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?

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

The latest binge watch for many of us at GQ|Littler was the Netflix hit, “America’s Sweethearts: Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders,” which follows a year in the life of NFL’s Dallas Cowboys cheerleading team.

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.

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

Marshall v. Mercantile Exchange Corporation, 2024 CanLII 71128  (ONSC), is an action for wrongful dismissal where the employee claimed he could not mitigate his damages by seeking alternative employment indefinitely because of a mental health condition (i.e., stress and depression) allegedly arising out of his termination. He claimed a 26-month notice period. The employer sought an independent medical examination (IME) of the employee pursuant to s.

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.

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. 

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.

Workforce reductions, whether in the form of hours reductions, furloughs, or layoffs, are often a last resort for employers experiencing financial pressures. Nevertheless, when these actions are necessary, time typically is of the essence, because when shedding payroll is the objective, the more drawn out the process, the smaller will be any financial savings. But quick decisions need not be careless decisions. The key is to thoroughly understand the risks before making decisions that later may result in potential liability.

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.

Three years have already passed since the European Union agreed upon Directive 2019/1152 of June 20, 2019, addressing transparent and predictable working conditions in the EU in the area of civil law (Working Conditions Directive).

The past two years created a significant shift in working conditions, and with that, a new avenue of employment arrangements. The normalization of flexible working paired with talent scarcity created an ideal environment for its rise. To help set up a global workforce, many service providers—referred to as Employers of Record (EORs)—are offering to hire talent across borders for companies. They take care of labor and employment laws, social security, and tax in each desired country.

The economy has been awash with mixed messages in recent months – throwing a wrench into many employers’ workforce planning.

This complex picture raises a host of important questions for companies: Do they continue hiring as normal? Prepare for a downturn? Implement reductions in force (RIFs) or layoffs?

The United States is not the only country currently debating reform to the law on non-competes. Notably, the UK Government has announced legislation that would limit the duration of non-competes to a period of three months after the termination of employment.

The United States is not the only country currently debating a reform to the law on non-competes. Notably, the UK Government has announced legislation that would limit the duration of non-competes to a period of 3 months after termination of employment.

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

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.

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.)

Earlier this month, Governor Ned Lamont announced the long-awaited implementation of the state’s so-called “Clean Slate Act” – sort of.  According to a recent press release, January 1, 2023 will see the full or partial erasure in some 44,000 cases involving convictions for cannabis possession.  Individuals with eligible convictions for other crimes, including most misdemeanors and certain lesser felonies, will have to wait until the second half of 2023 as a result of implementation delays.

The Clean Slate Law & How it Works

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. 

*  *  *

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.)

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.

Philip M. Berkowitz talks about background checks and “Ban-the-Box” laws that financial services organizations must comply with when hiring.

Global Banking & Finance Review

View

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.