Earl “Chip” Jones is quoted in this article on the issues surrounding compliance officers as whistleblowers.

Agenda

View Article (subscription required)

Kevin O’Neill co-authored this article about how employers can combat workplace bullying.

Corporate Counsel

View Article (subscription required)

Katherine Cooper Franklin co-authored this article about how employers can combat workplace bullying.

Corporate Counsel

View Article (subscription required)

As 2017 winds down, and the window closes to complete any mandatory training, Kevin O’Neill, Senior Director of Littler Learning Group, chats with Dawn McKenney-Maxwell of Littler’s Knowledge Management team about employer training initiatives. Kevin identifies hot topics – social media and bystander training, for example – and reviews employer anti-harassment training duties, particularly in California. Kevin discusses how training approaches continue to evolve and how employers can embrace new trends and technology to make employee training more effective.
 

Kevin O’Neill comments on the uptick in requests for harassment training from employers.

The Washington Post

View Article 

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.

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.

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.
 

Update: On December 22, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a nationwide preliminary injunction banning the enforcement of Executive Order 13950.

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.)

On November 30, 2023, the Colorado Court of Appeals in Tender Care v.

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.

*  *  *

Jim Paretti weighs in on the NLRB’s latest effort to broaden the joint employer rule.

Law360 Pulse

View (Subscription required.)

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).

"If Chevron is overturned or modified in a significant way by the Court, some impacts will be immediate," the writers state. "For one, it will affect current litigation, such as the lawsuits that have been filed to challenge the Department of Labor’s independent contractor rule, the Davis-Bacon reform rule, and the ESG investing rule."

March 8, 2024

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.)

Andrea M. Kirshenbaum and Jennifer N. Capozzola dive into the U.S. DOL’s final rule (2024 IC Rule) for analyzing whether a worker should be classified as an employee or independent contractor under the FLSA and the lawsuits and challenges that remain in its path. 

The Legal Intelligencer

View

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.)

Philip Berkowitz discusses the Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis that makes it easier for employees to bring workplace discrimination claims against unwanted job transfers.

International Employment Lawyer

View (Subscription required.)