As we previously posted, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) CDC recently issued guidance on reopening the workplace. In its latest update on June 11, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) updated its COVID-19 Frequently Asked Questions (the Guidance) to provide further guidance on returning employees to the workplace. Notably, the Guidance covers (1) the return of high-risk workers to the workplace, (2) how to properly handle COVID-19-related accommodations requests, and (3) how to appropriately respond to pandemic-related harassment. As we discussed in our last post, employers should be wary of toeing the line on the issues highlighted below, as they may become prevalent in the wave of litigation expected to arise in the wake of the pandemic.

Employers may not involuntarily exclude older or pregnant workers from the workplace

In its updated Guidance, the EEOC cautions that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) – which prohibits discrimination in the workplace against individuals aged 40 and older – does not permit an employer to involuntarily exclude an employee from the workplace based solely on their age, “even if the employer acted for benevolent reasons such as protecting the employee due to a higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19.” The Guidance specifically pertains to employees aged 65 years and older, who are considered by the CDC to be at a higher risk of serious illness due to COVID-19. Moreover, the EEOC has stated that employers may still provide flexible working arrangements for workers aged 65 and older, and that doing so will not be viewed as treating younger workers (ages 40 to 64) less favorably.

Additionally, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII), employers are prohibited from involuntarily excluding from the workplace, furloughing, or placing on leave, pregnant employees, even if the intent behind the decision is to protect the employee’s health and safety.Continue Reading EEOC provides updated guidance related to excluding high-risk workers, required accommodations, and pandemic-based harassment

In addition to considerations under federal law and California’s wage and hour laws, California employers should consider privacy, harassment and discrimination laws that are unique to California. California laws tend to be more protective of employees than federal counterparts and these differences may impact how an employer needs to respond to coronavirus concerns.

Privacy

Unlike federal law and most states, California’s state constitution contains an express right to privacy that is generally understood to encompass actions by private individuals and entities which violate a privacy right. California courts, in turn, have held that this right to privacy extends to an individual’s medical information. Not only would an employee’s right to privacy be one reason employers should carefully consider and consult legal counsel before requiring a medical examination to test for COVID-19 (as further discussed below), but in the event an employer receives any information about an employee’s medical condition – like a positive diagnosis of COVID-19 – the employer must take care to keep such medical information confidential and separate from the employee’s personnel file, as required under federal and California law.

California’s right to privacy, however, does not prohibit employers from asking employees if they are planning travel or have traveled to areas with a high risk of exposure to the coronavirus. Further, employers do not violate an employee’s privacy interest if the employee voluntarily discloses medical information to the employer without any solicitation.Continue Reading California privacy, harassment and discrimination considerations during the coronavirus outbreak

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

On March 18, 2019, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed new legislation (S121) that significantly impacts the scope of certain employment agreements and settlement agreements between employers and employees/former employees. The controversial legislation addresses the following:

  1. Ban on waiver of substantive and procedural rights in employment contracts related to discrimination, harassment or retaliation claims

The legislation voids any provision in an employment contract that waives “any substantive or procedural right or remedy relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation or harassment.” In addition, the legislation prohibits an employer from prospectively waiving any right or remedy under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD).

This language could impact agreements such as jury trial waivers and arbitration agreements. To the extent that the law touches arbitration agreements, however, it will likely face challenges on the grounds that the law conflicts with, and is preempted by, the Federal Arbitration Act.Continue Reading New Jersey bans NDAs and certain waivers of rights in agreements with employees

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) prohibits harassment and discrimination in the workplace that is based on one or more of the categories commonly protected by local, state and federal discrimination laws. On April 1, 2016, new regulations interpreting and expanding upon the statutory language go into effect. Below, we provide a summary of some of the more notable updates to the regulations.

Counting Employees to Determine Whether an Employer Is Covered

The FEHA covers “[a]ny person or individual engaged in any business or enterprise regularly employing five or more individuals, including individuals performing any service under any appointment, contract of hire or apprenticeship, express or implied, oral or written.”

The regulations explain that employers must count individuals performing work both inside and outside of California. Although individuals who encounter potential discrimination or harassment outside the state of California are not protected themselves, they are counted for the purpose of assessing whether the employer is covered under the statute. Employers must also count all individuals on paid or unpaid leave, even those who are on administrative leave because of disciplinary suspension. No individual on a leave of absence of any kind should be excluded.
Continue Reading This Is Not a Prank: California’s New Amended FEHA Regulations Are Effective April 1

In our previous blog, “Are obese workers protected from discrimination” , we confirmed the advocate general’s opinion in the case of Kaltoft v Municipality of Billund (case C-354/13) that while obese workers were not automatically covered by EU disability discrimination law, the worker may be considered to be disabled where he or she is “severely

Summary

An opinion on whether an obese worker is protected under discrimination law has been issued by Advocate General Jääskinen. It was found that while obese workers are not automatically covered, where a worker is "severely, extremely or morbidly obese", the worker may be considered to be disabled and therefore protected under discrimination law.

We

Answering a certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the Virginia Supreme Court held last week that “Virginia recognizes a common law tort claim of wrongful discharge in violation of established public policy against an individual who was not the plaintiff’s actual employer but who was the actor in violation of public policy and who participated in the wrongful firing of the plaintiff, such as a supervisor or manager.” VanBuren v. Grubb, No. 120348, slip op. at 11-12 (Va. Nov. 1, 2012). That decision, in line with similar decisions in the District of Columbia, Arizona, Iowa, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, is in conflict with the Fourth Circuit’s longstanding position that individual supervisors cannot be held personally liable for unlawful discharges under Title VII. See Lissau v. Southern Food Serv., Inc., 159 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 1998).Continue Reading Virginia Joins Six Other States in Finding Supervisors Liable for Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy