During vacation periods or times of high project workloads and tight deadlines, working overtime may be necessary to cover for absent colleagues or manage increased workload. These situations can lead to legal challenges, especially when disputes arise regarding overtime performance and compensation. Such conflicts are often the result of uncertainties in employment contracts.Continue Reading Overtime compensation in Germany: Staying compliant to avoid legal challenges
Workplace Laws and Regulations
Federal judge requires state of Texas to file new lawsuit to challenge recent EEOC guidance on gender identity discrimination
In July of this year, a Texas federal district court judge denied the state of Texas’ request to vacate the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) most recent guidance relating to gender identity discrimination. In doing so, the federal court held that the state could not bring the challenge in a previously filed lawsuit regarding prior EEOC guidance but, instead, must file a new lawsuit.
The state of Texas first took issue with the EEOC’s 2021 guidance, which required bathroom, dress code, and pronoun accommodations for employees based on gender identity. Texas filed suit against the EEOC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, requesting the court vacate the 2021 guidance (2021 Lawsuit). On October 1, 2022, the court vacated the 2021 guidance and issued a declaratory judgment that the guidance was unlawful on several grounds, holding that it: (1) was contrary to law because Title VII, even after the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, does not require employers to provide accommodations regarding bathrooms, dress codes, or pronoun usage based on gender identity; and (2) unlawfully extended Bostock’s “non-discrimination holding” beyond statutory limits imposed by Congress. The EEOC did not appeal the district court’s judgment.Continue Reading Federal judge requires state of Texas to file new lawsuit to challenge recent EEOC guidance on gender identity discrimination
Reminder to New York employers: Amendments to nondisclosure rules will require updates to separation and settlement agreements
During the height of the #MeToo movement, New York lawmakers passed a host of workplace-related legislation. This included adoption of Section 5-336 of the New York General Obligations Law, which governs the use of nondisclosure provisions in agreements resolving claims of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. On November 17, 2023, Empire State legislators passed several key amendments (the “Amendment”) to the existing law, which took effect immediately.
By way of background, Section 5-336 was originally passed to protect nondisclosure provisions in agreements resolving claims of sexual harassment. Under Section 5-336 and prior to the Amendment, the law prohibited employers from including nondisclosure provisions in such agreements unless it was the employee’s preference and the employer complied with certain procedural requirements, including: (i) the inclusion of the provision is the employee-complainant’s preference; (ii) employee’s receipt of 21 days to consider the nondisclosure provision, a period that could not be shortened or waived (even if the employee wanted to); (iii) a 7-day revocation period; and (iv) employee’s preference for confidentiality memorialized in a separate written agreement.Continue Reading Reminder to New York employers: Amendments to nondisclosure rules will require updates to separation and settlement agreements
California employment law legislative update: bills that will become law in 2024 and beyond
We previously alerted employers to California employment law bills that were still alive toward the end of the most recent legislative session. That session ended on September 14, 2023 and Governor Newsom had until October 14, 2023 to either sign, approve without signing, or veto the bills that survived. Below is an update on the fate of these employment law bills so employers will know which ones are slated to become law. The Governor vetoed several noteworthy bills that would have expanded the state’s protected classes, employee work-from-home rights and CalWARN notice requirements. On the other hand, the Governor signed multiple significant employment law bills into law, including those creating increased paid sick leave requirements, expanded re-hiring rights, a new reproductive loss leave, and a new requirement that employers establish a workplace violence prevention plan. Unless otherwise noted, the approved bills will take effect January 1, 2024.Continue Reading California employment law legislative update: bills that will become law in 2024 and beyond
California employment law legislative update: Bills remaining on track to become law in 2024
The California Legislature had until September 14, 2023, to pass bills in the current Legislative Session before these bills are sent to Governor Newsom to either sign, approve without signing, or veto each bill by October 14, 2023. Several key bills relate specifically to employment law, including expansion of paid sick leave, CalWARN notice requirements…
U.S. Department of Labor proposes nearly 55 percent increase in the salary threshold for white collar exemptions with automatic increases
On August 30, 2023, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) proposed a regulatory rule that would raise the minimum salary threshold for employees who are classified as “exempt” under the white collar exemptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by nearly 55 percent. The proposed rule would also create a new mechanism for subsequent…
Tomorrow’s supply chain – are dashcams in work vehicles legal under U.S. labor law?
Over the past several years, a growing number of businesses that utilize delivery drivers have begun installing dashcam and similar surveillance technologies in their vehicles. This is for a host of a reasons, including to protect employee and customer safety, ensure driver efficiency, and monitor vehicle location. In response, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB…
Tracking the progress of the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill
The UK government has announced that it will support the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill (the Bill), which represents one of the most notable changes to UK workplace discrimination law since the 2010 Equality Act. The Bill imposes a proactive duty on employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment of its employees, including by third parties, with a compensation uplift where they fail to do so.
Why the Bill is being introduced
In 2018, the Women and Equalities Select Committee (WESC) published a damning report on the prevailing extent of sexual harassment in the workplace. This report, along with campaigns by the Fawcett Society and other groups, led to the UK government undertaking its own consultation from 11 July to 2 October 2019, which found that 54% of respondents had experienced harassment at work.
High-levels of harassment, and notably sexual harassment, in the workplace has been common place for years. The 2022 Gender Equality in the Workplace report by Randstad found that 72% of the 6,000 women polled had experienced or witnessed harassing behaviour by male colleagues, and that 67% of them had experienced some form of gender discrimination. 32% of the women polled felt that their careers had been affected by sexual harassment.
Studies have shown that harassment is not limited to male colleagues, but is also inflicted by third parties. A 2018 report by the TUC found that 36% of 18-34 year olds who have experienced some form of workplace harassment said that the perpetrator was a third party.Continue Reading Tracking the progress of the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill
2023 – All change for UK employment law?
2023 looks set to be a year of significant change for HR professionals with the progression of new and reformed laws proposed and backed last year. Here are some of the key legislative/policy developments to watch out for:
Flexible working – Changes to the statutory flexible working regime are expected. The new rules will extend the right to request flexible working to all employees from day one of employment. Employees will be allowed to make two requests in a 12-month period (rather than the current limit of one) and employers will have less time to respond (two months, not three). For more information, see our previous Employment Law Watch blog.
Carer’s leave – A new statutory right for carers to take a week’s unpaid leave per year is proposed. The leave is intended to be used to take planned time off (rather than emergency leave) to undertake caring responsibilities.
Neonatal leave and pay – A new statutory leave is proposed which will allow parents of sick or premature babies to take up to 12 weeks’ paid leave on top of any maternity or paternity leave entitlement. The leave is proposed to be a day one right for new hires and to apply to those parents whose babies need to be in hospital in the first 28 days post birth with continuous stays of seven days or more. Continue Reading 2023 – All change for UK employment law?
Flexible working reforms: what do UK employers need to know?
Potential reform of the statutory flexible working regime has been on the agenda for several years but finally, after a consultation first launched in autumn 2021, the UK government has announced its intention to bring about some changes. Legislation will need to be introduced, and the timescale for that is currently unknown, but employers in England, Wales and Scotland will need to be prepared to review and amend their flexible working policies and procedures to ensure they comply with the new requirements.
Contrary to some headlines, the changes do not introduce flexible working as the default position. The reforms fall short of flexibility being the starting point (i.e. only to be deviated from if there was a good reason) and instead retain the current principle that there is a right to request flexible working, but no right to work flexibly. This means that, like now, employers will still be able to turn down requests if there is a good business reason for doing so or if eligibility criteria are not met. The eight business reasons for rejecting requests (the burden of additional costs; detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand; inability to reorganise work among existing staff; inability to recruit additional staff; detrimental impact on quality; detrimental impact on performance; insufficiency of work during the periods they propose to work; or planned structural changes) will remain the same.Continue Reading Flexible working reforms: what do UK employers need to know?