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
On June 28, 2018, then California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The CCPA provided significant privacy rights and protections to California consumers and placed numerous obligations on California businesses regarding the collection and sale of personal information belonging to California consumers. While the CCPA constituted a significant change
On March 23, 2022, in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District created a split in authority when they held that wage-and-hour lawsuits brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act cannot be dismissed on manageability grounds. This decision directly contradicted the holding in Wesson v. Staples the
For the past year, Washington employers have been required to accommodate those employees characterized by the CDC as being at high risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19. Required accommodations can include allowing those employees to take extended leaves of absence if alternative work assignments, telework, remote work locations, or social distancing measures are
In the face of a significant COVID-19 surge, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert announced yesterday the implementation of a new regime for evaluating COVID-19 transmission risk and enhanced measures for mask use, social distancing, and other steps to combat transmission. Effective October 13, 2020, the state of Utah will use a three-tiered Transmission Index, placing counties
We continue to track Governor Brown’s plans for Oregon’s phased reopening, and the impact on Oregon employers. Select Oregon counties have been approved to move into Phase 2 effective June 5, 2020, with the majority of Oregon counties moving into Phase 2 by June 8. Multnomah County, Oregon’s most populous county, remains at Baseline, but hopes to enter Phase 1 starting June 12.
Phase 2 of Oregon’s reopening plan generally allows gatherings of up to 50 people indoors and 100 people outdoors, and encourages individuals to gather outdoors when possible. The onus is on the operators of gatherings to determine maximum occupancy of each indoor and outdoor area and maintain at least six feet physical distance between parties, and adhere to various cleaning and sanitation requirements, which are available here. Phase 2 also has sector-specific requirements for indoor & outdoor entertainment facilities, restaurants & bars, swimming pools & sports courts, recreational sports, and venues & events that are set forth in detail below. Given the many moving parts and that requirements differ by sector, it is prudent for employers to ensure their employees have been provided with proper written policies, protocols, training, and necessary PPE before reopening their doors to the public.
Continue Reading Oregon Issues New COVID-19 Guidance for Employers as Most Counties Enter Phase 2
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
On September 18, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (“AB”) 5, thereby codifying the California Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Lee. This represents the culmination of a seismic shift in California employment law that began a little over a year ago.
To refresh, starting in 1989, the leading test in California for distinguishing employees and independent contractors was the multifactor standard set forth in S.G. Borello & Songs, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations. Under Borello, the key question was whether the employer “[had] the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result desired.” In addition to this factor, the Borello test also endorsed multiple “secondary” indicia in analyzing and determining the employment relationship.
In April 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Dynamex. In Dynamex, the Court announced a new, more objective standard for determining worker classification for the purposes of the California wage orders. Under this new standard, the burden is on the hiring entity to establish that the worker is an independent contractor who was not intended to be included within the coverage of the California wage orders. In order to satisfy this burden, the hiring entity must establish all of the following: (1) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of work, (2) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business, and (3) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.
Continue Reading California Codifies Dynamex – Now What?
On July 9, 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 2770. This bill extends privileged communication status to certain communications by employees and employers regarding alleged sexual harassment and continues California’s efforts to address claims of sexual harassment in the workplace.
Prior to AB 2770, California law protected as privileged an employer’s responses
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 the new challenges they will face in running their workplaces.
Washington is now firmly on the bandwagon to “ban the box,” barring questions about criminal convictions on initial employment applications. Employers are now prohibited from inquiring into an applicant’s criminal background until the employee is determined to be otherwise qualified for the position. The new law thus provides another area where employers have to tread carefully when rejecting applicants—an employer is much more baldly exposed to disparate impact claims arising from applicants rejected after the employer had determined they were otherwise qualified for the position. The law includes several exceptions, including for law enforcement, employers whose employees would have unsupervised access to children or vulnerable adults, and other employers required by law to conduct criminal background checks. The Attorney General’s Office is in charge of enforcing the law, and employers face an escalating system with increased fines for each subsequent violation.
Suggested Action: Remove any criminal background questions from job applications. While the statute bars advertising that states “no felons” or “no criminal background” or the like, nothing precludes employers from advising applicants at the time they apply that they will have to pass a criminal background check once they have been determined to be qualified for the job. Employers should monitor applicants screened out by the results of a criminal background check. If an employer detects a disparate impact as a result of that screening, the employer should ensure that its actions are consistent with business necessity.
Continue Reading Washington Legislature Enacts Multiple Anti-Employer Statutes