When natural disaster strikes New Jersey, the Federal Disaster Unemployment Assistance program provides unemployment benefits to individuals who live or work in affected areas of New Jersey and become unemployed as a result of the damage. The process begins with the Governor making a request to the Department for Labor to make the benefits available to individuals in qualifying counties of the state. Upon approval by the DOL, individuals who do not qualify for regular unemployment insurance may obtain those benefits through the program. After the initial approval by the DOL, the U. S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may approve additional counties for the special benefits program. Prior to Hurricane Sandy, the benefits were last made available after Hurricane Irene in 2011.
Articles Discussing Labor And Employment Law In All Fifty Us States And Puerto Rico.
California Wage Statements — New Reporting Requirements, Increased Exposure for Employers
Amendments to the California Labor Code impose new wage reporting requirements on “temporary services employers” and allow all employees to recover statutory penalties for violations, even where they suffer no actual loss in wages as a result of a deficiency in a wage statement.
California Announces 2013 Minimum Pay Requirements for Exempt Computer Software, Physician and Surgeon Employees
California Labor Code sections 515.5 and 515.6 provide that certain computer software employees, as well as licensed physicians and surgeons, are exempt from state overtime requirements if they receive a minimum hourly, monthly, or yearly rate. The rate is determined annually based upon changes to the California Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. Because the Index experienced a 2.6% increase from August 2011 to August 2012, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) adjusted the rates these individuals must be paid to be considered overtime-exempt.
Washington is State Most Likely to Legalize Marijuana
Of the three marijuana-legalization voter initiatives on state ballots November 6, Washington Initiative 502 is the most likely to be adopted. Oregon’s Measure 80 is expected to be defeated by voters. Amendment 64 in Colorado is ahead in the polls, but the margin is narrowing and opposition among Colorado voters, especially women voters, is gaining momentum. (See our article, Colorado Marijuana Legalization Ballot Initiative Loses Ground.)
Colorado Marijuana Legalization Ballot Initiative Loses Ground
Colorado voters are considering an amendment to the state constitution that would allow the “personal use and regulation of marijuana” for adults 21 and over. What matters most in the November 6th ballot initiative? The women’s vote. According to SurveyUSA polls, opposition against Amendment 64 among Colorado women voters seems to be growing.
Illinois Supreme Court Recognizes Privacy Tort and Holds Employer Liable Under Agency Law
On October 18, 2012, the Illinois Supreme Court delivered a very important decision for Illinois employers in Lawlor v. North American Corporation of Illinois, Case No. 112530 (Oct. 18, 2012). The court not only confirmed that the tort of intrusion upon seclusion is recognized in Illinois, it also applied principles of agency law to find an employer liable for the torts of a non-employee private investigator because the investigator was acting as the employer’s agent.
New York Court of Appeals Affirms Flexibility Granted to Police Departments in Disciplinary Matters
In a decision issued October 25, 2012, the New York Court of Appeals affirmed and extended one its most significant rulings in the recent past relative to public sector disciplinary proceedings for police officers.
Court Rules Racial Slur May Not Be Placed in Firefighter’s Permanent Employment File
The New York State Court of Appeals recently issued a decision holding that a written determination that a firefighter violated his fire department’s Code of Conduct and Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Policy, made after a lengthy internal investigation, may not be placed in the firefighter’s permanent employment file. In this ruling that impacts both public and private employers, the court held that the firefighter’s due process rights were violated, as the firefighter had no opportunity to examine any of the witnesses interviewed or to present any witnesses on his own behalf.
Sweet News on Rounding for California Employers: See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court
In See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court, the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District explicitly held that in California employers are entitled to use a timekeeping policy that rounds employee punch in/out times to the nearest one-tenth of an hour (a “nearest-tenth rounding policy”) if the rounding policy is “fair and neutral on its face” and “is used in such a manner that it will not result, over a period of time, in failure to compensate the employees properly for all the time they have actually worked.” The court adopted the standard used by both the United States Department of Labor and the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, bringing “sweet” news to employers who use rounding policies.
Lack of Signed Arbitration Agreement Means HR Director Cannot Be Forced to Arbitrate Claims, California Court Rules
A human resources director who never signed her employer’s arbitration agreement, concealed that fact from her employer, and resigned her job could not be required to arbitrate her claims for wrongful termination and sexual harassment, the California Court of Appeal has ruled. Gorlach v. The Sports Club, No. B233672 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 16, 2012). The Court affirmed the denial of the employer’s motion to compel arbitration.
California Court Reverses Anti-Rounding Decision
In See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District explicitly held that in California employers are entitled to use a timekeeping policy that rounds employee punch in/out times to the nearest one-tenth of an hour (a “nearest-tenth rounding policy”) if the rounding policy is “fair and neutral on its face” and “is used in such a manner that it will not result, over a period of time, in failure to compensate the employees properly for all the time they have actually worked.” The court adopted the standard used by both the United States Department of Labor and the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, bringing “sweet” news to employers who use rounding policies.
California Workers’ Compensation Statute Held Not to Support a Common Law Tort Claim
California Labor Code section 132a, the anti-retaliation provision of the state workers’ compensation statute, has commonly been used to support a tort claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Plaintiffs often argue at the demurrer stage that the California Supreme Court’s decision in City of Moorpark, 18 Cal. 4th 1143 (1998), provides the basis for such relief. City of Moorpark, however, never actually addressed the specific issue of whether Labor Code section 132a could properly form the basis for such a tort claim. A recent decision by a California Court of Appeal, Dutra v. Mercy Medical Center Mt. Shasta, No. C067169 (Sept. 26, 2012), focused on that inquiry and determined that a plaintiff cannot avail herself of section 132a as the basis of a tort action for wrongful termination. The Court of Appeal’s decision permits an employer to attack the complaint at its initial stages and close off an avenue commonly used by plaintiffs to maintain civil actions for wrongful termination claims related to workers’ compensation actions.
Newark, New Jersey Enacts Ban-the-Box Criminal Conviction Legislation Applicable to Private Sector Employers
The Municipal Council of the City of Newark, New Jersey has passed a new ordinance designed to help individuals with criminal convictions find employment within the City of Newark. This ordinance, effective November 18, 2012, is different from many other cities’ ban-the-box ordinances in that it covers all private sector employers with five or more employees and doing business, employing persons, or taking employment applications within the City of Newark. The ordinance also applies to the rental, lease or sublease of real property and licensing by the City.
On Second Thought…: Ohio Supreme Court Corrects Itself on Enforceability of Non-Competes Transferred in Merger
Reconsidering and reversing its own decision, the Ohio Supreme Court now has decided an acquiring company in a merger could enforce employee non-compete agreements as if it had stepped into the shoes of the acquired company despite the absence of clear contract language to that effect. The Court, on May 24, 2012, in Acordia of Ohio L.L.C. v. Fischel (“Acordia I”), had answered that the agreements could not be enforced by the merged entity post-merger. Then, after agreeing on July 25th to take another look at the case, the Court on October 11th reversed its position, explaining it misread an earlier court decision regarding corporate mergers. Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4648 (“Acordia II”).
The Ohio Supreme Court Reverses Its Position on the Enforceability of Noncompete Agreements after a Merger
In a rare procedural move, the Ohio Supreme Court reconsidered and reversed its May 24, 2012 decision in Acordia of Ohio, L.L.C. v. Fishel, 2012-Ohio-2297 (“Fishel I”). At issue was the enforceability of restrictive covenants in employee noncompete agreements subsequent to a merger. In Fishel I, affirming the decisions of the lower courts, the Ohio Supreme Court held that all assets and property, including employment contracts and agreements, transferred through operation of law to the resulting company post-merger. The merged company, however, was precluded from enforcing its predecessor’s noncompete agreements because the agreements did not contain language that extends to others, such as the company’s “successors or assigns,” and the noncompete agreements had expired as to all the employees involved.