California is among the first states to propose expressly regulating employers’ use of algorithms and artificial intelligence. In a March 25, 2022 virtual public meeting, the California Fair Employment and Housing Council discussed proposed regulatory changes that would address employers’ and third parties’ use of artificial intelligence in employment practices. While the proposed regulations remain a work in progress, they provide a glimpse into how policymakers are approaching these issues — and they could prove influential to other states (and even, potentially, the federal government) contemplating their own regulations in this space.
Author: Sylvia Bokyung St. Clair
Summary of New California COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave – What Employers Need to Know
On February 9, 2022, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 114, which provides COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave (SPSL) for covered employees who are unable to work or telework due to COVID-19 related reasons from January 1, 2022 through September 30, 2022. SB 114 is nearly identical to Assembly Bill 84 (AB) which was passed by the California Legislature on February 7, 2022. SB 114 takes effect on February 19, 2022, (10 days after the bill is signed by Gov. Newsom) and adds Sections 248.6 and 248.7 to the California Labor Code.
Among other things, SB 114:
- Applies to employers with more than 25 employees.
- Establishes a new bank of COVID-19 related SPSL.
- Broadens the reasons employees can take COVID-19 SPSL
- Permits employers to request proof of a positive COVID-19 test as to the employee or the employee’s family member.
- Requires retroactive payment if an employee would have been eligible for SPSL since January 1, 2022.
- Will remain in effect until September 30, 2022.
New California Laws for 2022: What Employers Should Know
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed several laws in 2021 that are impacting or will impact how employers interact with and manage their employees. From confidentiality and nondisparagement provisions in settlement agreements to production quotas in warehouses, we examine the laws that have gone into effect and which laws employers need to begin preparing for over the next one to two years.
Continue reading “New California Laws for 2022: What Employers Should Know”
Ninth Circuit Vacates Injunction Against California Ban on Businesses Which Forced Workers to Submit to Arbitration Agreements
A divided three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the January 2020 preliminary injunction against enforcement of Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51), and upheld portions of the law that prohibited employers from making arbitration agreements a condition of employment. As a result of this decision, the Ninth Circuit has resurrected California Labor Code § 432.6, that bars businesses from requiring workers to arbitrate job-related claims. However, the court invalidated portions of AB 51 imposing civil and criminal penalties for mandating arbitration in violation of § 432.6.
Amendments to the Illinois Freedom to Work Act: Significant Changes Coming to Illinois Noncompete and Nonsolicitation Agreements
While restrictive covenants abound in the employment landscape, the Illinois legislature is shoring up efforts to rein in the use of such agreements. The latest push? A bill to amend the Illinois Freedom to Work Act to expand the ban on noncompetes to a larger population of workers and provide certain rights to employees who are asked to sign noncompete and nonsolicitation agreements as a condition of employment. With Gov. J.B. Pritzker poised to sign that bill, employers should begin evaluating how those amendments will impact their use of noncompete and nonsolicitation agreements and what changes will be necessary to comply with the new law.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Strikes Down a No-Hire Agreement as an Unreasonable Restraint on Trade
Recently, in Pittsburgh Logistics Systems, Inc. v. Beemac Trucking, LLC, No. 31 WAP 2019, — A.3d –, 2021 WL 1676399 (Apr. 29, 2021), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that a no-hire provision that was ancillary to a services contract between two businesses was an unreasonable restraint on trade and was therefore not enforceable. In ruling on this matter of first impression, the Court identified several important factors that employers should consider before entering into a no-hire provision that places restrictions on the movement of their employees.