Alexander T. MacDonald and Joy C. Rosenquist discuss California’s Proposition 22 and a recent California Supreme Court decision that upheld the voter-approved law allowing app-based drivers to work as independent contractors.

Westlaw Today

View (Subscription required)

With the usual flurry of activity at the end of the legislative session, California has enacted a slew of bills with labor and employment ramifications.¹ Closing out his first year in office, Governor Gavin Newsom signed more than 40 such bills on a wide variety of topics, ranging from antidiscrimination and workplace safety measures to the much-debated worker classification bill (AB 5) codifying the ABC test from last year’s Dynamex case.

Aaron Crews is quoted regarding technology’s role in HR. 

HR Dive

View Article 

Seventh annual survey of more than 1,100 employers reveals how companies are responding to rapid social and political changes

Aaron Crews explains the many ways AI can benefit employers.

SHRM Online

View Article 

Littler attorneys comment on the results of Littler's Annual Employer Survey and analyze the impact that sweeping regulatory changes and other factors, including the #MeToo movement, have on employers.

General Counsel News

View Article 

Philip Gordon suggests steps that employers should take in response to the privacy act.

SHRM Online

View Article 

Happy New Year! As we turn the calendar to 2019, employers across the country are taking stock of recently-enacted workplace regulations on a wide variety of topics.¹

Employers in the Golden State, in particular, have a lot to juggle: new governor, new legislative session, and dozens of new labor and employment laws taking effect as of January 1.² These statutes touch on numerous issues, ranging from lactation accommodation to meal breaks for certain commercial drivers.³

Effective January 1, 2019, California SB 1343 greatly expanded Golden State employers' anti-harassment training requirements. The law not only extends coverage to employers with more than five employees, but it also mandates that employers provide anti-harassment training to all employees – not just supervisors – every two years. But what if an employer provided this training in 2018? Can the next training cycle wait until 2020? No, according to recent guidance from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH).

Last year, California enacted SB 1343,¹ amending California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to expand employers' sexual harassment training requirements.  Previously, employers with 50 or more employees had to provide their supervisory personnel with two hours of sexual harassment prevention training every two years.

Bruce Sarchet, of Littler’s Workplace Policy Institute, and Marissa Dragoo with the Littler Learning Group, take a look at a new type of workplace training – bystander intervention training – that is now encouraged for California employers. This optional training teaches employees how to evaluate and respond to problematic behaviors in the workplace, empowering them to interrupt difficult situations, such as sexual harassment.
 

On August 30, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 778, revising mandatory anti-harassment training deadlines, and resolving confusion about retraining requirements for certain employees who already received training in 2018 or 2019.

Helene Wasserman, Los Angeles-based Littler Shareholder and Trial Practice Group Co-Chair, reflects on some good, bad, and ugly impacts of the #MeToo movement since its inception, including recent legislative developments affecting California employers in particular. Discussing training, arbitration agreements, and the extended statute of limitations for FEHA claims with Littler Learning Group’s Marissa Dragoo, Helene provides insights and guidance for California employers as we move into the third year of the cemented #MeToo movement.
 

On February 26, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Tricoast Builders, Inc. v. Fonnegra, No. S273368 (Cal. Feb. 26, 2024). For employers, the most important takeaway from this case is that the court held a litigant’s waiver of the right to a jury trial can be conclusive if a party seeking reversal of the waiver cannot demonstrate it caused prejudice to the party. The decision makes it more difficult for a party to convince a court to let it back out of a jury trial waiver in a civil case.

Background

After a recent Second Circuit decision curbed an ideological organization's ability to bring a case against a DEI program without proving someone had actually been harmed, Cindy-Ann L. Thomas said other courts will take note of the standing rationale.

Law360 Employment Authority

View (Subscription required.)

Andrea M. Kirshenbaum and Jennifer N. Capozzola dive into the U.S. DOL’s final rule (2024 IC Rule) for analyzing whether a worker should be classified as an employee or independent contractor under the FLSA and the lawsuits and challenges that remain in its path. 

The Legal Intelligencer

View

In a favorable ruling for employers defending against wage statement compliance claims, the California Supreme Court in Naranjo v. Spectrum Services Inc. (Naranjo) settled an age-old dispute by determining that an employer that reasonably and in good faith believed it was providing a complete and accurate wage statement has a viable defense to a claim for penalties under the California wage statement statute.

Background

On August 6, 2019, New Jersey’s wage and hour laws were amended to include liquidated damages on some claims, a new retaliation cause of action, and expansion of the statute of limitations from two to six years (the “2019 amendments”).  Since then, litigants in New Jersey have struggled with the effect those amendments have had on their lawsuits.  One of the main points of confusion centered around whether the 2019 amendments applied retroactively to violations prior to August 6, 2019, or whether the changes applied prospectively only.  A significant conflict developed between federal and

What do you get when you combine a business-backed ballot initiative, the state legislature and governor’s office, and labor organizations? A deal. California style.

In Ruiz Mattei v. Commercial Equipment Finance, Inc.,¹ the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico determined that claims under the Unjustified Dismissal Act² and the Workplace Discrimination Act³ are transferable to the employee’s heirs following the employee’s death.

Marlene Muraco, Angela Rafoth and Emily Mertes discuss reforms to California's Private Attorneys General Act that address challenges and ambiguities faced by both courts and employers in the 20-year-old law.

Westlaw Today

View (Subscription required.)

Last week, Governor JB Pritzker signed into law several bills that significantly amend the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA). As a result of these amendments, Illinois employers should expect an uptick in discrimination cases proceeding through state courts and agencies.

Longer Statute of Limitations Period

Philadelphia has imposed significant new recall and retention obligations on hotel, airport hospitality, and event center businesses as they struggle to recover in this uncertain COVID-19 economy.  The new obligations are contained in a legislative package, styled as the Black Workers Matter Economic Recovery Package, which became law in Januar

Just about a year ago, in the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, economic activity in many sectors went from red hot to nearly frozen, seemingly overnight.  The hospitality industry was particularly hard hit, as business and leisure travel evaporated.  Many businesses were forced to lay off workers, and California’s unemployment soared.

Over the past few years, cities have started to implement workplace regulation, an area previously reserved to federal and state governments.  The hotel industry, which often is one of the primary drivers of a local economy, has been a particular focus.

California is at it again – adopting a host of new labor and employment laws that will further regulate and complicate business operations in the Golden State.  Littler’s Workplace Policy Institute has been tracking these bills as they worked their way through the legislature and been signed into law by Governor Newsom.  The new California laws are summarized briefly below.  Also, please join us at our annual webinar on October 19, 2022, in wh

In 2019, California adopted several laws that restricted “non-disclosure" provisions in employment-related agreements.  Those laws, passed in the wake of the “me too” movement, limited non-disclosure provisions in settlement agreements for lawsuits and administrative agency charges involving allegations of sexual harassment.¹  They also limited the use of non-disclosure provisions in exchange for a raise or a bonus, or as a co

In a recent case issued by the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico (“the Court”), the Court addressed the standard and level of proof that must be presented by employers when raising as an affirmative defense a corporate reorganization. In Segarra Rivera vs. International Shipping Agency, 2022 T.S.P.R. 33, 208 D.P.R. ____ (Mar.

In the first such decision from a federal appellate court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled the COVID-19 pandemic is not a “natural disaster” that exempts employers from providing advance notice of mass layoffs and plant closures under the WARN Act. The court also opined that the natural-disaster exception requires proof of proximate causation, not but-for causation.¹

Michael Lotito weighs in on a New York measure that would establish a policy-making council that would set rules on pay, safety and working conditions "as reasonably necessary" to protect worker welfare.

Law360 Employment Authority

View (Subscription required.)

Denise Visconti offers tips to help employers navigate California’s SB 1162, which will require employers to disclose median and mean hourly rates and pay information on contractors, starting in May 2023.

Law360 Employment Authority

View (Subscription required.)

Joy Rosenquist offers employers tips to manage compliance challenges that may arise from California’s new regulations that are designed to increase pay transparency.

WorldatWork

View

The state of epidemic emergency in Poland will be lifted on July 1, 2023, and Paweł Sych explains how this will affect workers and employers.

interia biznes

View

On January 8, 2021, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) issued its final rule modifying the calculation of withdrawal liability by multiemployer pension plans.  This final rule amends the agency’s regulations on allocating unfunded vested benefits to withdrawing employers (29 C.F.R. § 4211) and notice, collection, and redetermination of withdrawal liability (29 C.F.R. § 4219).