On April 3, 2019, New Mexico governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed into law two bills related to criminal background checks that may affect employers operating in the state. The first is a ban-the-box law that prohibits private employers from inquiring about an applicant’s criminal history on an employment application. The second allows certain individuals to petition the court for expungement of criminal records.
Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Equality Act, a bill that would amend federal law (including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
In recent months, the New Mexico Legislature enacted legislation expanding employment protections for medical marijuana users. Recent changes to the Lynn and Erin Compassionate Use Act, New Mexico’s medical marijuana law, expand the range of medical conditions for which medical marijuana may be prescribed and create new employment protections for employees who legally use medical marijuana.
On March 22, 2019, Governor Doug Ducey signed Arizona House Bill (HB) 2230 into law. As described in detail in our recent article, HB 2230 allows judgment creditors to serve writs of garnishment by certified mail, return receipt requested, in addition to traditional methods of service.
In recent months, the New Mexico legislature enacted legislation expanding employment protections for nurses. The Safe Harbor for Nurses Act allows registered and licensed practical nurses to refuse assignments under certain conditions without fear of retaliation or other adverse action by their employers.
The Arizona legislature recently passed a bill that would amend Arizona Revised Statutes Section 12-1574 to change how writs of garnishments can be issued and served on garnishees, including employers. House Bill (HB) 2230 went to Governor Doug Ducey for signature on March 19, 2019, and he is expected to sign it soon.
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.
Winslow, Arizona, is well known to every fan of the Eagles based on the band’s hit debut single, “Take it Easy,” released in 1972. Winslow again hit the radio and news media when its city council passed Ordinance No. 1327 on November 13, 2018.
An estimated 9 million adults in the United States are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. Eighty-seven percent of U.S. residents report knowing someone who is lesbian or gay, and half report having a close lesbian or gay friend.
On June 4, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States settled a controversy stemming from a bakery’s refusal to make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding reception.
Navigating employee leave issues can be a daunting feat for in-house counsel and human resources departments. One challenging and oft-overlooked situation rife with the potential for legal issues involves contact between employers and employees who are out on leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
And the biggest employment case of 2017 . . . is not here yet. The reality: Everyone will be eagerly waiting another four to six months for the biggest and most-anticipated employment case of 2017: class action waivers. While the Supreme Court of the United States’ taking certiorari in January 2017 and likely issuing its decision in late 2017/early 2018—unequivocally the biggest thing 2017 will see, several other cases and developments so far in 2017 are worthy of discussion.
On June 30, 2017—the day before Arizona’s new paid sick leave law went into effect—the Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) issued 18 pages of new frequently asked questions (FAQs). Some of the FAQs merely restate the draft regulations, while others provide useful examples helping to give color to draft supplemental regulations recently issued.
On June 27, 2017, the Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) issued supplemental draft regulations. The supplemental regulations tweak some of the draft regulations the ICA issued on May 5, 2017. Some supplemental regulations are entirely new and help clarify several important yet unanswered questions lingering in employers’ minds.
Arizona’s new paid sick leave law—Proposition 206 or The Fair Wages and Healthy Families Act—will go into effect on July 1, 2017. Since the law passed, the Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) has crafted proposed regulations and a number of frequently asked questions (FAQs). This three-part blog series examines the intricacies of the ICA’s current proposed regulations and FAQs.
Arizona’s new paid sick leave law—Proposition 206 or The Fair Wages and Healthy Families Act—will go into effect on July 1, 2017. While we previously explained key components of the law, the Act left many important questions unanswered. Since the law passed, the Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) has crafted a limited set of proposed regulations, which remain subject to review and approval by the state attorney general or the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council.
Since passage last November of Proposition 206, Arizona’s new paid sick leave law, officially titled The Fair Wages and Healthy Families Act, employers have been scrambling to prepare for its implementation on July 1, 2017.
The Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on May 5, 2017, containing the ICA’s much-anticipated draft regulations on Arizona’s new paid sick time law, which goes into effect on July 1, 2017.
On April 4, 2017, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its highly anticipated en banc decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, making the Seventh Circuit the first federal appellate court to find that sexual orientation is encompassed in Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964’s definition of sex.
On June 9, 2015, several federal agencies jointly issued a policy statement on standards that companies could use to assess their diversity policies and practices, particularly for entities regulated by more than one agency. The Federal Reserve Board, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, Securities and Exchange Commission and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued “Final Interagency Policy Statement Establishing Joint Standards for Assessing the Diversity Policies and Practices of Entities Regulated by the Agencies” as directed under section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. Issuance of the Final Joint Standards followed a protracted two-year comment period. The Final Joint Standards, which were modified to some extent based upon the comments received, identify five categories for companies to assess their commitment to diversity and inclusion. The Final Joint Standards are entirely voluntary and do not create new legal compliance obligations—they are merely a “statement of policy.”
Legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity is popping up all around the country. From California’s Senate Bill 703 prohibiting state agencies from entering into certain contracts with contractors that discriminate between employees on the basis of gender identity in the provision of benefits, to the proliferation of cities and counties with nondiscrimination ordinances that protect transgender employees, more employers may be facing gender identity issues in the near future.
On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States answered the two questions it posed in the consolidated same-sex case, Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556 (June 26, 2015). The consolidated case arose from challenges to Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee state laws that continued to ban same-sex marriages and those states’ refusal to recognize legally valid same-sex marriages performed in other states.
On October 16, 2014, the Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) announced an increase to Arizona’s minimum wage. Effective January 1, 2015, Arizona’s minimum wage will increase to $8.05 per hour. This 15 cent increase over the 2014 minimum wage of $7.90 per hour is based on the 1.7 percent increase in the cost of living for Arizonans over a one-year period beginning in August 2013 using the national Consumer Price Index.
On October 6, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to review all seven same-sex marriage cases with petitions for certiorari pending before it. The Court’s refusal to hear the appeals means that the lower court decisions striking down same-sex marriage bans in Indiana, Wisconsin, Utah, Oklahoma, and…..
On June 20, 2014, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a press release announcing a proposed rule extending the protections of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to all eligible employees in legal same-sex marriages regardless of where they live. The DOL is proposing this rule in light…..
On February 27, 2014, by unanimous vote, the Tempe City Council approved a proposal to expand the Tempe City Code’s anti-discrimination ordinance to prohibit discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodation on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Businesses and employers that violate the ordinance face a civil sanction and fine of up to $2,500.
On November 7, 2013, the U.S. Senate passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) by a vote of 64-32, with the support of 10 Senate Republicans. ENDA essentially extends workplace protections based on race, religion, gender, age, national origin, and disability (under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,…..
On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the Defense of Marriage Act’s (DOMA) provision defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Following the United States v. Windsor decision, President Obama directed all federal agencies to “swiftly” review all federal statutes impacted by…..
This morning, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its highly anticipated decision in United States v. Windsor, ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional on equal protection grounds. With Justice Kennedy writing for the majority in a 5-to-4 decision, the Court ruled that DOMA, which excludes a same-sex partner from the definition of “spouse” as that term is used in federal statutes, is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
This morning, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its highly anticipated decision in United States v. Windsor, ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional on equal protection grounds.