UPDATE: This article was updated on August 15, 2018.

In April 2018, New York State and New York City each adopted expansive legislation directed at educating employees about workplace sexual harassment and reducing the incidence of harassment claims, as we reported in our prior article. 

New Poster for NYC Employers:

On August 29, 2018, Delaware Governor John Carney signed into law a bill (HB 360) addressing sexual harassment in the workplace. The new law broadly defines, and prohibits, sexual harassment and retaliation. The statute obligates employers (with 4 or more employees) to issue an information sheet on sexual harassment. It also requires larger employers (with 50 or more employees) to provide sexual harassment training for all employees and supervisors, making Delaware the fifth state to statutorily mandate sexual harassment training.

Earlier this year, New York State adopted anti-sexual harassment legislation that the Governor described as the "strongest and most comprehensive" in the country, and that is now fully effective. As of October 9, 2018, employers must distribute to all New York-based employees an updated anti-sexual harassment policy that covers a number of key areas. Over the next 365 days, employers also must train all New York-based employees regarding sexual harassment and retaliation, and repeat such training annually thereafter.

Happy New Year! As we turn the calendar to 2019, employers across the country are taking stock of recently-enacted workplace regulations on a wide variety of topics.¹

Employers in the Golden State, in particular, have a lot to juggle: new governor, new legislative session, and dozens of new labor and employment laws taking effect as of January 1.² These statutes touch on numerous issues, ranging from lactation accommodation to meal breaks for certain commercial drivers.³

Effective January 1, 2019, California SB 1343 greatly expanded Golden State employers' anti-harassment training requirements. The law not only extends coverage to employers with more than five employees, but it also mandates that employers provide anti-harassment training to all employees – not just supervisors – every two years. But what if an employer provided this training in 2018? Can the next training cycle wait until 2020? No, according to recent guidance from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH).

Last year, California enacted SB 1343,¹ amending California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to expand employers' sexual harassment training requirements.  Previously, employers with 50 or more employees had to provide their supervisory personnel with two hours of sexual harassment prevention training every two years.

Bruce Sarchet, of Littler’s Workplace Policy Institute, and Marissa Dragoo with the Littler Learning Group, take a look at a new type of workplace training – bystander intervention training – that is now encouraged for California employers. This optional training teaches employees how to evaluate and respond to problematic behaviors in the workplace, empowering them to interrupt difficult situations, such as sexual harassment.
 

As we have previously reported,¹ New York State and New York City both enacted legislation in 2018 that require New York employers to train their employees in workplace sexual harassment prevention. The state training legislation went into effect on October 9, 2018, and the city training legislation went into effect on April 1, 2019.

On August 30, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 778, revising mandatory anti-harassment training deadlines, and resolving confusion about retraining requirements for certain employees who already received training in 2018 or 2019.

Kevin O'Neill describes the live-action simulations of Littler Learning Group.

Training Magazine

View Article 

Helene Wasserman, Los Angeles-based Littler Shareholder and Trial Practice Group Co-Chair, reflects on some good, bad, and ugly impacts of the #MeToo movement since its inception, including recent legislative developments affecting California employers in particular. Discussing training, arbitration agreements, and the extended statute of limitations for FEHA claims with Littler Learning Group’s Marissa Dragoo, Helene provides insights and guidance for California employers as we move into the third year of the cemented #MeToo movement.
 

Kevin O'Neill explains the benefits of teaching via multimedia platforms such as videos.

Attorney at Work

View Article 

Asha Santos, Shareholder in Littler’s Boston office, explains the purpose of bystander intervention training and the value of diversity and inclusion sessions in today's workplace.
 

Bradford J. Kelley and James A. McGehee review a multimillion-dollar verdict for a U.S. Army veteran under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act and discuss the law's scope beyond other employment anti-discrimination laws.

Westlaw Today

View (Subscription required.)

Bradford Kelley comments on a case that he says shows several ways in which USERRA is more far-reaching than other employment anti-discrimination laws even though it gets less attention.

SHRM Online

View (Subscription required.) 

Barry Kuretzky discusses a recent Ontario Superior Court decision that punished an employer for trying to intimidate an employee through what the judge determined was a meritless counter claim.

Human Resources Director Canada

View (Subscription required.) 

Libby Henninger discusses the DOL’s proposal to expand overtime pay protections to more workers and why it may result in a legal battle.

Bloomberg Law

View (Subscription required.)

Alexander Thomas MacDonald discusses an upcoming Supreme Court case that may determine how much power the National Labor Relations Board should have. 

The Federalist Society

View

Thelma Akpan and Katelyn McCombs discuss a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision that reversed a long-held understanding of the Equal Pay Act and could have a significant effect on equal pay litigation.

Law360

View (Subscription required.)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has spoken, and employers that once relied exclusively on McDonnell Douglas might need to rethink their litigation strategy in employment-discrimination cases.

Update: This law was enacted on January 20, 2024.  It goes into effect March 20, 2024.

*  *  *

Bradford J. Kelley says employers are increasingly using AI and other technology to measure or enhance worker productivity and efficiency.

Asian Robotics Review

View

Alexander MacDonald comments on the implications of SpaceX’s lawsuit against the NLRB, which alleges that the board violates constitutional separation of powers and due process protections by wielding different types of authority in the same case.

Bloomberg Law

View (Subscription required.)

Alex MacDonald explains why natural labor law and principles may soon return to center stage in the legal world. 

North Dakota Law Review

View

At the end of January 2024, the UK Government set out a surprise proposal to introduce a £55 fee for individuals to bring proceedings in the Employment Tribunals (ET) and Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

On February 26, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Tricoast Builders, Inc. v. Fonnegra, No. S273368 (Cal. Feb. 26, 2024). For employers, the most important takeaway from this case is that the court held a litigant’s waiver of the right to a jury trial can be conclusive if a party seeking reversal of the waiver cannot demonstrate it caused prejudice to the party. The decision makes it more difficult for a party to convince a court to let it back out of a jury trial waiver in a civil case.

Background

After a recent Second Circuit decision curbed an ideological organization's ability to bring a case against a DEI program without proving someone had actually been harmed, Cindy-Ann L. Thomas said other courts will take note of the standing rationale.

Law360 Employment Authority

View (Subscription required.)

In London District Catholic School Board v.

Alyesha Asghar said the Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. St. Louis, which will make it easier for employees to pursue discrimination claims over job transfers, does not mean an end to IE&D.

The Washington Post

View (Subscription required.)

In a favorable ruling for employers defending against wage statement compliance claims, the California Supreme Court in Naranjo v. Spectrum Services Inc. (Naranjo) settled an age-old dispute by determining that an employer that reasonably and in good faith believed it was providing a complete and accurate wage statement has a viable defense to a claim for penalties under the California wage statement statute.

Background

Effective May 11, 2024, New York City now prohibits employers from entering into any type of agreement that shortens the statutory period by which an employee may file an administrative claim or complaint, or civil action, relating to unlawful discriminatory practices, harassment or violence under the New York City Human Rights Law, Admin. Code § 8-101, et seq. (NYCHRL).

As the Supreme Court mulls the Chevron decision, Michael Lotito says whatever the court decides, it’s likely little will change at the ground level of day-to-day enforcement activities.

Law.com

View (Subscription required.)

Jim Paretti comments on a recent boost in EEOC commissioner charges.

Bloomberg Law

View (Subscription required.) 

On August 6, 2019, New Jersey’s wage and hour laws were amended to include liquidated damages on some claims, a new retaliation cause of action, and expansion of the statute of limitations from two to six years (the “2019 amendments”).  Since then, litigants in New Jersey have struggled with the effect those amendments have had on their lawsuits.  One of the main points of confusion centered around whether the 2019 amendments applied retroactively to violations prior to August 6, 2019, or whether the changes applied prospectively only.  A significant conflict developed between federal and

Alexander MacDonald says overtime exemptions are about to get more expensive as the salary necessary to qualify for the FLSA’s “white collar” exemptions will rise in July and again in January 2025.

The Federalist Society

What do you get when you combine a business-backed ballot initiative, the state legislature and governor’s office, and labor organizations? A deal. California style.

In Ruiz Mattei v. Commercial Equipment Finance, Inc.,¹ the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico determined that claims under the Unjustified Dismissal Act² and the Workplace Discrimination Act³ are transferable to the employee’s heirs following the employee’s death.

Marlene Muraco, Angela Rafoth and Emily Mertes discuss reforms to California's Private Attorneys General Act that address challenges and ambiguities faced by both courts and employers in the 20-year-old law.

Westlaw Today

View (Subscription required.)