Employment Law Observer

On September 4, 2024, Governor Kathy Hochul signed the Retail Worker Safety Act  (the "Act") into law. The Act, which takes effect on March 3, 2025, requires retail employers to develop and implement programs to prevent workplace violence. It also requires retail employers with 500 or more retail employees nationwide to install panic buttons by January 1, 2027.

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 twelfth and final day of our holiday series, my labor and employment attorney gave to me twelve drummers drumming and SB 553.

With political and social activism surging in the workplace, Frith et al. v. Whole Foods Market Inc. et al., may prove to be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to employee discrimination claims. At issue in the polarizing case decided in a Massachusetts' federal court was whether Whole Foods violated federal discrimination laws when it barred employees from expressing support for the Black Lives Matter movement by wearing masks and apparel referencing BLM.

Six months into a global pandemic, employers across the United States continue to confront a series of new economic realities. One particular phenomenon employers are having to deal with is a surge of political and social activism in the workplace. Individuals across the country are voicing opinions in what can only be described as a highly polarized political environment. Many employees are expressing their viewpoints both on social media and in the workplace, and it is unreasonable to expect these conversations will not happen during working hours.

Last December, this blog detailed SB1343 and the law's requirements for employers with five or more employees to provide anti-harassment training. SB1343 expands existing anti-harassment training requirements, and also covers seasonal and temporary workers. Employers are required to provide their non-supervisory employees with one hour of training, and supervisory employees are required to complete two hours of training. The training must then be repeated every two years thereafter. Originally, the deadline for completing the initial training was set at January 1, 2020.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently explained that an employee’s inconvenience from a neutral workplace policy or the employer’s discretionary denial of benefits cannot support a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”), or the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).

Earlier this month, the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) General Counsel issued Memorandum GC-18-04 providing guidance on handbook rules in light of the Board’s Boeing Company decision. In Boeing, the Board reevaluated when a seemingly neutral work rule, handbook rule, or employment policy violates the rights of workers granted by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In doing so, it adopted a new test balancing the negative impact a given rule may have on an employee’s ability to exercise his or her Section 7 rights versus the employer’s right to maintain a disciplined and productive workplace. It also laid out three categories of rules: those that are always lawful, those that are usually always unlawful, and those it depends-type rules falling into the middle category. The GC’s guidance sorts common workplace policies into these three buckets.

It's the end of the year and while everyone is busy, employers in California should be aware of new laws and regulations that go into effect on January 1, 2018. In the spirit of the season, we are using the next "12 days of the holidays" to blog about one California law a day and that law's impact on California employers. On the eighth day of Christmas, my Labor and Employment attorney gave to me – eight maids a milking and AB 260.

Employers, another notice provision has taken effect in California. Beginning on July 1, 2017, employers with at least 25 employees must now provide written notice to new employees that explain the rights of victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. More specifically, the required notice mandates employers notify new employees of their rights under Labor Code Sections 230 and 230.1. These sections detail the following points:

California employers know they must compensate any employee unused and vested vacation pay upon separation from employment. Once vacation is vested, the right to vacation pay cannot be forfeited. But what happens when vacation rights have not vested? The Court of Appeals recently decided this question in Minnick v. Automotive Creations, Inc.

At-will employment is the default rule in Wisconsin. Employers may terminate for any reason or no reason at all.  However, that relationship can be overridden by contract, in some cases inadvertently, through employee policies and other post-employment agreements. In a case that came as good news for employers, last week, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed that it would not read a policy as overriding the employment at-will relationship unless the policy evidenced an intent to do so.

Following in the footsteps of cities like Seattle and San Francisco, last week New York City's Mayor, Bill de Blasio, signed into law a package of "Fair Workweek" laws. The new laws will go into effect on November 26, 2017, and are aimed at ending so-called "abusive scheduling practices."

OSHA’s new anti-retaliation rule went into effect on December 1, 2016. The purpose of the new rule was to clarify what OSHA considered “the existing implicit requirement” that an employer work-related injury and illness policies be reasonable and not deter or discourage employees from reporting injuries. Since that time, employers and lawyers alike have waited to see what types of policies OSHA would target under the new rule. The Department of Labor’s recent complaint filed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin sheds some light on that question.