Washington Health Benefit Exchange Announces Special Enrollment Period

Today, the IRS issued Notice 2020-15 clarifying that high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) may provide benefits associated with testing and treatment of COVID-19 (commonly referred to as coronavirus) without application of a deductible or cost-sharing. Doing so will not impact a plan’s status as a HDHP or a

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

With COVID-19 (coronavirus) impacting communities in the Northwest and around the U.S. and world, employers are wondering what role they can play in keeping their employees safe and healthy. Don’t panic! Your current policies and practices are probably sufficient to handle any issues that may affect your workplace. But here are some general recommendations. (See

With hourly reports of a possible coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in the news, employers are confronted with preparing for widespread employee absences or a pandemic situation.  Among many issues to consider is how to treat absences related to coronavirus.  Not only must employers consider how to treat employees who themselves become ill, they must also prepare for those who will be absent to care for others, as well as possible illness-related furloughs or facility closures.

Under the FLSA and most state wage and hour laws, there is a distinction between how employees are treated, depending upon their status as exempt or non-exempt employees.

Non-exempt employees.  Employers should pay non-exempt employees for all time worked but are not required to pay them if they do not perform work.   For example, if the non-exempt employee performs work from home, they should be paid for all time actually worked.  On the other hand, the employer need not pay non-exempt employees if they perform no work because, for example, the employer closes its facility (1) because of an epidemic, (2) to prevent the spread of disease, or (3) for lack of work.
Continue Reading Pay, Leave, and Scheduling Issues Due to the Coronavirus (COVID-19)

Through a series of decisions issued in late 2019, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) has signaled a return to common sense in its approach to the rules governing labor relations.  Here are a few of the Board’s decisions that are of interest to employers.

Employers May Require Employees to Maintain Confidentiality in

By Coolcaesar, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

In Amanda Frlekin v. Apple Inc., No. S243805 (Feb. 13, 2020), the California Supreme Court responded to a request by the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit to answer the following question:

Is time spent on the employer’s premises waiting for, and undergoing, required exit searches of packages, bags, or personal technology devices voluntarily brought to work purely for personal convenience by employees compensable as “hours worked” within the meaning of [California law]?

The Supreme Court answered the question and, so as not to bury the lead, the answer is an emphatic YES.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Clarifies What Constitutes “Hours Worked” Under California Law

Assembly Bill 51 (“AB 51”) prohibits employers from requiring employees to execute arbitration agreements as a condition of employment.  After being signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom on October 10, 2019, AB 51 was set to go into effect on January 1, 2020; however, on December 30, 2019, the Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller, Chief Judge

Employees at work

From the California Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Dynamex to the passage of dozens of new employment laws, 2019 was an important year for California employers.  While some of these new laws were discussed here, this blog discusses some additional laws (there are a lot) and provides some updates on legal challenges to AB 5 and AB 51.

  • Pursuant to previously enacted laws, on January 1, 2020 California’s annual minimum wage increased to $13 per hour ($12 per hour for employees with 25 or fewer employees).
  • SB 778 clarifies California employers’ duties to provide harassment training to employees. Pursuant to previously enacted SB 1343, employers had a duty to provide harassment training to both supervisory and nonsupervisory employees once every two years.  SB 778 extends the initial deadline for providing new training to employees from January 1, 2020 to January 1, 2021.  It also clarifies that employees who completed harassment training in 2019 do not need to retrained for another two years and then every two years thereafter.

Continue Reading 2019: A Year to Forget for California Employers

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

  • The statute of limitations for discrimination and harassment claims

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