The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic has had, and will continue to have, a substantial impact on the U.S. workplace. We have prepared a series of FAQs compiled based on some of the more common questions that clients with California-based employees have posed to us over roughly the past six weeks.
These FAQs are general and high-level
On April 7, 2020, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti suspended a paid sick leave ordinance by the Los Angeles City Council and signed an emergency order providing for mandatory paid sick leave for many large employers with essential employees working in the City of Los Angeles (L.A. Supplemental PSL), effective immediately.
Existing Los Angeles City paid sick leave laws already surpassed California state law mandates by providing twice the minimum allotment under state law. Under the existing Los Angeles City paid sick leave ordinance, employers were already required to provide employees with at least 48 hours (six days) of paid sick leave or one hour for every 30 hours worked.
The recent enactment of the federal paid sick leave provision of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) applies only to companies with fewer than 500 employees. The L.A. Supplemental PSL now seeks to “bridge the gap” by creating mandatory paid sick leave for the Los Angeles employees of many larger employers who are not bound by the FFCRA.
Continue Reading Los Angeles emergency order mandates supplemental paid sick leave for large employers
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) passed on March 27, 2020, authorizing more than $2 trillion to battle COVID-19 and its economic effects on the U.S. economy. For U.S. employers, the CARES Act provides significant support in the form of loans for small businesses, a loan forgiveness program to encourage employers to retain their workforces during this difficult time, and expanded unemployment benefits applying in most cases to terminated employees, furloughed employees, and those given reduced hours. It also significantly expands the definition of who can receive unemployment benefits to include self-employed workers in the gig economy, independent contractors, and those who may not have an expanded work history.
Although a more fulsome discussion of the contents of the CARES Act can be found here, the purpose of this blog is to discuss certain provisions of the CARES Act on a high level and to identify concerns that employers may face in making the decision to furlough or reduce their workforce.Continue Reading To RIF, or Not to RIF: How federal loans can help small and mid-size businesses under the CARES Act
Employers are facing increasingly difficult business decisions as a result of COVID-19 and, in developing a plan of action, must take care to avoid the many risks for wage and hour litigation that may be asserted in the wake of those decisions, especially as they relate to the execution of temporary layoffs or furloughs. On March 17, 2020, Governor Newsom issued an unprecedented executive order significantly changing notice requirements for employers contemplating layoffs in California. This blog addresses two of the hidden risks that are potentially triggered at the outset of a furlough: (1) WARN notices under both Executive Order N-31-20 and federal WARN, and (2) the payment of wages, including accrued unused vacation or paid time off. Whether employers call it a furlough, a temporary layoff, or a shutdown, the legal analysis is largely the same.
Notification periods under WARN complicate furloughs, even with California’s executive order
In a mass layoff or plant closure situation, employers may be required to provide notice under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act and equivalent California WARN Act (collectively, the Acts). COVID-19 creates WARN compliance challenges for many employers. This is particularly true for employers who are required to quickly shut down operations by state or local mandate, such as bars and gyms in many California cities. These unique circumstances may create a tension with WARN obligations.
Both the federal WARN and California WARN require employers at a covered establishment to provide 60 days’ notice to covered employees prior to a closing or mass layoff, as defined in the Acts. The California WARN, modeled after the federal WARN, applies to a wider range of employees. There are a number of parameters, exceptions, and industry-specific guidelines under both the federal and California WARN. Of utmost importance here, however, is the fact that the California Court of Appeals has held in The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers v. NASSCO Holdings Inc. that California WARN applies to temporarily furloughed employees who have been furloughed for less than six months, even though the same furlough would not have triggered notice obligations under federal WARN which only applies to furloughs in excess of six months.Continue Reading California executive order suspends and modifies California WARN requirements due to COVID-19 but employers contemplating furloughs are not yet in the clear