Photo of Heather Martone

Heather Martone

Subscribe to Heather Martone's Posts
Contact:Read more about Heather Martone

As we previously detailed here and here, New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo recently outlined guidelines for when Empire State businesses can reopen and return to “in-person” operations. Under the Governor’s plan, reopenings are being determined, first, on a region-by-region basis and then, once a region is eligible to reopen, on a phased industry-by-industry basis.

Since the Governor made his initial reopening announcement, the State has published a slew of materials to assist businesses as they reopen. To further assist businesses, we have created a central location – i.e., this post – from which these materials can be accessed. Following, therefore, are links to, and details regarding, these important materials:
Continue Reading Update on everything you need to know about New York’s business reopening plan [Updated as of July 1]

California employers need to be aware of impending local minimum wage increases in 13 California cities and counties on July 1, 2020, under local ordinances.  The minimum wage will increase in the following localities on July 1 as described below.  Clients must make sure their minimum wage postings reflect these changes.

Locality Employers with 25

…

As we previously detailed here and here, New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo recently outlined guidelines for when Empire State businesses can reopen and return to “in-person” operations. Under the Governor’s plan, reopenings are being determined, first, on a region-by-region basis and then, once a region is eligible to reopen, on a phased industry-by-industry…

As we previously detailed here and here, New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo recently outlined guidelines for when Empire State businesses can reopen and return to “in-person” operations. Under the Governor’s plan, reopenings are being determined, first, on a region-by-region and then, once a region is eligible to reopen, on a phased industry-by-industry basis.…

As we previously detailed here and here, New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo recently outlined guidelines for when Empire State businesses can reopen and return to “in-person” operations. Under the Governor’s plan, reopenings are being determined, first, on a region-by-region and then, once a region is eligible to reopen, on a phased industry-by-industry basis.

Since the Governor made his initial reopening announcement, the State has published a slew of materials to assist businesses as they reopen. To further assist businesses, we have created a central location – i.e., this post – from which these materials can be accessed. Following, therefore, are links to, and details regarding, these important materials:

  • General information about Governor Cuomo’s “New York Forward” reopening plan can be found here. In conjunction with “New York Forward,” the Governor has also released this comprehensive reopening guide, which addresses business reopenings plus a host of other COVID-19-related issues.
  • To help businesses determine whether they can reopen within a particular region, the State has developed a business reopening lookup tool, which can be found here. The tool is intended to “help you determine whether or not your business is eligible to reopen, and the public health and safety standards with which your business must comply.”

Continue Reading Update on everything you need to know about New York’s business reopening plan

Yesterday, New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo outlined guidelines for when Empire State businesses can reopen and return to “in-person” operations.  Under the Governor’s plan, reopenings will be determined on a region-by-region and industry-by-industry basis.  And when businesses do ultimately reopen, they will be required to adopt a plan to protect employees and consumers, make the physical work space safer, and implement specific safety precautions.  Below we will delve into the Governor’s staggered, phased approach to reopening New York.
Continue Reading Gov. Cuomo announces guidelines to “reopen” New York

As we have previously reported here, California Assembly Bill 5 (the bill) is slated to codify the California Supreme Court’s 2018 landmark decision in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, requiring companies to apply the “ABC” test in classifying their workers. The ABC test requires that workers be considered “employees” instead of “independent contractors” if their work is part of the employer’s regular business, or if the employer exercises control over how its workers complete their jobs.

Yesterday, the California Senate approved the bill as currently drafted and returned it to the State Assembly, as a matter of formality, where it is expected to be approved. The bill received much opposition from various gig-economy companies despite Governor Gavin Newsom’s endorsement. Once the Assembly passes the bill, Governor Newsom is expected to sign it into law, with an effective date of January 1, 2020. The bill will apply to many workers previously classified as independent contractors, and will apply to app-based companies operating in the gig-economy space, which will notably transform the gig economy in California.

In recent months, the bill was amended to include various carveouts for approximately 50 industries, including salon workers, insurance agents, doctors, lawyers, accountants, and securities brokers.

Notably absent from the current form of the bill is an exclusion for gig-economy workers. App-based companies have traditionally operated on a business model that touts the flexibility of the independent contractor model, which has been embraced by many gig workers, notwithstanding the lack of legal protections afforded to employees in the areas of earnings and benefits. However, if the bill is signed into law in its current form, gig-economy workers will be considered employees entitled to labor protections, which will likely increase the amount of wages and benefits such workers currently earn.

It is anticipated that the bill will have far-reaching consequences in California, affecting approximately 1 million workers previously classified as independent contractors and companies whose business models are based on utilizing independent contractors, who tend to be less expensive than employees. Once the bill is signed into law, most workers will likely need to be classified as employees entitled to minimum wage, overtime, and unemployment benefits. These newly classified employees may also gain the right to join a labor union.
Continue Reading California leads the way in passing landmark legislation to classify gig workers as employees

The National Labor Relations Board (the Board) issued a 3–1 decision in Cordúa Restaurants, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 43 (2019), on Wednesday that provides significant new guidance regarding the intersection of arbitration agreements and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Board’s decision expressly authorizes employers to implement arbitration agreements that include collective waivers in direct response to employees filing a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action. Further, the Board held that warning employees that they will be discharged if they do not accept such an agreement — even with FLSA litigation pending — does not constitute a violation of the NLRA.

In January 2015, seven employees filed an FLSA collective action against Cordúa Restaurants, Inc., a Houston-based restaurant group, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Subsequently, 13 additional employees opted into the lawsuit. In response to the lawsuit, Cordúa implemented a revised mandatory arbitration agreement that was to be executed by all employees. The new agreement expressly required employees to waive FLSA collective rights and arbitrate FLSA claims on an individual basis. Though Cordúa had previously required employees to execute an arbitration agreement that waived class action rights, the new agreement marked the first time that employees were asked to waive collective rights. When the new agreement was presented to employees, managers informed employees that they would not be scheduled for any additional shifts unless and until they executed the new arbitration agreement. The charging parties asserted that both implementing the arbitration agreement because of the litigation and threatening to constructively terminate those who refused to sign the agreement constituted violations of the NLRA.Continue Reading NLRB offers new guidance on mandatory arbitration agreements following last year’s Epic decision