Tag: employee

California Supreme Court Embraces New Employee-Friendly Worker Classification Standard

In Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Lee, the California Supreme Court created a new employee-friendly test for determining whether workers are properly classified as employees or independent contractors.  While providing a level of certainty lacking in the prior standard, the Court’s new test significantly increases the burden on California employers in demonstrating that their workers … Continue Reading

Washington Legislature Enacts Multiple Anti-Employer Statutes

No man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session. · Judge Gideon J. Tucker In the recently concluded session, Washington legislators enacted numerous laws that will adversely affect employers of all sizes across the State. With so many changes, it is key that employers stay up to date and understand … Continue Reading

California Employers Must Carefully Reconsider Whether Employees Can Be Provided With “Suitable Seats” In Light of New Decision

A recent California Supreme Court decision has the potential to affect all California employees who are required to stand while performing parts of their job.  In response to numerous lawsuits brought by cashiers, retail employees, bank tellers and other employees, the California Supreme Court clarified the meaning of a decades-old law that requires employers to … Continue Reading

Tacoma, Washington Paid Employee Sick Leave Law Goes Into Effect in February 2016

Flu season is fast approaching, and this winter, Tacoma employers will join Seattle employers in being required to provide paid sick leave. On February 1, 2016, Tacoma’s new paid sick leave ordinance goes into effect.  As we have blogged about before, Tacoma is just the latest of a number of state and local jurisdictions around … Continue Reading

California Court Limits Defenses Available to Employers Requesting Employee Background Checks

Background checks can provide California employers with vital information concerning their employees. In order to protect individual privacy rights, however, the California legislature has created two separate laws governing the procedure for such checks: the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (“ICRAA”), which generally governs reports concerning “character information,” and the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act … Continue Reading

AB 1897: California’s New Labor Contracting and Client Liability Law

California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed AB 1897 thereby creating new liability for businesses that engage in labor contracting.  Current California law prohibits employers from entering into labor or services contracts with a construction, farm labor, garment, janitorial, security guard, or warehouse contractor, if the employer knows or should know that the agreement does not … Continue Reading

NLRB Attempts to Make an End Run Around Courts Invalidating its Rulings on Arbitration Agreements

On October 28, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued its decision in Murphy Oil USA Inc., once again attempting to prohibit employers from requiring employees to enter into agreements to arbitrate employment disputes if those agreements preclude collective or class action litigation. As we have blogged about in the past, this new decision … Continue Reading

Seven Steps for Employers to Address the Ebola Threat (Step 1: Don’t Panic!)

The recent outbreak of the Ebola virus in West Africa, with the few isolated cases occurring in the United States, is spurring employers to review their emergency response plans for pandemic preparedness.  In seven steps, this writing sets forth best practices for pandemic preparedness, considerations regarding travel during a pandemic, and addressing employees’ immediate concerns … Continue Reading

“Freaky Fast” Oppression? Jimmy John’s Should Reconsider its Approach to Blanket Noncompete Agreements

Most competent employment lawyers with experience pursuing and/or rebuffing enforcement of noncompetition agreements know that enforcement against low level workers is highly unlikely.  If recent news reports are true, Jimmy John’s apparently never got that memo. According to reports in The New York Times, The Oregonian and the Huffington Post, the restaurant franchise is requiring … Continue Reading

California Enacts State-Wide Paid Employee Sick Leave Law

On September 10, 2014, California Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 1522 (the “Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014”) and made California the second state in the nation (after Connecticut) to enact a state-wide law requiring most California employers to provide paid sick leave to employees.  This marks the latest development in a growing trend that … Continue Reading

California Supreme Court Clarifies When a Franchisee’s Employees Can Bring Employment Claims Against the Franchisor in Taylor Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC

In Taylor Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, the California Supreme Court restricted the ability of a franchisee’s employees to sue the franchisor based on theories of vicarious liability and the theory that the franchisor was an “employer” under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). With this decision, franchisors can breathe a sigh of relief as … Continue Reading

9th Cir. Finds FedEx Delivery Drivers Are Employees, Not Contractors

Last week, the 9th Circuit held in two related cases from California and Oregon that FedEx misclassified approximately 2,600 delivery truck drivers as independent contractors, rather than as employees. The cases—Alexander v. FedEx and Slayman v. FedEx—are an important reminder for employers that reality matters more than labels when it comes to classifying workers.  On that … Continue Reading

Employers Should Review Benefits Plans And Other Policies Affecting Employees In Same-Sex Marriages As New IRS Guidance Implementing U.S. Supreme Court’s Windsor Decision Becomes Effective Today, September 16, 2013

Here’s something that should be at the top of your to do list on this Monday morning:  make sure your benefits and other employee policies are in compliance with new guidance from the IRS that becomes effective today relating to federal tax treatment of same-sex marriages under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Windsor.  In Windsor, the Supreme … Continue Reading

Oregon Legislature Passes HB 2654 Prohibiting Employers From Requiring Access To Employee Social Media Accounts

Coming as no big surprise since other states, like Utah and California, have been passing similar laws, the President of the Oregon Senate recently signed the final version of HB 2654, which will prohibit Oregon employers from compelling employees or applicants to provide access to personal social media accounts, like FaceBook or Twitter.  The law … Continue Reading

Countdown to Washington’s New Hazardous Drugs Rule

In 2014, Washington health care employers will be required to comply with the Department of Labor and Industries’ (“L&I’s”) new Hazardous Drugs Rule.   While today that may seem like the distant future, savvy employers will take time in 2013 to implement measures in compliance with the new rule before the deadline to do so creeps … Continue Reading

Obama NLRB Presents Employers With Several Lumps Of Coal

We continue our recent end-of-year postings (on new California employment laws and things every employer should resolve to do in 2013) with an update on recent cases by the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB" or "Board").  In late December, 2012, the NLRB issued a series of controversial decisions which from an employer’s perspective cannot be … Continue Reading

City of Seattle’s New Paid Sick and Safe Time Law To Take Effect in September 2012

  As most Seattle employers know by now and as we blogged about earlier, beginning September 1, 2012, the City of Seattle will require that all but the smallest employers provide paid sick leave to their Seattle employees. Seattle Paid Sick and Safe Time (PSST) mandates that most employers provide paid leave, which increases depending … Continue Reading

California Supreme Court Clarifies Meal and Rest Break Requirements Under State Law

In its long-anticipated decision in Brinker v. Superior Court, a unanimous California Supreme Court has clarified the scope of an employer’s obligation to provide meal and rest breaks to non-exempt employees in California.  The Court’s full opinion is available here. Meal Breaks California law requires employers to provide employees with a meal period of not less than … Continue Reading

Guidance on Terminations in Alaska

  Two recent opinions from the Alaska Supreme Court offer helpful guidance to employers regarding termination processes.   In Barickman v. State, an employer suspected an employee of theft.  When confronted, the employee signed a letter of termination and then wrote a letter stating that he was resigning to avoid a “black mark on his … Continue Reading

The EEOC Reiterates the Importance of the Interactive Process

A recent decision from the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reminds employers of their affirmative duty to engage in an interactive process once an employee raises a medical condition and requests some change to their work environment to accommodate it. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act at issue in Harden v. Social … Continue Reading

Why Should Employers be Fair?

Martha walks into your office and says she wants to fire her assistant, Roy, because he keeps sending emails with typos and it is embarrassing. Martha says, “We are at-will and I want him gone by the end of the day.”  Like most others, Alaska is an “employment-at-will” state, which means that the employee and employer … Continue Reading

Idaho Supreme Court Rejects Lawsuit over Intra-Office Romance

On June 29, 2011, the Idaho Supreme Court unanimously upheld a district court ruling that a state worker could not maintain an action against her employer for wrongful discharge based on allegations that her supervisor’s intra-office romance and consequent favoritism toward his paramour created a hostile work environment. See Patterson v. State of Idaho Dep’t of … Continue Reading

California Overtime Rules Apply To Work Performed In California By Out-Of-State Employees

The California Supreme Court has ruled that California’s daily overtime requirements apply to work performed in California by non-residents.  In Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., three employees of Oracle who were not residents of California worked as “instructors” and trained Oracle’s customers in the use of the company’s products.  Required by Oracle to travel, the plaintiffs … Continue Reading
LexBlog