Menu

It's Risky Business for California Employers when Scheduling Employees On-Call

In Skylar Ward v. Tilly's Inc., the Second Appellate District of the Court of Appeal for the State of California found, in a split decision, that employees who were required to call in two hours before a scheduled on-call shift in order to confirm their shift, should be compensated under laws governing "reporting time pay." This decision should remind California employers of the need to compensate on-call employees consistent with the Labor Code, Wage Orders, and any other applicable laws. Employers should also consider that—pursuant to the majority opinion in Ward v. Tilly—requiring employees to call in ahead of on-call shifts amounts to asking them to report to work and they should be compensated for this time. More ›

Employers Need to Go Back to the Drawing Board for Their Wellness Program Incentives

Many employers incorporate wellness programs into their group health plans. Studies indicate that such programs, which can provide incentives to employees to encourage healthy behaviors, are offered by more than half of all employers who sponsor a health plan. More ›

EEOC Announces EEO-1 Survey Deadline Extension Due to Government Shutdown

The recent federal government shutdown left the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) mostly shuttered. As a result, the commission has announced an extension of the 2018 EEO-1 reporting period deadline to May 31, 2019. The online reporting period will begin in early March, although the exact opening date has yet to be announced. Employers can visit the EEOC website for updates. More ›

Applicants Not Protected by ADEA's Disparate Impact Theory, According to 7th Circuit

In a split decision, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held en banc that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act's (ADEA) protections against disparate impact age discrimination do not extend to applicants. Rather, they apply only to employees. More ›

Following Supreme Court Decision, It's High Time for Illinois Employers to Review Workplace Biometric Privacy Issues

With the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously ruling that employees need not plead or prove a traditional injury or adverse harm in order to prosecute a claim under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) (see, Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., 2019 IL 123186 (Jan. 25, 2019)), the time is now for Illinois employers to review their workplace policies for biometric privacy issues. More ›

U.S. Supreme Court Puts the Brakes on Mandatory Arbitration, Holds Transportation Workers Exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act

The United States Supreme Court recently handed workers a rare victory in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira. The Supreme Court ruled that transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce—including those labeled as independent contractors—are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and thus cannot be compelled to undergo mandatory arbitration.  As a result of this decision, employers in the transportation industry will have to review their existing arbitration policies and assess whether or not they comply with applicable local, state, and federal laws. More ›

District Court Judge Stops HHS Regulations Regarding Contraception Mandate

When Congressional drafters wrote the Affordable Care Act 10 years ago, they included a provision requiring group health plans to provide preventive care without cost sharing. Much of that coverage requirement was set forth in the Act itself with some specificity. It included immunizations, screenings, and other “evidence-based items or services” recommended by the United States Preventive Services Tax Force. The Act also provided for special rules for preventive care “with respect to women;” however, those rules were not specified in the Act and were to be determined by a government agency. After the law safely passed, the Health Resources and Services Administration, acting on the findings of the Institute of Medicine, decided that preventive care with respect to women must include coverage for contraceptive services without cost sharing. In the decade since that provision became law, plan sponsors have been dealing with nearly constant administrative and judicial pinball regarding this contentious topic. More ›

California Appeals Court Confirms Constitutionality of Piece-Rate Compensation Statute

In Nisei Farmers League vs. California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, California’s Fifth Appellate District confirmed the constitutional validity of Labor Code section 226.2, a recently enacted law providing that employees paid on a piece-rate basis must be paid at least minimum wage, and must be paid for rest and recovery periods and “other nonproductive time” separate from any piece-rate compensation. Under a piece-rate system, employees are not paid by the hour, but rather based on activities, task or units of production completed. For example, employees are paid by the number of widgets they produce. The goal of the statute was to make sure employers who pay under a piece-rate system also comply with all minimum wage law requirements that apply to hourly workers. More ›

New Illinois Employer Posting Requirements to Ring in the New Year

As Illinois employers get into the swing of 2019, do not forget Illinois has a new and additional posting requirement that came about as a result of amendments to the Illinois Human Rights Act in the Fall of 2018. That posting requirement obligates employers to post the notice found here with your other postings to employees and to include the substance of the content in your employee handbooks. It reminds employees of their right to be free from discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation, as well as their right to a reasonable accommodation for pregnancy and disabilities. More ›

New York City Adds Layer of Protection for Employee Decisions Concerning "Sexual and Reproductive Health"

The New York City Council signaled its commitment to expanding employee protection when it further amended the New York City Human Rights Law by adding “sexual and reproductive health decisions” to its list of protected classes from discrimination. Under the amended bill, employers with four or more employees are prohibited from discriminating against employment applicants or existing employees based on sexual and reproductive health decisions. The amendment is before Mayor DiBlassio for signature, which is expected. Once signed, it will take effect 120 days thereafter. More ›

Search
Subscribe via Email