The Connecticut Supreme Court is permitting a city worker in New Haven, Connecticut, to pursue a claim for retaliation before the Workers’ Compensation Commission. The city had previously fired the worker on the grounds that the worker had committed workers’ compensation fraud.
Articles Discussing Labor And Employment Law In All Fifty Us States And Puerto Rico.
November 2018 Ballot Question Seeks to Impose Registered Nurse-to-Patient Ratio Limits on Massachusetts Health Care Facilities
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), the state’s highest court, has held that an Initiative Petition (Initiative Petition 17-07) seeking to create a new law (“The Patient Safety Act”) that would dictate to hospitals and acute care units in state-operated health care facilities the number of patients that may be assigned to a registered nurse is constitutional and could be placed on the November ballot if a sufficient number of supporting signatures were submitted to the Secretary of the Commonwealth by July 3. Supporters of the Initiative Petition submitted the required number of signatures by July 3, so it will be placed on the November ballot as Question #1.
Employer Found Liable Where Supervisor Mocked Employee’s Stuttering Problem
In responding to claim of harassment, discrimination or retaliation based on protected categories, California employers must timely respond to and thoroughly investigate workplace complaints to avoid exposure. On July 9, 2018, a California Court of Appeal court found an employer liable where an employee was mocking a person for having a stutter on more than five, but less than fifteen occasions over a two-year period from 2006 to 2008. In Caldera v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al., the plaintiff brought suit after allegedly being subject to jokes over a two-year period of time. The jury awarded plaintiff $500,000. The trial court, finding the jury award excessive, granted a new trial as to damages. Both parties appealed.
District Court Preliminarily Enjoins Some Components of California Sanctuary Laws Impacting Employers
On July 4, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice obtained a partial victory in its challenge of California’s Immigrant Worker Protection Act (“Assembly Bill 450” or “AB 450”) and other sanctuary laws when a California federal court held that certain provisions of AB 450 violated the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
California Enacts a Privileged Communication Law Regarding Sexual Harassment Claims
In the wake of the #MeToo movement, many states have been making concerted efforts to address and prevent sexual harassment through proposed legislation. On July 9, California Governor Jerry Brown signed one of those proposals, Assembly Bill 2770, into law. This measure targets defamation claims stemming from sexual harassment allegations. Under the law, certain employee and employer statements regarding sexual harassment allegations are deemed privileged and therefore cannot be used to support a defamation claim.
Hawaii on Board with Pay Transparency and Salary History Ban
Hawaii will be joining the salary history ban trend beginning in 2019. On July 5, Governor David Ige signed into law a bill seeking to address the pay disparity between men and women who perform similar work.
New York Legislature Approves Paid Family Leave Expansion for Bereavement and Organ Tissue Donation
On the last day of the 2018 New York Legislative Session, lawmakers approved a measure that would expand access to the current New York Paid Family Leave benefit to employees experiencing bereavement due to the death of a family member.
Temporary Schedule Change Amendments to New York City Fair Workweek Law Effective July 18
Starting on July 18, 2018, New York City employers are required to provide two temporary schedule changes to employees each calendar year for “personal events.” The law also protects employees from retaliation for making certain other schedule change requests.
Sexual Harassment: New Protections for Independent Contractors in New York
Executive Summary. In New York State, the State Human Rights Law (“HRL”) was recently amended to prohibit sexual harassment against independent contractors. This is a major extension of sexual harassment protection with significant liability exposure for employers. Freelancers, consultants, project contract workers, vendors and suppliers are now protected from sexual harassment on the job, the same as employees.
New York City Considering Mandatory Minimum Wage for App-Hail Drivers
Executive Summary: The introduction of ride-hailing apps has upended the taxi and for-hire car industry in New York City. What began with a promise of independence and wealth for drivers has actually pushed more into dire financial straits, as competition has increased. Now, following a string of driver suicides, New York City’s Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) is considering imposing minimum wage requirements on certain app-hailing services like Uber and Lyft.
Wisconsin Supreme Court Ends Required Deference to State Administrative Agencies’ Interpretations, Allowing Employers to Push for Broader Review of Agency Decisions
The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently reversed its nearly half-century practice of deferring to state administrative agencies’ interpretations of the laws the agencies are responsible for enforcing. Based on the decision in Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. DOR,1 Wisconsin courts need now only consider the agency interpretations’ persuasive value, but give them no deference. This shift likely will permit affected parties to more substantively challenge agencies’ interpretations of law in the state court system.
California May Lower the Standing Threshold in Data Breach Litigation
A key issue for any business facing class action litigation in response to a data breach is whether the plaintiffs, particularly consumers, will have standing to sue. Standing to sue in a data breach class action suit, largely turns on whether plaintiffs establish that they have suffered an “injury-in-fact” resulting from the data breach. Plaintiffs in data breach class actions are often not able to demonstrate that they have suffered financial or other actual damages resulting from a breach of their personal information. Instead, plaintiffs will allege that a heightened “risk of future harm” such as identity theft or fraudulent charges is enough to establish an “injury-in-fact”.
Unraveling The Newest Development In The Data Protection Juggernaut: What Does The “California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018” Mean For Employers?
By Philip L. Gordon and Andrew Gray on July 9, 2018
With the May 25, 2018 effective date of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) barely in the rear-view mirror, California’s Governor Jerry Brown, on June 28, 2018, signed into law the “California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018”1 (CCPA or “the Act”). The law flashed onto the scene after a concerned and wealthy California citizen funded, and obtained the approval of, a ballot initiative for a similar law to be placed on the November 2018 electoral ballot. The initiative’s backer used that approval as leverage in the waning days of June to force the California government to enact an alternative law in exchange for his withdrawal of the initiative from the November 2018 ballot before the June 30 publication deadline. The CCPA is aimed at granting individuals more control over their personal information and more insight into how businesses use and disclose their personal data.
California Is the First to Bring European-Grade Data Protections to the United States
Executive Summary: California has become the first state to introduce privacy protection for individuals’ personal data comparable to that provided under the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA” or “the Act”), which takes effect January 1, 2020, is a sweeping digital privacy law that creates new protections and rights for consumers’ personal data. The CCPA will grant California consumers the following rights: (1) to know what personal information is being collected about them; (2) to know whether their personal information is sold or disclosed and to whom; (3) to say no to the sale of personal information; (4) to access their personal information; and (5) to equal service and price, even if they exercise their privacy rights (e.g., businesses may presumably offer tiered pricing for goods and services, such as offering higher prices for increased privacy); and in addition, to hold companies liable for data breaches.
Reminder – NYC’s Temporary Schedule Change Law Becomes Effective on July 18, 2018
Enacted this past January, New York City’s “Temporary Schedule Change” law becomes effective on July 18, 2018.1 The law provides employees with the right to request two temporary schedule changes per calendar year for “personal events,” and employers must ensure that they are prepared to respond to their employees’ requests for changes in work schedules and understand what types of personal events qualify for leave.