (Subscription required)

Employers concerned about the risks and expenses associated with employment litigation have increasingly required their employees to agree to arbitration in the event of a dispute.  Even upon the issuance of the arbitrator’s final decision, however, a court’s intervention may still be necessary.  At the very least, the court can actually enforce an arbitration award, whereas the arbitrator cannot.  Moreover, the losing party in the arbitration may seek to vacate the arbitrator’s decision on limited grounds, or seek further review of the district court’s decision by filing an appeal with th

On November 9, 2021, in United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Canada Local 333 v.

Since late fall 2021, we have seen a steady flow of arbitration awards emerge in Ontario and British Columbia that consider issues relating to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies in the unionized workplace. In this Insight, we provide an overview of key trends in these awards.

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana will dramatically impact employers’ rights to enforce arbitration agreements related to claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).¹  This decision, which is a significant win for employers with interests in California, will allow employers to compel arbitration of a PAGA plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims.

On July 8, 2022, in Gist v. ZoAn Management, Inc., the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the trial court and court of appeals granting the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  The court concluded that because nothing in the arbitration agreement prohibited the plaintiff from being awarded any relief he might be entitled to under Oregon’s wage and hour statutes, the arbitration provision was not unconscionable and therefore enforceable.

Background

Christine Sargent writes about an Oregon Supreme Court case that affirmed the importance of implementing enforceable arbitration agreements.

SHRM Online

View (Subscription required.)

Theodora Lee said overall case filings in the San Francisco state trial court have been down significantly compared to pre-pandemic levels, but she’s seeing an uptick in labor and employment law cases.

The Recorder

View (Subscription required.)

Alexander MacDonald discusses a case in which the ACLU, sharp critic of arbitration, is arguing that individual arbitration plays a “fundamental role” in protecting labor rights.

The Federalist Society

View