On September 28, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 2992, which amends California Labor Code Sections 230 and 230.1 and prohibits an employer from “discharging, or discriminating or retaliating against, an employee who is a victim of crime or abuse[,] for taking time off from work to obtain or attempt to obtain relief.”
On April 3, 2020, New York State enacted a statewide paid sick leave (PSL) law impacting all private employers in New York. The law requires employers to provide up to 40 or 56 hours of annual sick leave (depending on their size and net income).
On October 6, 2020, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) once again revised its list of individuals whose risk factors make them more likely to develop severe illness from COVID-19.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio signed into law New York City Council Int. No. 2032-A on September 28, 2020, after the city council passed the bill a few days earlier. The legislation, which took effect on September 30, 2020, amends the New York City Earned Safe and Sick Time Act (ESSTA) and generally aligns the ESSTA with the New York State Sick Leave Law (New York Labor Law § 196-b) (NYSSLL), the accrual provisions of which also took effect on September 30, 2020.
Conducting business in the U.S. Virgin Islands poses unique challenges not often encountered in the states, but also unique opportunities. This 20-part series offers tips for doing business in the U.S. Virgin Islands, covering a broad array of topics affecting employers. Part 12 of this series addresses the workplace laws protecting victims of domestic violence.
On September 1, 2020, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors passed the Sacramento County Worker Protection, Health, and Safety Act of 2020. The county appears to have modeled its new law on the City of Sacramento’s own recent Worker Protection, Health, and Safety Act (WPHSA), which the city enacted on June 30, 2020. The two laws are nearly identical, providing employees with paid sick leave for certain COVID-19–related reasons, allowing workers to refuse to work in certain situations, and prohibiting employer retaliation. Here are answers to some several frequently asked questions about the measures.
Connecticut employers need to start their preparations for the Paid Family and Medical Leave Act (PFMLA), a law that requires all private employers with Connecticut employees to provide paid leave to eligible employees. The Connecticut Paid Leave (CTPL) program, established by the PFMLA, is set to begin in just a few short months. Until then, there are important dates and key steps that employers may want to review to ensure their workplaces are prepared.
On September 17, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill No. 1383, which repealed the current California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and eliminated the California New Parent Leave Act, replacing those statutes with a new CFRA, which can be found at California Government Code Section 12945.2, et seq.
On September 17, 2020, six months after Mayor Jim Kenney issued Executive Order 3-20, a Declaration of Emergency Related to the Known and Potential Presence of the Novel Coronavirus COVID-19 in Philadelphia, he signed into law Bill No. 200303, a temporary amendment expanding the City of Philadelphia’s paid sick leave law—officially known as the Promoting Healthy Families and Workplaces Ordinance—to establish public health emergency leave for individuals not covered by the federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA).
We previously reported on COVID-19–related employment lawsuits that we tracked from late March 2020 through early May 2020. Since then, the number of lawsuits has steadily risen as employers have resumed operations after shelter-in-place or stay-at-home orders were lifted and students returned to school in virtual or hybrid environments. To track this litigation and to identify trends, we developed an Interactive COVID-19 Litigation Tracker that details where COVID-19–related litigation is taking place by state, the industries affected, and the types of claims asserted against employers and educational institutions.
Election Day—Tuesday, November 3, 2020—is quickly approaching, and employees might ask for time off to vote. Employers that simply say “no” to their employees might be violating Texas law.
On September 17, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 685 into law, enacting California Labor Code Section 6409.6 and amending other state statutes. As explained further below, Section 6409.6 obligates employers to notify employees, the employees’ exclusive representative (such as a union), and subcontractors, within one business day of an employer’s receiving notice of a potential COVID-19 workplace exposure from a “qualifying individual.”
The countdown is on for when Maine officially becomes the first state to require private employers to provide earned paid leave to employees for any reason.
Now that the Minnesota Supreme Court has settled the issue of applying the Minneapolis Sick and Safe Time (SST) ordinance to employers “with no physical presence in Minneapolis,” what does this mean for employers with employees who are working remotely in their homes within the city? It may mean that those employees are covered by the Minneapolis SST ordinance and possibly by other similar ordinances.
On September 9, 2020, Oregon Governor Kate Brown issued Executive Order No. 20-41 invoking the Emergency Conflagration Act Statewide in light of extreme fire danger. Governor Brown’s invocation of the Emergency Conflagration Act remains in effect until at least November 1, 2020, as wildfires continue to rage. More than 1 million acres of land have burned across Oregon since September 7, 2020. To put things in perspective the area burned is nearly five times the size of New York City. According to Governor Brown, Oregon is facing an unprecedented level of uncontained fire. To put the flames out, Oregon will need all the help that it can get from its courageous firefighters and first responders.
On September 9, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill (AB) 1867, which requires large employers and some health care providers to provide up to 80 hours of paid leave for COVID-19–related reasons. The new law also codifies the governor’s previously issued executive order setting forth paid sick leave and handwashing requirements for food sector workers, creates a small business family leave mediation pilot program, and addresses enforcement issues in California’s pre-COVID-19 paid sick leave law.
On September 11, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) partially ended the mystery of when and how it would respond to the August 3, 2020, decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in which the court—stating that the DOL had “jumped the rail”—struck down several provisions of the DOL’s final rule implementing the emergency family leave and paid sick leave provisions of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA).
On September 3, 2020, Ontario’s government announced that it would extend layoff protections, preventing temporary layoffs due to COVID-19 from automatically becoming terminations of employment.
As we previously reported, since the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued instructions, statements, and guidance to help employers navigate COVID-19’s workplace impact. On September 8, 2020, the EEOC updated its “Technical Assistance Questions and Answers,” which include updates relating to COVID-19 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other equal employment opportunity laws previously published in the agency’s “Technical Assistance Guidance on Disability Accommodation.”
On August 31, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division (WHD) released opinion letter FLSA2020-14.
On July 7, 2020, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors adopted an emergency ordinance to establish supplemental paid sick leave for COVID-19 related reasons. The ordinance took effect on July 8, 2020, and will remain in effect through December 31, 2020. It applies only to unincorporated areas of San Mateo County, California.
It is established that an employee’s drug addiction may qualify as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), provided the employee is not currently using illicit substances. In the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) Technical Assistance Manual on the Employment Provisions (Title I) of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the EEOC states that “[p]ersons addicted to drugs, but who are no longer using drugs illegally and are receiving treatment for drug addiction or who have been rehabilitated successfully, are protected by the ADA from discrimination on the basis of past drug addiction.” While the EEOC’s nonregulatory pronouncements do not have the force of law, courts addressing the issue generally have adopted this position.
On August 7, 2020, the San Francisco Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD) published guidance regarding the City of San Francisco’s “Temporary Right to Reemployment Following Layoff Due to COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency Ordinance.” Also known as the “Back to Work” emergency ordinance, the ordinance took effect on July 3, 2020, requiring San Francisco employers with 100 or more employees to offer reemployment to eligible employees laid off because of the COVID-19 pandemic when the employers rehire for the same or similar job classifications.
Despite all that is going on in the world, the California legislature has been busy this year. Below is a summary of the major employment law bills that are working their way through the state Assembly and Senate.
On August 3, 2020, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) posted a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) regarding the tax treatment of leave-sharing plans maintained by an employer to help its COVID-19 affected employees.
How can employers assist working parents during the fall school year? This is one of the top questions on the minds of management and employees as the fall school year begins. Based on data from the U.S. Department of Labor, it is estimated that 41 percent of workers between the ages of 20 and 54 have a child at home. It is also estimated that single parents make up approximately 30 percent of the workforce.
On August 3, 2020, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York upended several employer-friendly limitations in the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) regulations implementing the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). Specifically, the court struck down the DOL’s regulations regarding: (1) the requirement that employers actually have work available for employees in order to be eligible for leave; (2) the broad definition of “health care provider” under the final rule; (3) the requirement that employees obtain employer approval for intermittent leave; and (4) the requirement that employees provide documentation prior to taking FFCRA leave.
On July 22, 2020, Health Officer Tomás J. Aragón of the City and County of San Francisco issued Public Health Emergency Order No. C19-12c, entitled, “Order of the Health Officer of the City and County of San Francisco Generally Requiring Members of the Public and Workers to Wear Face Coverings.”
Conducting business in the U.S. Virgin Islands poses unique challenges not often encountered in the states, but also unique opportunities. This 20-part series offers tips for doing business in the U.S. Virgin Islands, covering a broad array of topics affecting employers. Part nine of this series addresses the laws relevant to accommodating disabled or high-risk employees in the workplace.
The labor and employment law revolution in the Commonwealth of Virginia has provided robust protection against unlawful discrimination as well as a comprehensive enforcement scheme. As part of that revolution, the state enacted Senate Bill 712, which amended the Virginia Human Rights Act (VHRA) to require a covered employer to provide reasonable accommodation for the known limitations of an employee related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless such an accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the employer.