Oregon Governor Kate Brown issued an order this week making her earlier Mask, Face Shield, and Face Covering Guidance applicable statewide effective July 1, 2020. Although the media has generally described the guidance as applying to all businesses, it is only required of the following covered businesses:
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
We have been counseling employers throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and have encountered several common scenarios. Many of the most frequently asked questions are addressed in our Employer FAQs. This post provides additional information on the interaction between various pandemic-related issues and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
An employer who unfairly and inaccurately is slammed by a former employee (or maybe even a current employee!) on a job-posting or employer-rating website will often look to its lawyer for help. Surely the law protects against outrageous false statements that harm the employer’s ability to recruit new talent? Maybe not—and if there is, it isn’t easy. The websites that provide the platform for these posts are immune from liability under the federal Communications Decency Act, and most courts have put up substantial roadblocks to enforcement of a subpoena targeted at getting the names of the anonymous posters. But California now may be leading the way in bringing some sanity to this murky area of the law.
Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Puts a Small Crack in the Glass Door
Walt Disney had himself cryogenically frozen. Alligators are alive and well in the NYC sewer system. You’ll die if you eat a whole bag of Pop Rocks and polish it off with a can of Coke. 2016 was the weirdest primary election season ever . . . oh, wait. That one’s true.
Human resources has its share of myths. Here we try to debunk some of the more common ones.
Wrong. Federal law requires application of both a salary test and a duties test to determine whether an employee is exempt from overtime requirements. In other words, to be exempt, an employee must be paid a minimum salary and have a certain type of job. Typically, these are known as the “white collar” exemptions. Most states have similar requirements. Employers who misclassify employees are sitting ducks for a class action suit over overtime wages and break and meal periods.
You should also be aware that before President Obama leaves office, the Department of Labor is likely to issue new rules raising the salary requirement for exempt status to over $50,000 per year. The new rules may also make some changes to the definitions of white collar workers. Employers should keep an eye out for these new rules because they will present an opportunity to review whether employees are properly classified.
Continue Reading HR Urban Legends
As colleges and universities begin new terms, not all students are returning to the classroom. Some students are headed into the “real world,” to work alongside corporate titans, small-business owners, or moms and pops in their shops, while receiving academic credit—and not wages—for their efforts. These students are applying the lessons learned in their prior studies to real-world scenarios to gain valuable experience, build their skills, and make connections to help them succeed upon graduating. Or at least they should be. If they are instead used merely as a source of labor, they must be paid. But many employers mistakenly assume that because these students are getting school credit, they need not be paid. That is a trap into which employers reading this blog will not fall.
The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and state laws require employers to pay all employees for work performed. If students who participate in unpaid internships with private employers do not qualify as “employees,” they need not be paid. Whether those students qualify as “employees” depends on several factors, but the general rule is that these programs are lawful as long as the student, not the employer, is the primary beneficiary of the internship program.
Continue Reading It’s a Trap! Students Receiving Credit Need Not Be Paid?
Coming to a store or restaurant near you soon! Supervisors will get overtime!
“Too many Americans are working long days for less pay than they deserve.” —President Obama on overtime pay http://t.co/Y4yThJ1K2g
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) June 30, 2015
To be exempt from minimum wage and overtime requirements, currently a worker must perform certain duties
As we blogged about earlier, courts in most states just plain don’t like employee noncompete agreements. Particularly when it comes to mid- and low-level employees, courts worry that enforcing a noncompete agreement will hamper innovation, restrict competition, and unfairly burden a former employee’s ability to earn a living. For that reason, a court typically will review an noncompete’s justification, scope, and length with the judicial equivalent of a fine-tooth comb.
Courts have been picking away at the enforceability of employee noncompetes for years, but more recently, legislatures have jumped into the mix with varying levels of aggressiveness. California has long banned noncompetes outright, and several other states either have followed suit (e.g., North Dakota) or are considering whether to pass similar laws (e.g., Massachusetts, Washington). Still others have adopted laws that make it easier for employers to enforce noncompetes (e.g., Georgia), or are considering whether to do so to remedy past judicial reticence in the area (e.g., Wisconsin).
As we noted a while ago, Oregon recently joined the growing number of states that prohibit an employer from demanding access to an employee’s personal social media account. An Oregon employer may not require an employee or applicant to disclose her username, password, or “other means of authentication that provides access to a personal social media account.” Neither may an employer require an employee or applicant to friend, follow, or otherwise connect with it via a social media account, or to permit the employer to “shoulder surf” while the employee is logged in. There are exceptions—business-related social media accounts and workplace investigations are notable ones—but the rule is fairly clear: When it comes to employees’ personal social media accounts, it’s probably best for an employer to keep its distance.
Seems simple enough, right? Maybe, but here in Oregon, we like not to be outdone by our neighbors. So, last week, Governor Kate Brown signed Senate Bill 185, which adds a few interesting tweaks to the “model” approach that most other states (including Oregon) have followed when adopting social media protections for employees.
Allow us to pat ourselves on the back for a moment. Prognosticating from 2013 into the future, we accurately predicted that in 2014 the Seattle Seahawks would win the Super Bowl and that the public would continue to strongly support minimum wage increases and paid sick leave laws. (Please politely ignore our Portland Trailblazers NBA championship prediction.)
This year voters in five states overwhelmingly supported an increased minimum wage, while voters in Massachusetts and three New Jersey and California cities adopted paid sick leave. These states and cities join a growing trend of support for “living wages” and paid sick leave laws. Earlier this year, for instance, Seattle approved a minimum wage of $15 per hour, while Portland implemented its paid sick leave law and California became the second of now three states to give its employees paid sick leave on a statewide basis (see our posts on Portland’s law here, and California’s law).
Continue Reading Nostradamus, Minimum Wage, and Paid Sick Leave