OFCCP issued yet another notice today regarding its handling of a FOIA request for production of all federal contractors’ EEO-1 Type 2 data from 2016 through 2020.

The request keeps in place a February 17, 2023, deadline for submitting objections, but expands the grounds upon which employers may object, but only if the contractor includes an explanation as to why it did not object “in response to previous notices that we have issued, and why there is good cause for us to accept the objection at this point.”

We’re thinking about rolling out some IE&D initiatives – is that the same thing as an Affirmative Action Plan?

The short answer is no, and there is often confusion between an Affirmative Action Plan, or AAP, and more general and voluntary IE&D initiatives.

On June 5, 2023, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) published its FY 2023 Construction Corporate Scheduling Announcement List (CSAL). The CSAL includes 250 employers that OFCCP has identified as federal or federally assisted construction contractors.

On June 7, 2024, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) published its FY 2024 Corporate Scheduling Announcement List (CSAL) for Supply and Service Contractors. The CSAL is a courtesy notification, and the review will start once the establishment receives OFCCP’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved scheduling letter.

Alex MacDonald says the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Chevron will likely impact regulatory bodies and the employers they oversee.

Corporate Compliance Insights

View

In July, the Third Circuit upheld a District of New Jersey decision to throw out a withdrawal liability assessment, finding the multiemployer pension fund was barred from pursuing its claim because the fund unreasonably delayed notification of a withdrawal liability assessment for 12 years.

Withdrawal Liability Assessments Under ERISA

Mark Callaghan says the new UK government should increase Statutory Paternity Pay “in excess of inflation,” because it would benefit businesses and families alike.

People Management

View

Chelsea Lewis provides recommendations for navigating the challenges that may arise when customers or clients refuse to abide by COVID-19 mandates.

ACC South Florida

View Article 

Steve Biddle examines the recently expanded Arizona Civil Rights Act (ACRA) as well as new ordinances passed by Arizona cities that expand protected categories and coverage.

SHRM Online

View (Subscription required.)

Compliance or internal audit departments frequently carry out audits intended to assure that business partners in an organization, such as human resources or legal departments, have in place policies and procedures that are effective for maintaining corporate compliance and consistent with the myriad laws with which the organization must comply, including employment, whistleblower, and anti-bribery and corruption.  These reviews are often not confined to policies but may also seek review of actual compliance events and sensitive contemporaneous records.  For example, in the case of an inte

Michael Lotito and Bruce Sarchet share their thoughts on SB 93, a new California law that requires some employers in the hospitality industry to prioritize recalling workers who were laid off due to COVID-19.

SHRM Online

View (Subscription required.)

On April 1, 2022, a Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that California Assembly Bill 979—a bill designed to increase diversity and improve the persistently low number of underrepresented groups on corporate boards—violated the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution and was therefore unenforceable. In its ruling, the court acknowledged the pitfalls of homogeneity in business and communities, but it cautioned against quotas and specific number requirements.

On June 1, 2023, in United States ex rel.

At the November 5, 2024 election, California voters will determine the fate of Proposition 32, which proposes to increase the state minimum wage and provide for automatic future adjustments tied to inflation.

As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to transform the workplace, lawmakers and agencies are grappling with how to regulate its use in employment settings, from hiring practices to employee monitoring. The next administration’s approach to AI regulation will help shape the balance between innovation and worker protection, with each political party offering distinct views on the role of government oversight. A shift in power could lead to changes in how the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), the U.S.

Shareholder Rachel Fendell Satinsky speaks with Pro Bono Committee Member Dave Haase regarding her work with the Pennsylvania Innocence Project over the years.

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 June 29, 2024, Governor Newsom signed into law an amendment to California Code 1770, clarifying the scope of SB 478. Under SB 478 and previously published guidance from the attorney general, California restaurants were effectively prohibited from charging service fees or other surcharges, which many restaurants have implemented to offset rising costs, unless the amount of the service fee was specifically identified as part of the listed prices.

Voters in several states will decide whether marijuana or, in one case, psychedelic substances should be legal in the upcoming November 5, 2024 general election. Employers should keep their eyes on these ballot measures and prepare for questions regarding changes to workplace policies if some or all of them pass. A rundown of the ballot measures in these jurisdictions follows.

Employers with employees in Ontario often ask about legislative requirements under various employment statutes, including mandatory policies, training and postings under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, the Pay Equity Act, and the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, 2017.  To make this information conveniently available, the Littler Toronto office assembled these requirements in a single publication. 

The COVID-19 pandemic required nearly every employer around the globe to take stock of its workforce, policies and practices, and adapt to a rapidly changing and unpredictable environment.  COVID-19 will eventually pass, but transformative issues laid bare by the pandemic—which were already in motion—will remain, likely at an accelerated pace.

Over the past year, employers have had to grapple with seismic social, cultural, and political developments impacting profoundly how they do business.

A corporate whistleblower can create more financial, organizational, and reputational damage to an employer by using the federal False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. § 3729-33, than by using any other “whistleblower” law. While the FCA contains no requirement that the whistleblower be an employee to create the damage, most FCA whistleblowers are employees, and almost all of them bring the problem to their management or human resources department before they suffer an adverse employment action. Management often does not hear the whistle blowing when the damage is still avoidable.

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.

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.

Two noteworthy developments have occurred since the California Fair Employment & Housing Council released draft revisions to the state’s employment non-discrimination laws on March 15, 2022 that relate to the nascent law surrounding the use of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and other data-driven statistical processes to automate decision-making in the employment context.  

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.

California state and local governmental bodies—our state legislature, and counties and cities—were active again this year in their efforts to regulate the workplace. Littler Workplace Policy Institute has been tracking these bills as they worked their way through the legislature. Some were signed into law by Governor Newsom earlier this year and have already gone into effect.

A May 2021 court decision in California, All of Us or None v.

Rod Fliegel, William Simmons and Wendy Buckingham discuss the current limitations on the use of background checks for employment in California.

SHRM Online

View (Subscription required.)

Updated July 31, 2023: The Council’s Modifications to Employment Regulations Regarding Criminal History discussed in this Insight have just been approved by the Office of Administrative Law, and the modified regulations will go into effect on October 1, 2023. Key changes from the initial proposal include:

Rod M. Fliegel and Alice H. Wang discuss the Civil Rights Council of the California Civil Rights Department’s latest revisions to the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) regulations that govern employers' use and consideration of criminal history in employment decisions.

SHRM Online

View (Subscription required.)

Updated March 24, 2023: The CFPB has edited its updated Summary of Rights document to include the correct contact number. 

*  *  *

Alice Wang and Rod M. Fliegel say the Fair Chance Act of 2023, a California bill under consideration in the state senate, “would more or less upend the ordinary hiring process for just about every employer in California,” if passed.

HR Dive

View

Rod Fliegel discusses California’s proposed Fair Chance Act of 2023, which would further restrict how employers can use information about the criminal histories of job seekers and employees, and offers tips for complying with the current Fair Chance Act.

SHRM Online

View (Subscription required.)

The California Civil Rights Council previously issued draft revisions to the Fair Employment and Housing Act’s regulations governing inquiries into and consideration of a job applicant’s criminal history in making hiring decisions.  On July 24, 2023, the Office of Administrative Law approved the Council’s proposed modifications to the regulations. 

Rod Fliegel co-authors a report that explains negligent hiring, employers’ risks and how they can protect their company. 

Legal Action Center

View

Two new laws will take effect next year that restrict how employers may respond to worker off-duty cannabis use.  One law will restrict employers’ ability to ask about prior cannabis use in the hiring process, and the other will limit employer actions based on positive marijuana drug tests.

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. 

Companies that hire employees and engage independent contractors in California should brace themselves for an even greater slowdown in background checks that include criminal record searches in Los Angeles County.¹ This will result from the drastic impact of the court of appeal’s 2021 opinion in All of Us or None v.

The Lehigh County Human Relations Ordinance was enacted February 26, 2024, establishing county-specific non-discrimination requirements for employment, housing, education, health care and public accommodations.  The ordinance also creates a Lehigh County Human Relations Commission charged with investigating and enforcing claims of discrimination.  The ordinance becomes effective June 1, 2024.

Expanded Protected Characteristics and Employer Coverage

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.