Employment

Subscribe to Employment

On May 23, 2022, the California Supreme Court handed down its decision in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services. The decision discusses the penalties recoverable by employees for an employer’s alleged failure to pay meal and rest period premiums where a proper meal or rest period is not provided. The Naranjo Plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit alleging that his employer failed to provide meal and rest periods or premium compensation in lieu thereof as required by California law. In addition to premium pay for meal and rest periods, Plaintiffs also brought derivative claims alleging failure to timely pay wages at termination and failure to provide accurate wage statements. Specifically, Plaintiffs argued that because meal and rest period premiums were not paid, they also were not timely paid all wages due at termination and their wage statements were invalid because they did not reflect the premiums that were not paid.Continue Reading California Supreme Court rules additional penalties may be recoverable for meal and rest period violations

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law that prohibits employers from implementing discriminatory practices in their diversity training programs, effective July 1, 2022. The bill, known as the “Individual Freedom Act,” amends the Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla. St. 760.01, et seq., to expand the definition of discrimination and subjects employers to liability for violations.

Expanding the definition of “discrimination”

Specifically, the Individual Freedom Act amends Fla. St. § 760.10, to prohibit public employers and private employers with 15 or more employees from requiring any individual – as a condition of employment, membership, certification, licensing, credentialing, or passing an examination – to participate in training, instruction, or any other required activity that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels the individual to believe any of the following concepts:

  1. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or national origin.
  2. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.
  3. An individual’s moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, sex, or national origin.
  4. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race, color, sex, or national origin.
  5. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin.
  6. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.
  7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin.
  8. Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color, sex, or national origin to oppress members of another race, color, sex, or national origin.

However, these concepts may be included in training or instruction if they are addressed in an objective manner and without endorsement.Continue Reading Florida expands definition of “discrimination” and increases employer liability for discrimination in workplace diversity training

It is that time of the year again – a time of fasting, reflection, prayer and community for Muslims all around the world.

In the Middle East, fasting Muslim employees have the added benefit of being able to observe the Holy Month of Ramadan in an environment where their needs are met not just from a social perspective, but also from a legal one by way of reduced working hours.

In the United Arab Emirates, there are three jurisdictions’ laws to take into consideration when assessing how Ramadan would affect your employees’, fasting and non-fasting working environment and we will discuss these here:

Onshore:

Historically, all employees, whether they were fasting or not fasting, Muslim or Non-Muslim, were entitled to reduced working hours during Ramadan (colloquially referred to as “Ramadan Hours”).

There was a bit of uncertainty in the market about how Ramadan Hours would work this year considering the New Labour Law[1] effectively left the position unclear by stating that the working hours during Ramadan will be determined by the Executive Regulations[2]. Speculation was rife and in particular it was expected that Ramadan Hours will only be available to fasting Muslim employees (similar to the DIFC and ADGM).

However, the Executive Regulations, once it was promulgated, provides that regular working hours shall be reduced by two hours per day and does not differentiate between fasting and non-fasting employees.

Therefore, employers outside of the DIFC and ADGM are obliged to comply with the law by giving their employees two hours less per day.
Continue Reading The Ramadan Roundup

On Wednesday, March 23, 2022, official revocation of Virginia’s COVID-19 permanent workplace safety standard became effective upon publication in the Richmond Times-Dispatch. That action followed a vote by the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry’s (DOLI’s) Safety and Health Codes Board (Board) earlier this week.

The Board initiated steps in February to end the standard…

On March 3, President Joe Biden signed into law one of the most significant modifications ever made to federal arbitration law. Known as the “Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021” (the Act), the new law essentially restricts employers from forcing workplace sexual harassment or assault claims to be resolved…

On March 1, 2022, the New York State Senate passed a suite of landmark employment legislation. Though several of the bills still need to be passed by the State Assembly – and, of course, ultimately signed into law by Governor Kathy Hochul – Empire State employers should nevertheless review the measures now so they will…

On Wednesday, February 16, 2022, the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry’s (DOLI’s) Safety and Health Codes Board (Board) convened and voted to recommend revoking the Commonwealth’s COVID-19 permanent workplace safety standard. This action comes after newly-elected Governor Glenn Youngkin issued Executive Order 6 directing the Board to convene an emergency meeting to consider…

On February 7, 2022, the United States House of Representatives passed H.R. 4445, which would modify the Federal Arbitration Act by carving out an exception for cases involving sexual harassment and assault. The bill titled, “Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021” – which was passed by the Senate on…

Pennsylvania House of Representatives members have proposed House Bill 2318, which proposes that employers must provide a “natural immunity” exemption to employees under any employer COVID-19 vaccine mandate policy. The bill defines “natural immunity” as possessing immunity to the COVID-19 virus as a result of previous infection caused by the virus. Thus, if the proposed…

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act or the Act), employees who raise concerns regarding safety or health in the workplace are protected against retaliation from their employer. With the publication of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA’s) emergency temporary standard (ETS), employers should be mindful that the Act’s whistleblower protections extend to employees who raise concerns about their employer’s compliance with the ETS.

OSHA ETS 

On November 5, 2021, OSHA published its much-anticipated ETS designed to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission in the workplace. We have previously discussed the requirements of the ETS, but generally speaking, the ETS requires employers with 100 or more U.S. employees to implement a policy that either (i) mandates COVID-19 vaccination for all employees, or (ii) encourages vaccination for all employees and requires testing of unvaccinated employees. The ETS also requires paid time off for vaccination and recovery from the side effects of vaccination, and it imposes recordkeeping obligations on employers.

Given OSHA’s limited number of workplace safety inspectors and the large number of employers subject to the ETS, employees will be key in enforcement of the ETS as suggested by recent remarks by the Biden administration. Jim Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, recently stated that OSHA will focus on job sites “where workers need assistance to have a safe and healthy workplace … [t]hat typically comes through in the form of a complaint.” And, on November 10, 2021, in the announcement of a joint initiative between the Department of Labor (DOL), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to increase protections for whistleblowers, Solicitor of Labor Seema Nanda remarked: “[i]n the U.S. Department of Labor’s fight against … unsafe or unhealthy workplaces, and other unlawful employment practices, we will use all tools available to protect workers from retaliation.”

Further, while employees previously could file complaints with OSHA raising workplace safety and health concerns related to COVID-19 under the Act’s General Duty Clause, the ETS makes it easier for OSHA to establish a violation of the Act. Unlike the amorphous General Duty Clause, the ETS sets out specific standards for employers and penalties for failure to comply. Moreover, the ETS obviates the need for OSHA to establish a recognized hazard – that is, the workplace condition or practice to which employees are exposed has the potential for death or serious physical harm – for each General Duty clause violation since OSHA has already determined that COVID-19 constitutes a recognized hazard determination in issuing the ETS.
Continue Reading Employers subject to OSHA ETS must be mindful of OSH Act whistleblower protections