Employment Law Observer

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.

Can you believe this year is nearly over? Before popping the champagne, it's time to reprise our annual review of key labor and employment law developments in California. While California employers are thrown curve balls every year, the events of 2020 are simply unrivaled in living memory. Employers have been in a constant state of change all year, as they have been operating at the mercy of COVID-19 case numbers, stay at home orders, capacity limitations, and so much more. In the spirit of the season—and some semblance of normal—here is the first of our annual "12 days of the holidays" blog series. On this first day of the holidays, my labor and employment attorney gave to me: a partridge in a pear tree and SB 1159.

In a game-changing decision, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals recently ruled that temporary employees who have not filed a compensation claim under Wisconsin’s Worker’s Compensation Act may sue their temporary employer in tort. In other words, they may choose to file a worker’s compensation claim or file a lawsuit seeking damages not available under the Act. The decision is likely to cause shock waves among employers who use temporary employees--until this decision, employers were previously immune from tort claims by all employees, temporary or permanent, under the Act’s exclusive remedy provision.

Governor Walker signed Assembly Bill 25 (2017 Wisconsin Act 11) on Wednesday reducing burdens carried by employers that rely on teenage labor.  The law became effective June 23, 2017.

It's not too often that we hear of an employer being able to escape liability for a workplace injury, where the injury does, in fact, happen to an employee and it happens in the workplace. Below, we'll discuss a case where an employer did just that, however.

Craig Schultz was a drafter for a civilian company that had several buildings located on a large U.S. Air Force base. He drove his personal vehicle onto the base and was permitted to travel around the base and use military vehicles in light of his employment with the civilian company. While driving to work one morning, and while on base, he suffered symptoms of his diabetes, which led to him flipping his car and sustaining severe injuries. Schultz filed a workers' compensation claim seeking benefits because his injury occurred on his employer's premises, and thus, he claimed he was injured in the course of his employment. California Court Expands Going and Coming Rule 

The Florida First District Court of Appeals was recently presented with a question concerning the constitutionality of the 104-week limitation on temporary indemnity benefits based on an injured worker who was not yet ready to return to work after the 104 weeks of temporary benefits, but who was not able to prove eventual permanent and total disability benefits, and therefore not entitled to indemnity benefits. 

The California Supreme Court recently found that an employee's spouse could not recover for loss of consortium in his civil employment action, even considering the "power press" exception to the Labor Code. 

Former professional football player Bruce Matthews was a 19 year veteran of the NFL who retired in 2002 when he was with the Tennessee Titans. In 2008, he filed a claim in California claiming a right to workers' compensation benefits, even though there was no specific injury in California. After the claim was filed, the Titans filed a grievance against Matthews arguing that the suit violated his employment contract which specifically provided that any workers' compensation claim would be governed by Tennessee law. Due to a binding arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement, the parties ultimately arbitrated the dispute. The arbitrator found the choice of law provision to be valid and controlling, and ordered Matthews to "cease and desist" with the filing in California. Subsequently, Matthews filed suit in federal court to vacate the arbitration award. The District Court denied his request and confirmed the Arbitrator's Award.

In 2003 and 2004, a school district eliminated two employees’ custodial positions. The district offered the employees lower-paying janitorial jobs along with a promise to maintain their prior pay for two years. The employees accepted and continued to receive higher custodial wages until the pay cuts took effect in 2005 and 2006. When those pay cuts went into effect, the employees filed administrative charges alleging that the school district had violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) by forcing them into lower-paying positions because of their age. The district court concluded that the charges were barred because they had not been filed within 300 days of the discriminatory decisions in 2003 and 2004, as required by the ADEA. The employees appealed based upon the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Act). The Act changed how the limitations period is calculated for claims under the ADEA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, that involve “discrimination in compensation.” Under the Act, in applicable cases, each paycheck issued to an employee is treated as a new act of discrimination, and thus each paycheck resets the 300-day limitations period. The employees argued that their charges were filed within 300 days of their most recent paychecks, and therefore were timely under the Act. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit rejected this argument, holding that the Act was intended as a narrow adjustment that only applies to claims involving actual discrimination in rates of pay (i.e., unequal pay for equal work). In this case, the employees had alleged discrimination in their demotion, not that younger employees were paid more for equal work. Accordingly, the employees’ 2005 and 2006 paychecks were not fresh acts of discrimination under the Act, and their claims were time-barred. This decision is a positive development for employers and if followed by other federal courts will limit the Act to claims involving actual pay discrimination and will not allow employees to bring stale claims involving other forms of discrimination.

On June 28, 2011, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed into law HB1698, a major workers’ compensation reform package. The bill’s intended effect is to reduce employer medical costs, limit indemnity payouts on certain claims, including loss of trade cases; strengthen rules on fraud; and provide more equity in Commission decisions and awards. Some of the changes apply to accidents that occur on or after September 1, 2011; others apply to existing cases where benefits accrue after September 1, 2011. This is touted as a major piece of business-friendly legislation.