On April 22, Governor Dunleavy announced Health Mandate 016, reflecting Phase 1 of the Governor’s Reopen Alaska Responsibly Plan. The Governor anticipates issuing information on Phases 2 through 5 of the Plan in the near future.
Phase 1 of the Plan permits limited openings of businesses, including restaurants, retail businesses, personal services businesses, and both
On April 21, Washington’s Governor Inslee remarked that the eventual reopening of Washington will “look more like turning a dial than flipping a switch.” But the timing of that dial turning is still unknown. Governor Inslee did not comment on whether his Stay Home, Stay Healthy order will be lifted on its current end date
Many Washington employers are looking for ways to retain skilled labor until businesses reopen. The Washington Employment Security Department’s (“ESD”) emergency rules may help during the COVID-19 crisis. Employers who plan to rehire employees when businesses reopen may request “standby” status for laid off employees, which has been expanded under the emergency rules.
Standby status
The Seattle City Council has expanded Paid Sick and Safe Time (“PSST”) in response to COVID-19. In addition to the usual reasons for which a Seattle employee may use PSST, the new amendments provide that Seattle employees must be allowed to use their accrued PSST:
For at least the next two months, Washington employers are required to take extra measures to accommodate employees characterized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to be at higher than normal risk of severe illness or death if they contract COVID-19. On April 13, Governor Inslee issued Proclamation 20-46, “High-Risk Employees – Workers’ Rights,” prohibiting all Washington employers, both public and private, from failing to provide accommodations to high-risk workers, defined by the CDC as:
Employees in the above high-risk categories are now afforded additional accommodation rights under the Governor’s Proclamation. Between now and June 12 (subject to extension by the Governor), you must take the following steps if you are a Washington employer:
Continue Reading Washington Governor Mandates That Employers Accommodate Employees at High Risk of Contracting COVID-19
We continue to stay up to speed on workplace-related legal issues as we all navigate this challenging time. Many of you attended the webinar we put on today, Taming the COVID-19 Chaos: What Employers Need to Know. The materials from that presentation are available here. Please join us for another webinar next Wednesday, March
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
As 2019 comes to an end, employers should know about important new obligations that will ring in their new year. Our Labor & Employment experts offer some guidance on critical developments in Oregon, Washington, California, and Idaho that employers should be prepared for in 2020.
Oregon
Beginning January 1, 2020, Washington employees will have access to the benefits of Washington’s Paid Family and Medical Leave (“WPFML”) law, administered by the Washington Employment Security Department (“ESD”). Nearly all Washington employees will be eligible, with limited exceptions for self-employed, federal, and tribal employees, as well as employees who perform only occasional and incidental
Employers in the Ninth Circuit (which includes Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Arizona, and Hawai’i) can no longer justify pay differentials between male and female employees based upon employees’ prior compensation. In an April 9, 2018 decision, Rizo v. Yovino, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overruled prior Circuit law to hold that an employee’s previous compensation, either alone or in combination with other factors, cannot form the basis of a wage differential between men and women.
While the Equal Pay Act permits “a differential based on any other factor other than sex,” the Court held that an employee’s prior compensation is not a “factor other than sex.” Specifically, the Court held that the above “catchall” exception under the Equal Pay Act is intended to allow employers to rely upon only job-related factors, such as experience, educational background, ability, or prior job performance. Prior compensation, the Court opined, is not job-related.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Rules That Basing Employees’ Wages on Their Prior Compensation Violates the Equal Pay Act