Responding to findings that approximately one in five employees “directly experience health-endangering workplace bullying, abuse, and harassment†and that “abusive work environments can have serious effects on targeted employees and serious consequences for employers,†a new bill has been introduced in both houses of Washington’s state legislature that will provide a legal remedy for employees and legal incentives for employers to address workplace bullying.
Articles Discussing Labor And Employment Law In All Fifty Us States And Puerto Rico.
ICE to Issue Form I-9 Audit Notices to Employers in Denver
Jackson Lewis has learned that the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICEâ€) will be issuing notices of inspection to review the hiring records of some employers based in Denver on February 14, 2011. The employers will have three days to produce I-9 forms or fines will be assessed. ICE will inspect and review hiring records to determine whether they comply with employment eligibility verification laws and regulations.
New California Law Allows Agents’ Presumption of a Serious Workplace Safety Violation
A new California law makes it easier for the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal/OSHA”) to classify workplace safety violations as “serious” for purposes of issuing citations and proposed penalties to employers. Assembly Bill 2774, signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in September 2010, broadens the definition of “serious violation” and establishes specific procedures for Cal/OSHA to create a rebuttable presumption that a “serious violation” exists at a worksite. According to Cal/OSHA, the law will “help strengthen the Cal/OSHA program, improve enforcement efforts and better protect California’s workers.”
New York Wage Theft Act Increases Employer Obligations and Penalties for Labor Law Violations.
New York Governor David Paterson has signed into law the Wage Theft Prevention Act. The new law amends the New York Labor Law, creates new recordkeeping obligations for employers and allows employees to recover significantly greater damages for violations of the law. The new law will become effective on or about April 12, 2011.
New York Hospitality Industry Wage Order Effective January 1, 2011.
The New York State Department of Labor has issued its long-awaited final Hospitality Industry Wage Order applicable to hotels and restaurants, among others. The new Wage Order will be effective January 1, 2011. It makes substantial changes to the rules governing payment of wages to employees in the hospitality industry. It should clarify rules applicable to an industry that has been besieged with class action lawsuits for overtime pay and tip misappropriation. The December 15, 2010, final Wage Order is the culmination of nearly two years of administrative proceedings. A Wage Board held numerous public hearings throughout the State and issued recommendations to the Commissioner of the Department of Labor. The Department of Labor issued a Proposed Order on October 20, 2010 (see our article, Proposed Hospitality Industry Wage Order Would Mandate Significant Changes for New York Restaurants and Hotels). The final Wage Order is substantially similar. Highlights of the Wage Order include the following:
California Court Rules Employer Had No Right to Eliminate Reduced Sales Quotas for Senior Agents.
In a case brought by insurance agents, the California appeals court has ruled that an employer may not unilaterally eliminate certain obligations to employees contained in a policy that did not have an indefinite duration. McCaskey v. California State Auto. Ass’n, No. H032186 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2010). Reversing summary judgment for the employer, the Court held that a triable issue of fact existed regarding the duration of the policy and allowed the case to proceed to trial.
Debate Brewing on Effective Date of Georgia’s New Non-Compete Law.
Even though Georgia’s voter-approved constitutional amendment for a sweeping new restrictive covenant law said it would take effect upon ratification, a debate has been developing in the state over whether that is the effective date. (For more information on the new law, see our article, Georgia Voters Approve New, Employer-Friendly Non-Compete Law.)
Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination on New Criminal Background Check Law.
Massachusetts’ new law on criminal offender record information (“CORI”) bans the use of questions about criminal history on an “initial written application” for employment. This ban became effective November 4, 2010. The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD), charged with enforcement, has issued a Fact Sheet on how it intends to enforce the law. While the Fact Sheet does not have the force of a regulation or law, it provides valuable guidance for employers.
New Jersey Supreme Court Holds Pay Discrimination Claim Timely Although Act Occurred Beyond Limitations Period
The New Jersey Supreme Court has held that a wage claim may be timely even though the alleged discrimination occurred outside the New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination’s two-year statute of limitations. Alexander v. Seton Hall Univ., No. A-87-09 (Nov. 23, 2010). According to the Court, this is because each alleged discriminatory paycheck is a separate act, re-starting the limitation period. The Court, however, limited the plaintiffs’ damages to the two-year period from the date they filed their complaint.
New Jersey Supreme Court Upholds Employee’s Pilfering Confidential Employer Records in Discrimination Suit.
The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled 5-2 that an employee who engages in self-help and circumvents the pretrial discovery process by secretly copying her employer’s records for use in a discrimination lawsuit may be insulated from discipline and/or termination. The Court’s decision in Quinlan v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., No. A-51-09 (Dec. 2, 2010), adopting a totality-of-circumstances approach, gives employees who believe they were discriminated against more legal protections than ever while making it more difficult for employers to respond to employee misconduct.
Minnesota Court Denies Unemployment Benefits, Says Misrepresentation in Hiring Process is Misconduct.
In good news for employers, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has clarified that “employment misconduct” includes a misrepresentation made during hiring and affirmed the denial of unemployment benefits. Santillana v. Central Minnesota Council on Aging and Minnesota Dep’t of Employment and Econ. Dev., No. 23466835-3 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2010). Under Minnesota law, an employee who is discharged for employment misconduct is ineligible from receiving unemployment benefits.
California Court Allows Employer’s Defamation Lawsuit to Proceed against Protestors.
An employer’s defamation lawsuit against protesters who wrongly accused it of racially motivated firings could proceed, the California Court of Appeal has ruled in an unpublished opinion. Overhill Farms Inc. v. Lopez, No. G042984 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2010). Affirming the denial of the protestors’ motion to dismiss the employer’s complaint, the Court rejected their argument that the accusations were a form of protected expressions of opinion. Instead, the Court found the protestors’ statements were factual assertions that the employer could challenge. The Court further ruled that Section 425.16 of the California Civil Code, commonly known as the “anti-SLAPP” law, did not preclude the employer’s defamation claim.
California Court Rules State Law Allows Cashier Not Given Suitable Seating to Pursue Civil Penalty Claim
Employers in California may be at risk for significant penalties under California’s requirement that employees be provided with “suitable seating,” under a ruling of a state appeals court in Bright v. 99¢ Only Stores, No. B220016 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2010). The case was brought under state Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order No. 7-2001(14), specifying the requirement, and the Labor Code’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”), which permits aggrieved employees to sue for civil penalties for a violation of the state Labor Code.
Arizona Voters Pass Medical Marijuana Proposition
By a margin of just 4,341 votes, Arizona voters decided to make their state the fifteenth to allow the use of medical marijuana. The “Yes” vote on Proposition 203 had trailed for nearly a week following Election Day, but made a surprising comeback as absentee and provisional ballots were counted. The measure was opposed by the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and other business groups.
What Louisiana Election Results Mean for Employers
Labor & Employment attorney H. Mark Adams has authored an article on the impact the recent general elections will have on Louisiana employers.