Employment Law Observer

In the spirit of the season, we are using our annual "12 Days of California Labor and Employment" blog series to address new California laws and their impact on employers.  On the fourth day of the holidays, my labor and employment attorney gave to me four calling birds and SB 1340.

In the spirit of the season, we are using our annual "12 Days of California Labor and Employment" blog series to address new California laws and their impact on employers. On the third day of the holidays, my labor and employment attorney gave to me three French hens, AB 1815, and SB 1137. 

On August 12, 2024, the Second Circuit held that a plaintiff's hostile work environment claims were subject to the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 ("EFAA"), even though the plaintiff's claims arose before the EFAA's enactment.

On May 11, 2024, a new law went into effect, amending New York City Administrative Code §§ 8-109 and 8-502. The law prohibits provisions in agreements that shorten the timeframe an employee has to file a claim for unlawful discriminatory practices, harassment, or violence under the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"). 

On April 29, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published a final version of its Enforcement Guidance on Workplace Harassment. The new guidance provides  updates and agency direction on workplace harassment in virtual or online work environments, as well as harassment related to sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, and religion.

On March 14, 2024, the New York Court of Appeals held that nonresident prospective employees who seek employment opportunities in New York State or New York City and are denied due to discriminatory conduct are eligible to assert claims under the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL") and New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL").

In the spirit of the season, we are using our annual "12 days of the holidays" blog series to address new California laws and their impact on California employers. On the fifth day of the holidays, my labor and employment attorney gave to me five golden rings and SB 700.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed a bill last month that amended the New York State's Human Rights Law to state that interns are protected from unlawful discrimination based on gender identity or expression. Since 2014, the New York State Human Rights Law has protected interns from unlawful discrimination based on their protected class status. In 2019, gender identity or expression was added as a protected class throughout the Human Rights Law, except in the intern provision. The newly enacted law appears purposed to correct an unintended oversight and to underscore that gender identity or expression is a protected class for interns.

Earlier this year, Mayor Eric Adams signed a bill amending the New York City Human Rights Law, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of an individual's height or weight. Set to go into effect on November 22, 2023, the bill does permit an employer to consider height or weight under the following limited situations:

In the spirit of the season, we are using our annual "12 days of the holidays" blog series to address new California laws and their impact on California employers. On this fifth day of the holidays, my labor and employment attorney gave to me: five golden rings and SB 331.

In the spirit of the season—and keeping some semblance of normal—we are using our annual "12 days of the holidays" blog series to address new California laws and their impact on California employers. On this second day of the holidays, my labor and employment attorney gave to me: two turtle doves and AB 1947.

On Thursday, September 3, 2020, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued an Opinion Letter shedding light on the agency's own ability to sue employers under Section 707(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The letter clarifies two notable areas for employers. First, the EEOC does not have broad authority to file a civil lawsuit against an employer under Title VII without a finding of discrimination or retaliation. Second, the EEOC must follow procedural guidelines—investigate a charge of discrimination, find reasonable cause, attempt to remedy such practice by conciliation—before a civil lawsuit may be filed.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin recently addressed an employer's responsibilities to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs. In EEOC v. Walmart Stores East, LP, the court examined whether Walmart was required to accommodate a candidate for an assistant manager position who informed Walmart—after he received his offer—that he could not work on Saturdays due to his religion. Walmart ultimately withdrew the offer of employment, but offered the employee the opportunity to seek a non-management position as well as the assistance of human resources in his job search. The employee refused Walmart's offer and asserted claims of religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII.

Conflict exists between every generation, at least to some degree, and this is not new. Advancements in technology, the status of the economy, and other large-scale factors create differences in perspective between older and younger generations. But employers should be vigilant and warn employees about the use of "Ok Boomer" and other age-related comments, as well as dismissive attitudes directed towards older workers. Given the prevalence of lawsuits alleging age discrimination and harassment, this latest popular phrase is cause for concern.

On November 8, 2019, Governor Andrew Cuomo expanded the list of protected categories under existing New York City Human Rights Law by signing the New York Reproductive Choice Law. Under this provision, employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees or their dependents for their reproductive health decisions. Specifically, the law prohibits employers from accessing personal information about an employee or dependent's "use or access of a particular drug, device or medical service without the employee's prior informed affirmative written consent." Further, employers cannot retaliate against or treat an employee differently because they "use or access a particular drug, device or medical service."

With the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election less than a year away, political conversations and activities are seeping into almost every aspect of daily life—even the workplace. While discussions on the topic can be harmless, they may also be heated. The Seventh Circuit's decision in Daza v. State of Indiana serves as a cautionary tale and reminder to both public and private employers to proceed with caution when it comes to politics in the workplace.

In an effort to align its legislation with the broader standards of the New York City Human Rights Law, New York State recently passed an amended anti-harassment bill which will significantly impact how employers handle harassment claims. Governor Cuomo signed the bill on August 12, 2019. Many of the new provisions, if not already in effect, will be effective within sixty days. All employers will be subjected to the new amendments, regardless of the number of employees.

A Federal District Court in New York recently fielded the issue of whether there is such a thing as a union relations privilege and the extent of that privilege. In Hernandez v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball (18 Civ.No.35), baseball umpire Angel Hernandez alleged that Major League Baseball (MLB) had discriminated against him with respect to crew chief assignments and post-season umpiring assignments. There was no evidence Hernandez filed a grievance under his collective bargaining agreement regarding his discrimination claim and this was key to MLB's defense. Hernandez asserted union privilege in order to protect any discussions with representatives of the Major League Baseball Umpires Association (the "Union"). A New York District Court Judge, agreeing with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, determined that under federal common law, any union relations privilege would only cover communications made in the context of representation by a union representative during disciplinary proceedings under a collective bargaining agreement.

On July 3, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom approved Senate Bill No. 188 providing legal protection from discrimination in the workplace and in public schools for natural and protective hairstyles historically worn by black people and people of color. This bill expanded the scope of what is considered a protected race category under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act to include traits "historically associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture and protective hairstyles." Following California's lead, New York then became the second state to ban discrimination based on natural hairstyles on July 12, 2019, when Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law S.6209A/A.7797A, which amends the Human Rights Law and Dignity for All Students Act. There is now proposed legislation in New Jersey as well, modeled after Senate Bill No. 188. This means employers in other states should take a hard look at their workplace hair and grooming policies to avoid discrimination actions.

On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States made a ruling that employers and their legal counsel need to be aware of. In Fort Bend County v. Davis, the Supreme Court ruled that the charge-filing requirements for EEOC discrimination claims filed under Title VII, including that Act's scope of charge and filing rules, are not jurisdictional and instead are claims processing rules which can be waived by a defendant if not timely raised in federal court proceedings. This decision resolves a split among multiple federal Circuit Courts which have confronted the issue.