Environmental, Social, and Governance (“ESG”) principles are becoming increasingly prominent tools for managing risk and creating value in the corporate world. ESG-focused decision making can define business priorities that support a company’s financial goals and long-term enterprise sustainability. ESG-focused leaders can help companies identify business risks and opportunities, then implement and maintain responsive, responsible, and measurable forward-looking business practices.

While the “E” and “G” in ESG have received much attention, the “S” factor is also significant for leading sustainable organizations. And employees, current and future, are important elements of the social aspect.

Identifying the business risks and opportunities within the social aspect of ESG includes looking at a company’s treatment of its employees (for example, education, advancement, compensation), its diversity, equity, and inclusion policies and practices, and its discrimination and harassment policies and practices. Businesses that rely on recruiting and retention of a human workforce face the risks of securing a strong team, maintaining it, and creating a pipeline of suitable workers. These same businesses can create opportunities to mitigate those risks with practices and policies that support a healthy workplace and prepare a pipeline of future employees. Continue Reading Employment Law in an ESG World: The Activision Blizzard Story

An advisory jury’s substantial front pay award to a plaintiff in a retaliation case was drastically reduced by the judge.

Last fall, a jury sat for a five-day trial in federal court in Boise, Idaho. The plaintiff had brought claims of sex discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against her former employer. She brought these claims under both federal law, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), and state law, the Idaho Human Rights Act (“IHRA”). By the time the case went to trial, two questions remained for the jury: Did the plaintiff prove her retaliation claim under state and federal law? If so, what were her damages? 

After deliberation, the jury found that (1) the plaintiff had shown retaliation, and (2) her damages were a stunning $300,000 in back pay plus $1.35 million in front pay, for a total of $1.65 million in damages (plus prejudgment interest and possible attorney fees and costs award).[1]

But that’s not where the case ended. Just recently, the judge decreased the front pay award by over a million dollars, from $1.35 million to $130,333.Continue Reading $1.65 Million “Advisory” Jury Award in Idaho Employment Case

Introduction

With its decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Adolph”) the California Supreme Court has reignited the debate surrounding arbitration agreements containing waivers of an employee’s right to bring a representative action under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”).  This ruling, which challenges the earlier decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (“Viking River Cruises”), marks a significant shift back in favor of employees and their ability to pursue PAGA claims notwithstanding the existence of a written waiver. Continue Reading Driving the Narrative: California Supreme Court’s Adolph v. Uber Technologies Decision Shifts Gears, Challenging U.S. Supreme Court’s Viking River Cruises v. Moriana Holding

Senate Bill 999, designed to align Paid Leave Oregon (PLO) with the Oregon Family Leave Act (OFLA), passed the Oregon Legislature on June 1, 2023, and is expected to be signed by Governor Kotek shortly. The bill makes the following changes:

Rolling Forward Leave Year: Effective July 1, 2024, employers must use a “rolling…

Minneapolis

Minnesota’s new law will take effect on July 1, 2023, prohibiting all noncompete agreements, except those entered during the sale of a business or in anticipation of the dissolution of a business. The law will not apply retroactively to void existing noncompete agreements and will not prohibit the continued use of non-solicitation, confidentiality, trade secret…

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…

Gavel-Canva

In a recent decision titled Buero v. Amazon.com Services, Inc.­­, 370 Or. 502 (2022),  the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that Oregon’s wage and hour law uses the same definition of “work time” as the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).  The Buero decision resolves what had been a hotly contested legal issue for many years and clarifies that Oregon employers (most of which are subject to Oregon law and the FLSA) satisfy their legal obligation to calculate employees’ compensable time using the same legal standard for both sets of laws.  Continue Reading Oregon Supreme Court Rules That Oregon Law Follows Federal Definition of “Work Time.”

Hourglass-Canva

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…

On September 18, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 2188 into law, which prohibits employers from taking any adverse employment action against an employee in conjunction with an employee’s off-duty marijuana use.

AB 2188 makes it unlawful for employers to “discriminate against a person in hiring, termination, or any term or condition of employment” for…