Photo of Shauna N. Correia

Shauna Correia is a shareholder in the firm’s San Francisco office, practicing in the Labor & Employment group. She is an accomplished negotiator and experienced trial attorney. Shauna represents businesses in a broad range of litigation matters in both California and Nevada. Many of Shauna’s clients rely on her for her advisory and risk-management capacities, particularly with regard to compliance with employment laws and avoiding litigation.  She also reviews and drafts employment-related agreements and handbooks, conducts workplace investigations, and provides statutorily required trainings.

Employer-sponsored “wellness programs” have become very popular, and are touted for the potential benefits to employees and employers alike: reduced absenteeism, lowered health care costs, reduced injuries, improved morale and productivity.  But are these programs compliant with the ADA and other federal laws?

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has issued proposed regulations that are hoped to help employers make the most out of wellness programs while complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  The EEOC is also publishing a fact sheet for small businesses and a “Q&A” for the general public.Shauna Correia.standing

Key points from the guidelines:

Employers covered by the ADA (i.e. with 15 or more employees), who generally are restricted from collecting medical information from employees under the ADA, can do so as part of a wellness program.  The wellness program must be designed to promote health and prevent disease, and must have a “reasonable chance” of improving health or prevent disease. If it is, an employer may conduct voluntary medical examinations, including voluntary medical histories, as part of an employee health program available to employees, but still must comply with the ADA, including non-discrimination, reasonable accommodation, and confidentiality requirements.
Continue Reading EEOC Weighs in on Employer Wellness Programs

Shauna Correia.standingIn a time where employees are using personal devices and cell phones for work, and employers permit employees to use computer and phone systems for “incidental” personal reasons, confusion can arise over who owns the devices or the information transmitted over the device. This confusion can create liability and potential problems for employers, such as whether an employer is obligated to pay for any part of an employee’s personal phone, and what devices and information must be provided by the employer in a lawsuit. Please join us for an informative overview of the potential dangers and strategies employers may be able to use to help manage these pitfalls and risks.

About Our Speaker

Shauna Correia | Weintraub Tobin

Shauna Correia is of counsel in the firm’s Labor & Employment and Litigation groups. Shauna is licensed to practice in state and federal court in both California and Nevada. Her employment practice focuses on the defense of employers against wrongful termination, wage and hour, discrimination, intentional tort, civil rights, and leave law claims. She is an accomplished negotiator and experienced trial attorney. She also drafts and negotiates executive employment, partnership and shareholder agreements and reviews and revises employee handbooks and policies. In addition to litigating and negotiating resolution of active disputes, many of Shauna’s clients rely on her for her advisory and risk-management capacities, and her ability to find ways to reduce exposure or avoid litigation.
Continue Reading SEAC Webinar: Yours, Mine and Ours: Legal Issues Surrounding Personal and Employer Property

Earlier this year, we advised employers that the Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program (“CBP”) was going into effect, beginning September 30, 2014. (Govt.  Code §65081.)  This post provides additional information on the requirements and implementation.

As a reminder, the CBP is now mandatory for  any public, private, or non-profit entity employing an average of 50

Gov. Jerry Brown has resurrected an expired law, Cal. Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5. This is a positive development for ethical lawyers and their clients, who find themselves dealing with bad-faith litigation tactics coming from another other party or attorney, but without a meaningful way to combat it.  This law restores trial courts’ authority

The California legislature has a number of important bills pending passage that would significantly affect employers.  We are following these bills closely so that employers can be prepared for what 2015 may bring.  Click here for a look at the status of the bills of interest to California private-sector employers as the legislature begins its