Photo of Jennifer Terry

Jennifer Terry

Subscribe to Jennifer Terry's Posts
Contact:Read more about Jennifer Terry

Health officials in six Bay Area counties – Sonoma, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, and Contra Costa – have issued orders mandating the use of face coverings in public areas like essential businesses, common spaces, and on public transit. The San Francisco, Alameda, San Mateo, and Sonoma county orders went into effect on April 17; however, enforcement of the San Francisco, Alameda, and San Mateo county orders will not begin until 8 a.m. on April 22, 2020.  The Contra Costa and Marin county orders went into effect at 8 a.m. on April 20, 2020.

Acceptable face coverings

Under these orders, individuals should not purchase N95 or other factory-made masks in order to meet the requirements.  Those masks should be reserved for health care workers.  Instead, individuals should use any cloth, fabric, or other soft or permeable material, without holes, that covers only the nose and mouth and surrounding areas of the lower face – even if homemade.    Examples of acceptable face coverings include a scarf or bandanna; a neck gaiter; a homemade covering made from a t-shirt, sweatshirt, or towel, held on with rubber bands or otherwise; or a mask, which need not be medical-grade.
Continue Reading Bay Area counties mandate face coverings for essential businesses and other public areas

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

In response to the coronavirus outbreak, the U.S. Department of Labor recently announced new guidance outlining ways states can be more flexible in administering and expanding unemployment insurance (UI) programs in order to assist employees affected by COVID-19.

Generally speaking, UI is a joint state–federal program that provides cash benefits to eligible workers. Although each state has discretion to establish its own eligibility guidelines, an employee typically is eligible for UI benefits if they:

  • Are unemployed through no fault of their own;
  • Meet certain work and wage requirements; and
  • Meet any other additional state requirements.

Continue Reading States expand unemployment benefits for employees impacted by COVID-19

Beginning January 1, 2020, an individual’s deadline to exhaust their administrative remedies through advancing a charge of unlawful workplace discrimination, harassment, and retaliation with the California Department of Fair Housing and Employment (DFEH) will be extended from one year to three years.

Assembly Bill 9, known as the Stop Harassment and Reporting Extension (SHARE) Act, is a significant departure from California’s long-standing one-year statute of limitations and from the six-month statute of limitations period under federal law for claims made to the Employee Equal Opportunity Commission. In California, employment claims brought under the Fair Employment and Housing Act cannot be directly filed in court. Individuals must first exhaust their administrative remedies by filing a charge with the DFEH. Once the DFEH receives the charge, it can investigate the claim. If it determines that a violation of the FEHA has occurred, the DFEH may use its discretionary power to file a civil action on behalf of the aggrieved individual. If the DFEH is unable to determine whether a violation took place, or if an individual asks for an immediate right-to-sue letter (which is commonly the case, especially if the individual is represented by counsel), the DFEH closes its investigation and the individual has one year from the date of receipt of the right-to-sue letter to file a civil action against the employer.
Continue Reading California extends deadline to file employment claims from one year to three years