As restrictions are easing, employers are planning for and starting to bring people back to work. In these extraordinary times, everyone recognizes that things will not be business as usual. Here is our “Top 10” checklist of things to consider as we move toward the “new normal.”
Employers facing changes in their business or broader economic downturns must find ways to respond and weather the storm. Typically, this means cutting expenses, while maintaining their ability to operate. For many (if not most) businesses, payroll is the single largest expense item. And when business slows, employees are left with excess capacity and are
California is like every other state in that it does not require employers to provide employees with paid time off. Unlike in most other states, however, if an employer does provide employees with paid time off, then employees have a vested right in such time. What this means is that employers are prohibited from enacting “use it or lose it” paid time off policies. It also means that upon separation, California employers must pay out employees for any unused paid time off.
Due to these requirements, and to remain competitive with other employers, some employers have instituted “unlimited” paid time off policies whereby employees do not accrue any specific amount of vacation time but, rather, are free to take (or not take) as much (or as little) vacation as they want. The commonly held belief amongst most employers is that such unlimited paid time off policies benefit employees by providing them with flexible schedules while, at the same time, allowing employers to avoid the obligation to pay out any unused paid time off upon separation. In McPherson v. EF Intercultural Foundation (McPherson), the California Court of Appeal issued a shot across the bow to employers adhering to this commonly held belief by holding that the unlimited paid time off policy at issue did obligate the employer to pay out unused paid time off upon termination.
Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Issues Warning to Employers with Unlimited Paid Time Off Policies
No sooner has Washington enacted two major new leave laws – the Washington Paid Sick Leave Law and the Washington Paid Family and Medical Leave Law (WPFML) – than the State has found itself to be one of the epicenters of the COVID-19 outbreak. Here is what Washington employers need to know about Paid Sick
Through a series of decisions issued in late 2019, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) has signaled a return to common sense in its approach to the rules governing labor relations. Here are a few of the Board’s decisions that are of interest to employers.
Employers May Require Employees to Maintain Confidentiality in
In Amanda Frlekin v. Apple Inc., No. S243805 (Feb. 13, 2020), the California Supreme Court responded to a request by the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit to answer the following question:
Is time spent on the employer’s premises waiting for, and undergoing, required exit searches of packages, bags, or personal technology devices voluntarily brought to work purely for personal convenience by employees compensable as “hours worked” within the meaning of [California law]?
The Supreme Court answered the question and, so as not to bury the lead, the answer is an emphatic YES.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Clarifies What Constitutes “Hours Worked” Under California Law
Assembly Bill 51 (“AB 51”) prohibits employers from requiring employees to execute arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. After being signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom on October 10, 2019, AB 51 was set to go into effect on January 1, 2020; however, on December 30, 2019, the Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller, Chief Judge
From the California Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Dynamex to the passage of dozens of new employment laws, 2019 was an important year for California employers. While some of these new laws were discussed here, this blog discusses some additional laws (there are a lot) and provides some updates on legal challenges to AB 5 and AB 51.
Continue Reading 2019: A Year to Forget for California Employers
On September 18, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (“AB”) 5, thereby codifying the California Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Lee. This represents the culmination of a seismic shift in California employment law that began a little over a year ago.
To refresh, starting in 1989, the leading test in California for distinguishing employees and independent contractors was the multifactor standard set forth in S.G. Borello & Songs, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations. Under Borello, the key question was whether the employer “[had] the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result desired.” In addition to this factor, the Borello test also endorsed multiple “secondary” indicia in analyzing and determining the employment relationship.
In April 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Dynamex. In Dynamex, the Court announced a new, more objective standard for determining worker classification for the purposes of the California wage orders. Under this new standard, the burden is on the hiring entity to establish that the worker is an independent contractor who was not intended to be included within the coverage of the California wage orders. In order to satisfy this burden, the hiring entity must establish all of the following: (1) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of work, (2) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business, and (3) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.
Continue Reading California Codifies Dynamex – Now What?
Oregon’s Legislature just enacted the most significant legislation for Oregon employers in years. The new Workplace Fairness Act has been hailed as a #MeToo law and seems intended to curb incidents of sexual harassment in the workplace, but its reach is significantly broader than that.
Key Changes and Takeaways