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

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

The General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Jennifer A. Abruzzo, issued guidance on March 22, 2023, about the NLRB’s McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58, decision from February 21, 2023, which reinstated a limit on the confidentiality, non-disclosure, and non-disparagement clauses that employers may include in severance agreements with most of their lower-level employees.[1]  While not law, the General Counsel’s guidance is intended to address the uncertainty among employers regarding what language is deemed acceptable to include in severance agreements and what language may create liability under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) following McLaren Macomb.[2]

The McLaren Macomb decision specifically held that employers may not condition severance on the employee’s waiver of rights protected by the NLRA and that agreements between employers and employees that restrict employees from engaging in activity protected by the NLRA or from filing unfair labor practice (ULP) charges with the NLRB, helping other employees in doing so, or assisting during the Agency’s investigatory process are unlawful. The NLRB observed that the employer’s offer is itself an attempt to deter employees from exercising their statutory rights, at a time when employees may feel they must give up their rights in order to get the benefits provided in the agreement. It also provided that the conduct of an employer is irrelevant to assessing the lawfulness of a severance agreement, and the plain language of the severance agreement alone can constitute a violation.  While the Maclaren Macomb decision has been described as a return to the standard applied in earlier cases, many speculate that it indicates that the NLRB intends to take a broader view of how severance agreements infringe on employees’ rights under Section 7 of the NLRA.Continue Reading NLRB Returns to Longstanding Position Limiting Use of Confidentiality, Non-Disclosure, and Non-Disparagement Clauses in Employee Severance Agreements

On May 10, 2023, the Oregon Health Authority (“OHA”) announced that, effective May 11, it is suspending the statewide rule requiring that health care workers be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 unless they have an approved medical or religious exception. The news coincides with the end of the federal public health emergency on May 11, along

Oregon’s paid leave program (providing up to 12+ weeks of paid family, medical, and safe leave to eligible employees per leave year) will be here soon. Almost all businesses with employees in Oregon are required to participate in the state program, unless they have an approved equivalent plan (which can be either administered by the

In the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Oregon legislature amended the definition of “compensation” in the Oregon Equal Pay Act to temporarily exempt hiring/signing and retention bonuses from the limitations imposed by the Act.  The temporary exemption, however, expires on September 28, 2022.Continue Reading Oregon Pay Equity Update: The Status of Hiring Bonuses

On March 23, 2022, in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District created a split in authority when they held that wage-and-hour lawsuits brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act cannot be dismissed on manageability grounds.  This decision directly contradicted the holding in Wesson v. Staples the

Earlier this afternoon, Multnomah County announced that effective Friday August 13 all individuals age five and older in Multnomah County will be required to wear masks in indoor public spaces, regardless of vaccination status. A copy of the County’s announcement is available here. Based on the announcement, we expect that the mask mandate will not

Following an increase in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations, and in line with recent CDC guidance designed to curb the well-publicized spread of the Delta variant, the Oregon Health Authority (“OHA”) is again recommending that all individuals, including those who are fully vaccinated, wear masks in indoor public settings. The recommendation applies statewide, but it is

In Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, the California Supreme Court determined that the phrases “regular rate of compensation” and “regular rate of pay” are synonymous for the purposes of California Labor Code section 226.7(c) and the California Industrial Wage Orders.  With this seemingly innocuous ruling, however, the Supreme Court has handed a potentially