On February 14, 2019, the Illinois legislature passed Senate Bill 0001 (SB0001), which amends the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Income Tax Act.
California Assembly Bill 9 (AB 9), sponsored by Assembly Members Eloise Reyes, Laura Friedman, and Marie Waldron, would expand employee protections related to harassment and discrimination in the workplace.
In a ruling that will have a significant impact on the retail and restaurant industries, among others in California, the California Court of Appeal ruled that a retail employer’s call-in scheduling policy—in which employees were required to call the employer in advance of a shift to find out if they needed to show up for
In Owens v. Crabtree, Opinion No. 5616 (January 16, 2019), the South Carolina Court of Appeals held that a company’s termination of an employee for using company devices, on company time, to oppose a local building project that the company had a financial stake in was valid and did not violate public policy.
In Duffey v. Tender Heart Home Care Agency, LLC, the California Court of Appeal for the First District addressed whether an in-home caregiver was an independent contractor or employee.
The issue of whether workers who utilize online digital platforms to obtain business and deliver services to third parties are employees or independent contractors has already been subject to much debate and litigation. In the growing gig economy, questions surrounding these issues can create uncertainty for both businesses and gig workers.
On January 29, 2019, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA) does not preempt New Jersey’s ABC test for determining whether a worker is an independent contractor or employee.
New Jersey has joined the ranks of California, Massachusetts, New York, and the District of Columbia in requiring a phased increase of the minimum wage to $15 an hour as a result of a bill (A-15/S-15) signed into law by Governor Phil Murphy on Monday, February 4, 2019.
The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, has ruled that the Arizona State Legislature overstepped its authority in 2016, when it prohibited Arizona cities and other municipalities from enacting their own employee benefits ordinances.
On January 29, 2019, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a decision that addressed for the first time whether an employer’s failure to grant an employee’s lateral transfer request could support an employment discrimination claim in the matter of Yee v. Massachusetts State Police, SJC-12485.
The disclosure requirement of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) remains one of the most contentious and expensive litigation areas for employers. The case law from various federal district courts has been a mixed bag, leaving employers to question what it means to provide a “clear and conspicuous” disclosure in a writing that “consists solely” of the disclosure.
Texas law allows for the enforcement of covenants not to compete that impose reasonable restrictions on competition.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its highly-anticipated website accessibility opinion in Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, reaffirming the obligation to make retailers’ websites accessible and rejecting the due process and primary jurisdiction arguments commonly asserted by defendants in website accessibility litigation.
When Arizona’s fifty-third legislature ended last spring, we reported on four new laws that impact Arizona employers and employees. The legislature also passed two additional laws impacting Arizona employers.
The Illinois Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling in Rosenbach and reversed the appellate court’s decision that technical violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA” or “Act”) without “some actual injury or harm” are not actionable.
Given the litigious environment in California, employers operating in the state are in great need of enforceable general release terms in severance and settlement agreements. California employers entering into severance or settlement agreements will want to be aware of the amendment to California Civil Code Section 1542.
Here are a few of the recent developments affecting workplace safety and health law in California.
South Carolina is not known as a hotbed of legislative action protecting employee rights, let alone creating new ones. However, several bills are pending in the state legislature that, if passed, would impact South Carolina employers by instituting changes to employment applications, the minimum wage, and credit checks, as well as expanding protections against discrimination.
In an order with significant implications for motor carriers, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) concluded that California’s meal and rest break rules are preempted by federal transportation law and may no longer be enforced by the State of California where the driver is subject to federal hours-of-service (HOS) requirements. Specifically, on December 21,
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Mendoza v. Fonseca McElroy Grinding Co., Inc., et al., No. 17-15221 (January 15, 2019), requested that the California Supreme Court decide the following question: Is operating engineers’ offsite “mobilization work”—including the transportation to and from a public works site of roadwork grinding equipment—performed “in the execution of [a] contract for public work,” Cal. Lab. Code § 1772, such that it entitles workers to “not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed” pursuant to section 1771 of the California Labor Code?
In an unpublished decision, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District denied an employer’s motion to compel arbitration of a former employee’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims.
Hitting the ground running, Michigan’s new governor, Gretchen Whitmer, has imposed new requirements in the employment arena—but only for executive branch state employees and some contractors and grant and loan recipients. This could be a sign of things to come for employers everywhere in Michigan, or at least a sign of building momentum within the state government.
New York State and New York City passed sweeping laws aimed at combating sexual harassment in the workplace last year. While many requirements of these laws already went into effect in 2018, the annual anti–sexual harassment training requirement under the Stop Sexual Harassment in New York City Act goes into effect on April 1, 2019.
Two competing bills related to the classification of workers are in play in the California legislature.
In 2011, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam signed the Tennessee Civil Justice Act, a tort reform measure limiting monetary damages. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-39-104. This law places a cap on punitive damages of two times the compensatory damages or $500,000, whichever is greater.
In June 2018, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed into law An Act Relative to Minimum Wage, Paid Family Medical Leave and the Sales Tax Holiday.
Although the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) has yet to finalize the new annual salary required for exempt status, it intends to propose a new salary basis test that would more than double the current federal salary threshold.
On December 20, 2018, Mayor Jim Kenney signed an ordinance that will raise the minimum wage for all Philadelphia municipal government workers, contractors, and subcontractors from the current rate of $12.20 per hour to $15.00 per hour by 2022.
On December 27, 2018, as one of his last acts in office, term-limited Michigan governor Rick Snyder signed an executive directive which will extend sexual orientation discrimination protection to a number of private employees.
In 2018, the Michigan Legislature passed two seemingly conflicting pieces of legislation addressing future minimum wage increases. Now that 2019 is here, many employers may be confused about what the changes are and when they become effective.