By Vida L. Thomas

On January 9, 2017, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced his new “New York Promise” agenda, a sweeping package of reforms that the Governor promises will “advance principles of social justice, affirm New York’s progressive values, and a set a national standard for protections against all forms of discrimination.” As part of that agenda, the Governor signed two executive orders aimed at eliminating the state’s wage gap affecting women and racial and ethnic minorities. The executive orders preclude state employers from asking job applicants about prior salary information, and mandate that state contractors collect and report certain pay data.

Executive Order No. 161 prohibits “state entities” from asking job applicants about their prior compensation before a conditional offer of employment is made.[1]  If a state entity is already in possession of an applicant’s prior compensation, the entity cannot rely on that information when determining the new employee’s salary, unless required by law or a collective bargaining agreement.  “Compensation” means salary, wages, benefits, and any other forms of payment.  If an applicant volunteers his or her prior compensation information, then no violation of the Executive Order has occurred.  However, where an applicant refuses to provide this information, that refusal cannot be considered in making the decision about whether to hire that individual.

Read the rest of this article at HRUSA: http://blog.hrusa.com/blog/new-york-governor-continues-to-strengthen-equal-pay-protections/

In November 2016, Washington voters approved Initiative Measure No. 1433 (“IM 1433”) which provides for an incremental increase to the state minimum wage as of January 1, 2017 and also provides for paid sick leave benefits beginning January 1, 2018.  The stated intent behind IM 1443 is expressed in the initiative as follows:

“BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: …

It is the intent of the people to establish fair labor standards and protect the rights of workers by increasing the hourly minimum wage to $11.00 (2017), $11.50 (2018), $12.00 (2019) and $13.50 (2020), and requiring employers to provide employees with paid sick leave to care for the health of themselves and their families.”

Read the rest of this article at http://blog.hrusa.com/blog/washington-raises-minimum-wage-and-provides-paid-sick-leave/.

Date:  February 23, 2017

Time:  9:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m.

Summary of Program

The Labor and Employment Group at Weintraub Tobin is pleased to offer this informative seminar that will discuss applicable laws and best practices to help business owners, human resource professionals, and managers avoid liability when they hire, discipline, and terminate employees.

Program Highlights:

  • Lawful and effective job postings and interview questions
  • Effective policies, training, and documentation to reduce liability
  • Best practices for an effective and meaningful discipline process
  • The pros-and-cons/ins-and-outs of “Progressive Discipline”
  • The very real risk of retaliation liability
  • Voluntary quits versus “constructive” terminations
  • Wrongful termination claims in at-will employment

Seminar

9:00 am – 9:30 am  – Registration & Breakfast
9:30 am – 11:30am  – Seminar

Webinar: This seminar is also available via webinar. Please indicate in your RSVP if you will be attending via webinar.

Location

Weintraub Tobin Office

400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor | Sacramento, CA 95814

Parking Validation provided. Please park in the Wells Fargo parking garage, entrances on 4th and 5th Street. Please bring your parking ticket with you to the 11th floor.

Approved for two (2) hours MCLE.   This program will be submitted to the HR Certification Institute for review. Certificates will be provided upon verification of attendance for the entirety of the webcast.

There is no cost for this seminar. 
*This seminar will be limited to 75 in-person attendees.

Please RSVP by Monday, February 20th to Ramona Carrillo at rcarrillo@weintraub.com.

While the Department of Labor may have stayed any national increases to the minimum exemption salary thresholds for the time being, New York employers have not been granted the same reprieve. Effective December 31, 2016, the New York Department of Labor announced incremental increases to its minimum wage laws. With the increased minimum wages, increases were also made to the corresponding salary thresholds applicable to the executive and administrative exemptions to New York’s overtime laws. In New York, the exemption for professional employees has no salary threshold.

Read the rest of the article at http://blog.hrusa.com/blog/increases-to-new-york-minimum-wage-and-salary-thresholds/.

The United States Supreme Court decided last week to resolve a split in the lower courts as to whether the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”) preempts class-action waiver clauses in arbitration agreements between employers and their employees.  This is an important development, as the use of such waivers in arbitration agreements (if permissible) can drastically reduce an employer’s exposure to costly class actions alleging overtime violations, missed meal-and-rest periods, and other types of claims.   Brenden-Begley-05_web

A number of courts (including the appellate courts that hear appeals from federal courts in California and Illinois) agreed with the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) that the Act invalidates those waivers.  Meanwhile, three other federal appellate courts rejected the Board’s position.  Stepping into the fray, the high court last week decided to review two decisions that agreed with the Board and one that disagreed with the Board; namely, Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (No. 16-285), Ernst & Young v. Morris (No. 16-300), and NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. (No. 16-307).

The Supreme Court currently has just eight justices after the death last year of Justice Scalia, who authored a significant pro-arbitration opinion in 2011.  Without a replacement for Justice Scalia being confirmed by the U.S. Senate, the high court may split 4-4 on the resolution of these three cases, which have been consolidated.  Such a result most likely would create confusion rather than clarity as to the state of the law.  Accordingly, the issue may not be resolved without a ninth justice on the Supreme Court’s bench.

The takeaway here for employers is that it may be too soon to discard those class-action waivers.