On July 1, 2020, legislation went into effect providing additional protections for certain hotel and motel employees in Seattle. The legislation was enacted to protect Seattle hotel workers from harassment and discrimination, unsafe workloads, and job insecurity and to provide increased access to medical care.
Hotel Employees Safety Protections
In hotels and motels with 60
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
Oregon employers should be aware of the Oregon Supreme Court’s recent decision in McLaughlin v. Wilson, 365 Or 535, __ P3d __ (2019). In McLaughlin, the court was asked to decide the scope of ORS 659A.030(1)(f), which makes it unlawful “[f]or any person to discharge, expel or otherwise discriminate against any other person
On August 30, 2019, California’s Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 778, extending for one year the deadline for providing harassment prevention training to employees. California employers now have until January 1, 2021 to provide the sexual harassment prevention training mandated by SB 1343, which took effect on January 1, 2019.
SB 1343 requires an
Effective January 1, 2019, employers that employ five or more employees in California must provide one hour of harassment and abusive conduct prevention training to all nonsupervisory employees, and two hours of such training to supervisory employees. This mandatory training must be provided by January 1, 2020, and once every two years thereafter.
Under
The Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) prohibits “places of public accommodation” from discriminating against their customers on the basis of several protected characteristics, including, without limitation, sex, race, national origin, and sexual orientation. Sexual harassment is one prohibited form of such sex-based discrimination. Generally speaking, a place of public accommodation is any business that is open to the public.
On January 31, 2019, the Washington Supreme Court announced a new sexual harassment standard for places of public accommodation. In so ruling, the Court held that, under the WLAD, employers are “directly liable for the sexual harassment of members of the public by their employees, just as they would be if their employees turned customers away because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation.” Floeting v. Group Health, Inc., No. 95205-1.
Continue Reading Washington Supreme Court Announces Zero-Tolerance Approach to Sexual Harassment in Places of Public Accommodation
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 the Supreme Court’s decision could have opened the flood gates for employment claims brought by employees seeking a recovery from the perceived “deep pocket” franchisor.
The plaintiff in Taylor alleged that she was sexually harassed by her supervisor while employed at a Domino’s Pizza franchise owned and run by a company called Sui Juris. She subsequently filed suit against her supervisor, Sui Juris, and the franchisor, Defendant Domino’s Pizza Franchising, LLC (“Domino’s”). Plaintiff’s claims against Domino’s were premised on the theory that Domino’s was her and her supervisor’s employer.
In a time when California courts are busier than ever, the California Court of Appeal recently did double duty by issuing an opinion that both decided an issue of first impression in California and implicitly approved Senate Bill ("SB") 292, a relatively new law (and one that we blogged about last year) clarifying that sexual harassment under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) does not require proof of sexual desire towards plaintiff.
The Court’s opinion in Max Taylor v. Nabors Drilling USA, LP can be found here. (Warning: this one is not family friendly!) The case involved an employee working as a “floorhand” on an oil rig. For anyone who has never worked on an oil rig before (myself included), a floorhand is usually the lowest member of a drilling crew and is given the dirtiest and most physically demanding jobs. During the course of plaintiff’s employment, his male supervisor subjected him to serious and extreme harassment. For example (and this is where it gets bad, although we’re only giving you the PG version), his supervisors called him multiple derogatory terms for gay men, made several offensive comments when he had an infection on his face, posted his photograph in the restroom with offensive graphics, urinated on him, spanked him, and aroused themselves in his presence and then asked him to sit on his lap.
Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Affirms That It Pays To Be the Squeaky Wheel
A November 27, 2013 opinion from the Idaho Supreme Court reinstated a former Assistant Vice Principal’s claim seeking damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress. This decision highlights that allegedly harassing workplace comments may subject employers to liability even though e the complaining employee cannot make out a traditional sexual harassment claim.
In Frogley v. Meridian Joint School Dist., 2013 opinion No. 124, the employee claimed that he had been the victim of sexual harassment based upon sexually-charged comments to and about him. Mr. Frogley claimed that the behavior continued despite making known that the behavior was offensive. The complaints came at approximately the same time his superiors began to question his work performance.
All of the claims, including sexual harassment under federal and state law, were dismissed before they were allowed to proceed to trial. The Supreme Court’s opinion does not detail the reason for the lower court’s decision in that regard and the employee chose not to appeal dismissal of the sexual harassment theories; pursuing instead his claims for retaliation and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
In a same-sex sexual harassment case, does the plaintiff need to prove that the alleged harasser’s conduct was motivated by sexual desire? Under SB 292, a law signed by Governor Brown a few days ago, the answer in California is "no."
A key question when dealing with a sexual harassment claim under California’s Fair