Laborsphere

Summary of Key New California Laws for 2017: What Employers Should Know

Governor Brown has this year signed several new laws impacting California employers, some of which have already gone into effect and others that will be effective or operative in 2017 or later. A summary of key new laws follows. The effective date of the particular new law is indicated in the heading of the Assembly Bill (AB) and/or Senate Bill (SB).^_[1] The list below is in numerical order by the AB or SB.

Continue reading “Summary of Key New California Laws for 2017: What Employers Should Know”

My House My Rules: California Reigns In Employers’ Use Of Forum-Selection and Choice-of-Law Clauses to Avoid California Law

Last week, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Senate Bill 1241 (“SB 1241”). The new law (available here), which takes effect on January 1, 2017, adds section 925 to the California Labor Code (“Section 925”). In general, Section 925 will prohibit employers from requiring California-based employees to enter into agreements requiring them to: (1) adjudicate claims arising in California in a non-California forum; or (2) litigate their claims under the law of another jurisdiction, unless the employee was represented by counsel. Section 925 represents a considerable limit on parties’ rights to contract and may be the end of forum-selection and choice of law provisions, currently common in employment agreements.

For years, employers based outside of California have incorporated forum-selection and/or choice-of-law provisions in agreements with their California employees. Some employers used these provisions to create company-wide uniformity among their workforce. Others used forum-selection and choice-of-law provisions to avoid some of California’s more rigid rules about restrictive covenants. Whatever the motivation, forum-selection and choice-of-law provisions have become commonplace in employment and arbitration agreements.

Continue reading “My House My Rules: California Reigns In Employers’ Use Of Forum-Selection and Choice-of-Law Clauses to Avoid California Law”

A Bill Prohibiting Questions About Past Compensation Introduced In Congress

On September 14, 2016, Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton (D – D.C. At Large) introduced the Pay Equity for All Act of 2016 (the “PEAA”) in the U.S. House of Representatives. In relevant part, the PEAA would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., to prohibit employers from asking prospective employees about their previous wages or salary histories, including benefits or other compensation. In addition to prohibiting these pre-hire inquiries, the PEAA prohibits employers from seeking out the information on their own. The PEAA prohibits employers from retaliating against any employee or applicant because the employee opposed any practice unlawful under the law or for testifying or participating in any investigation or proceeding relating to any act or practice made unlawful by the PEAA. Any “person” who violates the PEAA is subject to a civil penalty of $5,000 for the first “offense,” which increases by $1,000 for each subsequent offense, up to $10,000. In addition, any person violating the PEAA is liable to each employee or prospective employee who is subject to a violation for special damages not to exceed $10,000 plus attorneys’ fees, as well as potential injunctive relief.

In her introductory remarks, Representative Norton explained that the purpose of the PEAA was to “help eliminate the gender and racial pay gap” and to “ensure that applicants’ salaries are based on their skills and merit, not on a potentially problematic salary history.” The bill initially was co-sponsored by Representatives Rosa DeLauro (D – CT), Jerrold Nadler (D – NY), and Jackie Speier (D – CA); subsequent co-sponsors include Representatives Gwen Moore (D – WI), John Conyers, Jr. (D – MI), Barbara Lee (D – CA), and Frederica S. Wilson (D – FL). The PEAA was immediately referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Continue reading “A Bill Prohibiting Questions About Past Compensation Introduced In Congress”

Maryland’s Expanded Equal Pay Law Takes Effect October 1, 2016

Maryland joins California, New York and Massachusetts by passing legislation aimed at combating wage disparity based on gender. (For a discussion on California, New York and Massachusetts’s Equal Pay Laws, click on our previous posts.)

Expanding Equal Pay for Equal Work

The new law, which goes into effect October 1, 2016, amends Maryland’s existing Equal Pay for Equal Work Act by expanding the prohibition on wage discrimination based on “sex” to also include “gender identity.” The protection against pay discrimination for work performed in the same establishment and of comparable character or on the same operation encompasses more than just unequal payment of wages. The new law also bars discrimination for “providing less favorable employment opportunities,” which includes: (1) assigning or directing an employee into a less favorable career track or position; (2) failing to provide information about promotions or advancement opportunities in the full range of career tracks offered by the employer; or (3) limiting or depriving an employee of employment opportunities that would otherwise be available but for the employee’s sex or gender identity.

Continue reading “Maryland’s Expanded Equal Pay Law Takes Effect October 1, 2016”

Illinois Employers Must Provide Qualifying Employees Two Weeks of Unpaid Child Bereavement Leave

Illinois is now the second state to require that employers provide unpaid bereavement leave to eligible employees under its Child Bereavement Leave Act. This Act provides that employers with at least 50 employees must provide two weeks (10 working days) of unpaid leave due to the loss of a child. In the event of death of more than one child in a 12-month period, an employee is eligible for up to six weeks of bereavement leave.

Coverage

The Act defines “employers” and “employees” in the same manner as they are defined under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Thus, an employee will be eligible for child bereavement leave under Illinois law if the employee has been employed by the employer for at least 12 months and has worked at least 1250 hours during the previous 12-month period. However, an employee who has exhausted his or her FMLA leave is not eligible for child bereavement leave under this Act.

While an employee’s eligibility for child bereavement leave is tied to the employee’s FMLA entitlement, the employee’s bereavement leave cannot be deducted from the employee’s available FMLA leave. In other words, an employee can take two weeks of bereavement leave and still be eligible for 12 weeks of FMLA leave for another qualifying event.

The Act defines “child” as “an employee’s son or daughter who is a biological, adopted, or foster child, a stepchild, a legal ward, or a child of a person standing in loco parentis.”

Bereavement Leave

An employee may use bereavement leave to:

Attend the funeral or alternative to a funeral of a child;
Make arrangements necessitated by the death of the child; or
Grieve the death of the child.

Employees must take such leave within 60 days after the date on which they receive notice of the death of the child. Employees who wish to take bereavement leave must provide 48 hours’ advance to their employer, unless providing such notice is not reasonable and practicable.

Employers may require that an employee provide reasonable documentation, such as a death certificate, a published obituary, or written verification of death, burial, or memorial services from a mortuary, funeral home, burial society, crematorium, religious institution, or government agency.

Substitution of Paid Leave

Under the Act, employees may elect to substitute paid leave, including family, medical, sick, annual, or personal leave, that is available pursuant to federal, state, or local law, a collective bargaining agreement, or employment policy. Unlike FMLA provisions, the right to substitute paid leave rests with the employee and the Act does not provide any right to the employer to require an employee to use available paid leave.

Retaliation and Enforcement

An employer may not retaliate or take any other adverse action against any employee who:

Exercises rights or attempts to exercise rights under this Act;
Opposes practices which such employee believes to be in violation of the Act; or
Supports the exercise of rights of another under this Act.

If an employee feels that his or her rights have been violated under this Act, he or she may file a complaint with the Illinois Department of Labor or file a civil action in court within 60 days after the date of the violation.

An employer who violates this Act is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $500 for the first offense and not to exceed $1,000 for the second offense.

Continue reading “Illinois Employers Must Provide Qualifying Employees Two Weeks of Unpaid Child Bereavement Leave”

The Emergence of Paid Sick Leave Laws

In last week’s blog entry, Lynne Anne Anderson highlighted the increasing number of states that mandate employers to provide school related unpaid leave for parents. This week’s entry looks at another growing trend in the employee leave space, paid sick leave. An increasing number of states and localities now provide paid sick leave. It is important that both employers and employees are aware of this trend and whether these laws apply to their locality or state.

The following states (and District of Columbia) have paid sick leave laws:

Continue reading “The Emergence of Paid Sick Leave Laws”