On January 27, 2022, the California Supreme Court in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., No. S266001, 2022 WL 244731 (Cal. Jan. 27, 2022), addressed the issue of which standard courts must use when analyzing retaliation claims brought under California Labor Code section 1102.5.
In requesting that the California Supreme Court answer this question
Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water (or stop sheltering in place anyway), a wave of COVID-19-related employment lawsuits are being filed across the country. At our last count, nearly 50 labor and employment-specific cases have been filed. The first in Oregon was filed earlier this month by a former assisted living facility employee who seeks $950,000 in damages for alleged whistleblower and sick leave retaliation. Although the types of claims being brought by employees are typical—wage/hour, whistleblower, contract, wrongful termination, protected leave and discrimination claims, WARN Act violations—employers now face a perfect storm: defending real-time decisions made to keep their businesses afloat against the backdrop of a global pandemic that has completely disrupted business operations. (And as we all know, “You can’t just call time out and stroll on into the beach if you don’t like the way things are going.”)
As we have mentioned during several COVID-19-related client briefings, courts will now have to wade into murky waters and provide clarity on how newly enacted or amended local, state and federal leave laws such as the Family First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) operate, especially where statutory and regulatory guidance has not always been clear. Courts will also need to provide direction on how well-settled legal schemes, such as disability and contract law, apply in the face of a pandemic.
Of particular concern for employers right now are trends in wage and hour class actions suits, which can pose significant risk of crippling wage penalties and plaintiffs’ attorney fees, as well as leave discrimination and whistleblower retaliation claims. These kinds of claims could draw sympathy from jurors and sink a business. Here are a few of examples of employment cases recently filed across the country, and trust us, “You’re gonna need a bigger boat.”
Continue Reading COVID-19 Litigation: The Next Wave
We are confident that employers already take employee reports of potentially unlawful activity seriously. Such internal reports can help employers investigate and eliminate unlawful conduct in the workplace. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that retaliating against an employee for making an internal report of potentially unlawful activity—not a report to an external agency—is unlawful whistleblower retaliation.
What Happened
In Brunozzi v. Cable Communications, Inc., an employee complained several times to his supervisor that he was not being properly paid for working overtime.
Continue Reading Whistleblower Retaliation Protection Expands in Oregon
Oregon’s new minimum wage law, signed by Governor Brown on March 2, 2016, received a lot of press during the 2016 legislative session. This new law establishes a tiered system for determination of the minimum wage based on the location of the employer. The minimum wage will increase annually on July 1 of each year, with the first increase (from $9.25 to $9.50 in rural areas and to $9.75 everywhere else) taking place this year. By 2022, Oregon’s minimum wage will increase to $14.75 inside Portland’s urban growth boundary, $13.50 in midsize counties, and $12.50 in rural areas. The full text of the enrolled Senate bill is available here.
With minimum wage receiving all of the attention, Oregon employers may have missed other employment-related bills. Here are the bills that passed during the 2016 Oregon Legislative Session and those that failed (but we might see again in the future).
Continue Reading 2016 Oregon Legislative Update: What You Might Have Missed
It has become an annual New Year’s tradition in California — employers getting up to speed on a host of new employment laws that will affect them in the coming year. The California Legislature was busy in 2013 imposing new burdens on employers for 2014 and beyond. We previously blogged about an increase in the state minimum wage and a statutory clarification of the definition of sexual harassment, but those new laws are only the tip of the iceberg. Here’s our annual summary of the most important new laws affecting California employers.
Continue Reading A Not-So Happy New Year for California Employers: 2014 Legislative Update
Minnesota employers, take note: laws that impact you are changing this year. Not only did the Minnesota legislature recently expand the use of employee sick leave (as we blogged about here) and legalize same-sex marriage, but several other changes occurred this year that may directly impact your business. Here’s a quick round up of some of the most important new laws enacted by the legislature affecting Minnesota employers.
Criminal Background Checks
Perhaps the most notable change is, beginning January 1, 2014, most Minnesota employers must change their standard employment applications and hiring practices related to use of a job applicant’s criminal history. The new "ban the box" law, which refers to the check box on most employment applications asking about an applicant’s criminal history, will bar private employers from asking about or considering an applicant’s criminal history until (1) the applicant is selected for an interview or (2) if there is no interview, the applicant receives a conditional offer of employment. Employers who have a statutory duty to conduct criminal history investigations or otherwise consider criminal history in the employment process, such as school districts and many health and human services providers, are exempt from the new law.
When the law goes into effect, Minnesota employers who previously required all applicants to disclose criminal history will need to defer the inquiry until further into the interview process.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued an interim final rule and request for comments regarding procedures for handling employee whistleblower complaints under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Section 1558. This part of the ACA added a new Section 18c to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which protects employees from retaliation for exercising certain rights under the ACA, including (1) receiving a federal tax credit or subsidy to purchase insurance through the employer or a future health insurance exchange, (2) reporting a violation of consumer protection rules under the ACA (which, for instance, prohibit denial of health coverage based on preexisting conditions and lifetime limits on coverage), and (3) assisting or participating in a proceeding under Section 1558.
The interim final rule states the time frames and procedures for bringing a whistleblower complaint under Section 18c and covers the investigation, hearing, and appeals processes. An employee has 180 days from the date of the alleged retaliation to bring a whistleblower complaint to the Secretary of Labor. Where a violation is found, remedies can include reinstatement, compensatory damages, back pay, and reasonable costs and expenses (including attorneys’ fees). If the employee brought the complaint in bad faith, an employer may recover up to $1,000 in reasonable attorneys’ fees.
Continue Reading OSHA Issues Interim Final Rules on Whistleblower Protection Provisions Under ACA
The Oregon Legislature recently completed its 2010 Supplemental Session. Among the bills passed by the legislature include five employment-related bills. Click on the bill number to download a copy of the actual bill:
The Oregon Legislature was in session in 2009, and many labor and employment-related bills came up for consideration. A complete list of the bills that passed and the bills that failed follows below (you may have to click "continue reading."
Several passed and will become law effective January 1, 2010. Several others didn’t get the support they needed to become law, but employers may want to take note as they may gain more traction in the next legislative session.
Notable winners: leave for military spouses, a ban on "captive audience" union meetings, and protections for stalking victims. Notable losers: several attempts to clarify an employer’s obligation to accommodate medical marijuana use.
Up next: a federal labor and employment legislation update. Stay tuned!