Updates

Subscribe to Updates via RSS

On October 12, 2017, California Governor Jerry Brown signed several bills regulating a wide range of employer actions, everything from the labeling of cleaning fluids to the employment application process.  While compliance with all of these new laws is important, four are of particular importance as they directly impact the information employers can seek from potential applicants, the training that must be provided to current employees, and protected leaves.

AB 168 and AB 1008 restrict the information employers can obtain from potential job applicants.  AB 168 makes it unlawful for California employers to either obtain or rely upon an applicant’s salary history to determine whether to offer an applicant a job or what salary to offer an applicant.  The law, however, does not prohibit a job applicant from voluntarily and without prompting disclosing to a prospective employer his or her salary history.  If a job applicant voluntarily discloses information in this way, then the employer is permitted to rely upon that history in determining the salary for that applicant.

AB 1008 imposes a statewide “ban-the-box” law.  Specifically, this law prohibits California employers with five or more employees from (1) including on any application for employment any question that seeks the disclosure of an applicant’s conviction history or (2) inquiring into or considering an applicant’s conviction history prior to providing that applicant with a conditional offer of employment.  The law also provides that employers who intend to deny an applicant a position of employment based upon that applicant’s conviction history must make an individualized assessment as to whether the applicant’s prior criminal history has a detrimental impact on the prospective employment.  Employers must also provide applicants with notice of a preliminary decision to deny employment based on the individualized assessment and allow applicants the opportunity to challenge the accuracy of their conviction history.  Prior to the signing of AB 1008, many local jurisdictions had enacted similar ordinances prohibiting the use of an applicant’s prior conviction history in the initial application process.  With passage of AB 1008, this prohibition is now statewide.
Continue Reading California Implements Significant Changes in the Employment Application Process, Employee Training, and Protected Leaves

Employers can breathe a sigh of relief.  The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) announced this week that it was removing a requirement that EEO-1 reports contain employee pay data.  The now-defunct Obama-era requirement announced in 2016 would have required employers to disclose compensation information to the EEOC regarding all employees, including executives – which many employers consider to be highly confidential.  The OMB also announced that it extended the EEO-1 reporting deadline from September 30 of this year to March 31, 2018.
Continue Reading Employers Need Not Disclose Pay Data on EEO-1 Reports; September Deadline Moved to 2018

Employers know that the salary rule for “white collar” exemptions from President Obama’s Department of Labor (“DOL”) was blocked by a federal court last year (we blogged about that here).  (UPDATE: A Texas federal court invalided the rule on August 31, 2017.)  That rule would have more than doubled the salary requirement for an overtime exemption.  Now, President Trump’s DOL has formally announced that it will not pursue that rule.  Instead, it is soliciting comments to draft its own rule.

Employers have an opportunity to weigh in on what, if any, changes should be made to the white collar exemptions.  The DOL’s request for information suggests it is seriously considering making at least some changes to the exemptions. 
Continue Reading Department of Labor Seeks Input on New Rules for White Collar Exemptions

Oregon recently passed amendments to its statewide sick time law, clearing up several areas of uncertainty for employers.  The amendments clarify that:

  • Employers may cap employees’ annual accrual of sick leave at 40 hours. The pre-amendment version of the sick leave law stated that employees had the right to “earn and use up to 40 hours of paid sick time per year,” but also mandated that employees accrue one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked.  At the “1 for 30” rate, full-time employees would reach the 40-hour limit well before the end of the year, leading to confusion about whether they were entitled to continue accruing sick time for the remainder of the year (which would, in effect, give them more than 40 hours of annual leave).  The amendments, which expressly state that “[e]mployers may limit the number of hours of paid sick time that employees may accrue to 40 hours per year,” make clear that continued accrual beyond 40 hours is not a requirement.  Once employees have accrued 40 hours, they are done for the year, even if there are several months left in which they will not accrue any time.

Continue Reading Oregon Amends Sick Leave Law: 5 Key Clarifications

“Who will be hurt if gays and lesbians have a little more job protection?” Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals posed this question a few months ago during oral argument in a case involving a teacher who alleged she was fired because she is lesbian.  On Tuesday, the en banc Seventh Circuit answered Judge Posner’s rhetorical question in a landmark decision holding that Title VII protects employees from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation.  The court is the first court of appeals in the country to apply Title VII’s job protections to  employees on the basis of their sexual orientation, interpreting the definition of “sex” under Title VII to include “sexual orientation.”

To casual followers of the law, this decision may seem unremarkable after the Supreme Court ruled nearly two years ago that same-sex marriage enjoys constitutional protection.  (See our blog on the Obergefell decision here, and our blog on the decision’s impact on employee benefits here.)  But it is a watershed decision with ripple effects far beyond the three states within the Seventh Circuit. 
Continue Reading Landmark Seventh Circuit Decision Interprets Title VII Protections To Prohibit Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Employers are probably aware that OSHA’s new drug testing and anti-retaliation rule is now in effect. (See our post here discussing the rule.)  However, as we blogged previously, many states have their own reporting requirements, which are not required to track OSHA’s  rules precisely, but which must be “at least as effective” as OSHA’s…

The Department of Labor’s controversial rule that required “white collar” employees to be paid at least $47,476 per year in order to be exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act will NOT go into effect on December 1, 2016 as planned (we wrote about the rule here).  A Texas federal judge on Tuesday agreed with 21 states that a nationwide preliminary injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm to states and employers if the rule went into effect on December 1.

What does this mean for employers now?
Continue Reading Breaking News: DOL Salary Rule Blocked By Federal Judge

In the wake of the election results, the question on everyone’s mind now is: What impact will President-Elect Trump have on employers?  Trump has thus far given few details on his thoughts on labor and employment.  But with Republicans maintaining control of Congress, employers could see a lot of changes in the next couple of years.  Our experts weighed in with their thoughts on how different areas of labor and employment law may be affected.
Continue Reading Labor & Employment Law Under President-Elect Trump

The Department of Labor’s new rule that doubles the salary threshold for “white collar” exempt employees goes into effect December 1, 2016.  Under that rule, employees currently exempt under the FLSA as an administrative, executive, or professional employee must make a salary of at least $47,476 and meet the appropriate “duties test” in order to …

We previously blogged about Portland, Oregon’s restrictive “ban the box” ordinance.  The City of Portland recently issued administrative rules for its ordinance.  The administrative rules are available here.  The key provisions are:

Excepted Employers

As explained in our prior blog, you are excepted from the ordinance’s timing restriction (but not its other requirements) if the position you are hiring for has been determined by administrative rule to present public safety concerns or a business necessity.  The rules define these positions to include:
Continue Reading The City of Portland Issues Rules for “Ban the Box”