As the 83rd Oregon Legislative Session approaches its end, several employment-related bills are still in play, and they could carry significant implications for businesses across the state. While none have been signed into law yet, the momentum behind them makes this a critical time for employers to pay attention and speak up.
Three proposals—SB 916
Washington’s legislature has approved two bills poised to significantly reshape employer obligations around layoffs and job postings. Though not yet signed into law, both bills—if enacted—will require prompt action and policy updates from employers operating in the state.
Mini-WARN Act: More Notice, Broader Reach
Senate Bill 5525, modeled on the federal WARN Act, ups the
In Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc., a California Court of Appeal answered a question that many California employers may not have known even needed to be answered—whether California employees can prospectively waive their mandatory meal periods. Given the almost universal use of such waivers by employers (based on the assumption that the waivers are
As we previously advised, under Oregon Senate Bill 1515 (“SB 1515”) effective July 1, 2024, most of the Oregon Family Leave Act (“OFLA”)—including leave for the employee’s or a family member’s serious health condition—will sunset. (Pregnancy disability, sick child, and bereavement leave remain available under OFLA.) Employees may instead look to other applicable leave
A few weeks ago, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders announced a bill to implement a 32-hour workweek. While such a law is a long way from becoming a reality, it does raise interesting questions concerning exactly what a 32-hour workweek would look like, especially in California.
Before engaging in this thought experiment one thing should be
On March 21, 2024, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek signed into law Senate Bill 1515, amending the Oregon Family Leave Act (“OFLA”) and the Paid Leave Oregon program (“PLO”). The bill is intended to better align the OFLA and PLO. This alert highlights the most significant OFLA and PLO changes, which will take effect July 1
On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills to decide the question of whether California trial courts have inherent authority to strike claims brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) on the grounds that the claims were not manageable. The Court ultimately upheld the appellate court’s holding, which we previously discussed in detail here, finding that trial courts do not have such inherent authority.Continue Reading California Supreme Court Sweeps PAGA Manageability Under the Rug in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills
In the wake of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and persistent staffing challenges, both Oregon and Washington have enacted legislation to reshape how healthcare institutions plan for and staff their facilities. While addressing the same issue, the two states have taken distinct approaches. Oregon’s House Bill 2697, signed by Governor Tina Kotek, introduces stringent nurse-to-patient ratios
An advisory jury’s substantial front pay award to a plaintiff in a retaliation case was drastically reduced by the judge.
Last fall, a jury sat for a five-day trial in federal court in Boise, Idaho. The plaintiff had brought claims of sex discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against her former employer. She brought these claims under both federal law, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), and state law, the Idaho Human Rights Act (“IHRA”). By the time the case went to trial, two questions remained for the jury: Did the plaintiff prove her retaliation claim under state and federal law? If so, what were her damages?
After deliberation, the jury found that (1) the plaintiff had shown retaliation, and (2) her damages were a stunning $300,000 in back pay plus $1.35 million in front pay, for a total of $1.65 million in damages (plus prejudgment interest and possible attorney fees and costs award).[1]
But that’s not where the case ended. Just recently, the judge decreased the front pay award by over a million dollars, from $1.35 million to $130,333.Continue Reading $1.65 Million “Advisory” Jury Award in Idaho Employment Case
Introduction
With its decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Adolph”) the California Supreme Court has reignited the debate surrounding arbitration agreements containing waivers of an employee’s right to bring a representative action under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). This ruling, which challenges the earlier decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (“Viking River Cruises”), marks a significant shift back in favor of employees and their ability to pursue PAGA claims notwithstanding the existence of a written waiver. Continue Reading Driving the Narrative: California Supreme Court’s Adolph v. Uber Technologies Decision Shifts Gears, Challenging U.S. Supreme Court’s Viking River Cruises v. Moriana Holding