On August 31st, the California Legislature passed a new bill (AB 465) to ensure that waivers of employment rights and procedures, often through arbitration agreements, are made voluntarily and not as a condition of obtaining or keeping employment. As the Wall Street Journal recently reported, the number of companies using arbitration agreements in the workplace
Labor Commissioner’s First Opinion Letter On California’s New Paid Sick Leave Law
On August 7, 2015, the California Labor Commissioner issued its first opinion letter on one discrete issue under the California Health Workplaces Healthy Families Act which requires employers to provide paid sick leave to employees. The question posed to the Labor Commissioner was this:
If an employee currently works a regular 10 hour shift, and if the employer elects to proceed under a “no accrual or carry over” system … of providing paid sick leave, does the employer have to “front load” that employee at the beginning of the year with 30 hours of leave (three days at 10 hours per day) or only with 24 hours of leave on the theory that a “day” is limited to a maximum of eight hours?
Continue Reading Labor Commissioner’s First Opinion Letter On California’s New Paid Sick Leave Law
Upcoming Seminar: To Tweet or Not to Tweet? The Constantly Developing Landscape of Social Media in the Workplace
Summary of Program
Companies and their employees widely use social media in their daily business activities. These networking sites are used by employees to communicate with one another as well as current and potential customers. However, the use of social media may occasionally adversely impact an employer’s business or present other legal risks. What should
The Final Resolution of EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch After the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision
The EEOC issued a press release on July 20, 2015 announcing that the federal appeals court has dismissed Abercrombie & Fitch’s (“AF”) appeal of the EEOC’s religious discrimination case because AF made the decision to settle the case following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling.
Below is a summary of the court proceedings.
The case arose when Samantha Elauf, then a teenager who wore a headscarf or hijab as part of her Muslim faith, applied for a job at an AF store in her hometown of Tulsa, Okla. She was denied hire for failing to conform to the company’s “look policy,” which AF claimed banned head coverings. Elauf then filed a charge with the EEOC, alleging religious discrimination, and the EEOC filed suit against AF charging that the company refused to hire Elauf due to her religion, and that it failed to accommodate her religious beliefs by making an exception to its “look policy” prohibiting head coverings. The trial court granted summary judgment on liability to EEOC after holding that the evidence established that Elauf wore the hijab as part of her Muslim faith, that AF was on notice of the religious nature of her practice, and that it refused to hire her as a result. A jury subsequently awarded Elauf damages for the discrimination.Continue Reading The Final Resolution of EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch After the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision
Governor Signs Assembly Bill No. 987 – Requesting a Reasonable Accommodation is Protected Activity under FEHA
This bill was in direct response to the decision in Rope v. Auto-Clor System of Washington, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 635 (2013), which found that an employee who merely makes a request for an accommodation does not engage in protected activity for purposes of a FEHA retaliation claim. Under this bill, the Government Code