As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to transform the workplace, lawmakers and agencies are grappling with how to regulate its use in employment settings, from hiring practices to employee monitoring. The next administration’s approach to AI regulation will help shape the balance between innovation and worker protection, with each political party offering distinct views on the role of government oversight. A shift in power could lead to changes in how the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), the U.S.

Attorneys Colette Kopon and August Johannsen join Pro Bono Committee Member Lavanga Wijekoon in discussing their participation in Littler’s pro bono clinic, held in collaboration with the National Immigrant Justice Center, focused on assisting migrant families seeking asylum in the U.S.

Pro Bono Committee Member Jenny Schwendemann is joined by Associate Don Nguyen, Customer Success Senior Coordinator Megan Gunn, Director Christie Bhageloe (Veterans Consortium Discharge Upgrade Program) and Associate Corporate Counsel Kate Brown (Amazon) to discuss Littler’s pro bono collaboration with Amazon in support of The Veterans Consortium.

Shareholder Rachel Fendell Satinsky speaks with Pro Bono Committee Member Dave Haase regarding her work with the Pennsylvania Innocence Project over the years.

As part of the annual National Celebration of Pro Bono hosted by the American Bar Association, Littler is highlighting various pro bono efforts from around the firm. Our attorneys and professional staff demonstrate their commitment to pro bono by providing significant efforts to organizations in their communities.
   

On June 29, 2024, Governor Newsom signed into law an amendment to California Code 1770, clarifying the scope of SB 478. Under SB 478 and previously published guidance from the attorney general, California restaurants were effectively prohibited from charging service fees or other surcharges, which many restaurants have implemented to offset rising costs, unless the amount of the service fee was specifically identified as part of the listed prices.

On October 4, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (Case No. 23-1039) to decide whether plaintiffs who are members of historically majority communities asserting “reverse discrimination” claims under Title VII must show there are “background circumstances” that support the inference that the defendant is the “unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”

The “Background Circumstances” Requirement

Voters in several states will decide whether marijuana or, in one case, psychedelic substances should be legal in the upcoming November 5, 2024 general election. Employers should keep their eyes on these ballot measures and prepare for questions regarding changes to workplace policies if some or all of them pass. A rundown of the ballot measures in these jurisdictions follows.

Marshall v. Mercantile Exchange Corporation, 2024 CanLII 71128  (ONSC), is an action for wrongful dismissal where the employee claimed he could not mitigate his damages by seeking alternative employment indefinitely because of a mental health condition (i.e., stress and depression) allegedly arising out of his termination. He claimed a 26-month notice period. The employer sought an independent medical examination (IME) of the employee pursuant to s.

A number of Littler lawyers in our office in Toronto, Ontario, Canada recently authored the Ontario section of Employment: North America for Lexology, Getting The Deal Through.

This publication provides an overview of labour and employment law in Ontario, Canada, focusing on the following categories: 

This Annual Report on EEOC Developments—Fiscal Year 2019 (hereafter “Report”), our ninth annual publication, is designed as a comprehensive guide to significant EEOC developments over the past fiscal year. The Report does not merely summarize case law and litigation statistics, but also analyzes the EEOC’s successes, setbacks, changes, and strategies. By focusing on key developments and anticipated trends, the Report provides employers with a roadmap to where the EEOC is headed in the year to come.

This year’s Report is organized into the following sections:

The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has created a host of challenges for employers while accelerating fundamental shifts already underway in the workplace. As the pandemic’s many lasting implications for the workplace and the way we work begin to emerge, Littler surveyed more than 900 employers, based in North America and with operations around the world, on their concerns and the actions they have taken in response.

Due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments across the world have implemented various measures to slow the spread of the virus, protect workers’ health and safety, and assist employers to recover from the economic crisis, among other programs.

With stay-at-home orders across the country being lifted, employers are navigating a host of legal and operational issues in bringing employees back to the workplace in the wake of COVID-19.

In Littler’s survey of more than 1,000 in-house counsel, HR professionals and C-suite executives, we gathered insights about when employers will reopen their workplaces (if at all), how they plan on doing so safely, what accommodations they will make for remote work, and their top liability concerns.

Employers with employees in Ontario often ask about legislative requirements under various employment statutes, including mandatory policies, training and postings under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, the Pay Equity Act, and the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, 2017.  To make this information conveniently available, the Littler Toronto office assembled these requirements in a single publication. 

Many employers are hopeful that a vaccine for COVID-19 will be the silver bullet that will enable employers to return to some semblance of a pre-COVID workplace. Assuming a vaccine is developed, can an employer mandate that employees be vaccinated before coming back to work? What happens when an employee cannot or will not take this vaccine, either for religious, medical, or other personal reasons? Can a union or group of workers successfully challenge employer-mandated vaccines?

Government-ordered office closures that swept much of Europe early in 2020 appear to have helped convince employers across the continent that workers could be just as productive remotely as they could while gathered in offices.

Employers with employees in Ontario often ask about legislative requirements under various employment statutes, including mandatory policies, training and postings under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, the Pay Equity Act, and the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, 2017.  To make this information conveniently available, the Littler Toronto office assembled these requirements in a single publication. 

Workforce reductions, whether in the form of hours reductions, furloughs, or layoffs, are often a last resort for employers experiencing financial pressures. Nevertheless, when these actions are necessary, time typically is of the essence, because when shedding payroll is the objective, the more drawn out the process, the smaller will be any financial savings. But quick decisions need not be careless decisions. The key is to thoroughly understand the risks before making decisions that later may result in potential liability.

The COVID-19 vaccine breakthroughs in late 2020 brought hope that the pandemic’s end could be in sight, but a return to normalcy will require widespread inoculation, raising an urgent question: Should employers mandate COVID-19 vaccinations for their workers?

Technology facilitates remote work in ways that, years ago, just were not possible. Take telecommuting. These days, all kinds of jobs that had to be performed at an employer site are now performed remotely. Some call center workers, for example, now work from home using home telephones — no brick-and-mortar call center needed. Some secretaries now telecommute using laptops and the internet. Some teachers now teach remotely using laptops and video links.

Employers subject to provincial legislation (i.e., not federal employers) that have employees in Ontario often ask about legislative requirements under various employment statutes, including mandatory policies, training, postings, and information sheets under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, the Pay Equity Act, the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, 2017, the Working for Workers Act, 2021, a

This Annual Report on EEOC Developments—Fiscal Year 2020 (hereafter “Report”), our tenth annual publication, is designed as a comprehensive guide to significant EEOC developments over the past fiscal year. The Report does not merely summarize case law and litigation statistics, but also analyzes the EEOC’s successes, setbacks, changes, and strategies. By focusing on key developments and anticipated trends, the Report provides employers with a roadmap to where the EEOC is headed in the year to come.

This year’s Report is organized into the following sections:

We have created a high-level guide that gives an “at a glance” snapshot of the severity of lockdown restrictions in 15 countries across Asia Pacific (APAC).  The guide covers the following topics: 

We have created a high-level guide that gives an “at a glance” snapshot of the severity of lockdown restrictions in 28 countries across Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA). As COVID-19 developments across EMEA slow, the June guide will be the final monthly update of this guide and we will next update the guide when the information substantially changes. We hope you have found the content we have provided over the last 12 months useful.

The Firm’s International Practice Group has once again updated its COVID-19 Vaccination: A Littler Global Guide on Legal & Practical Implications in the Workplace. Two years into the pandemic, experts agree that – in the absence of newly emerging and highly transmissible variants – COVID-19 might lose its pandemic status before the end of 2022 due to the development of various COVID-19 vaccines and increasing global vaccination rates.

Over the past year, employers have had to grapple with seismic social, cultural, and political developments impacting profoundly how they do business.

While the national vaccination campaigns have made considerable progress lately, there are still many people who have not yet been vaccinated, some of whom are hesitant to receive the vaccine at all. At the same time, discussions emerge whether and when a follow-up vaccination of already vaccinated people might be required.

After more than a year of a crushing global pandemic, the early summer brought hope for a long-anticipated return to normal business operations, at least in the United States. But those plans were derailed by the rapid spread of the highly contagious delta variant and mounting COVID-19 infections. The abrupt change left companies – many of which had just updated plans with an eye toward a post-pandemic future – scrambling to adjust policies on such pressing issues as vaccination, return-to-office timing and mask wearing.

In mid-November, the UAE Cabinet approved a new Labour Law, Federal Law Number 33 of 2021 (the New Labour Law) which will come into force on 2 February 2022 and repeals Law Number 8 of 1980 (the Old Law), replacing it entirely. The New Labour Law consolidates many of the changes which have been introduced by the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation (MHRE) through various regulations over the past five years and also introduces significant new changes, thus amounting to a radical overhaul of labour relations in the UAE.

This Annual Report on EEOC Developments—Fiscal Year 2021 (hereafter “Report”), our eleventh annual publication, is designed as a comprehensive guide to significant EEOC developments over the past fiscal year. The Report does not merely summarize case law and litigation statistics, but also analyzes the EEOC’s successes, setbacks, changes, and strategies.  By focusing on key developments and anticipated trends, the Report provides employers with a roadmap to where the EEOC is headed in the year to come.

This year’s Report is organized into the following sections:

Three years have already passed since the European Union agreed upon Directive 2019/1152 of June 20, 2019, addressing transparent and predictable working conditions in the EU in the area of civil law (Working Conditions Directive).

The pay gap – or paying women and other historically marginalized groups less for the same or substantially similar work – has long been in the media spotlight. But as employees, boards, consumers, and the public are increasingly expecting more from organizations surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion, the stakes for employers regarding pay equity continue to rise. Politicians have also taken note.

The past two years created a significant shift in working conditions, and with that, a new avenue of employment arrangements. The normalization of flexible working paired with talent scarcity created an ideal environment for its rise. To help set up a global workforce, many service providers—referred to as Employers of Record (EORs)—are offering to hire talent across borders for companies. They take care of labor and employment laws, social security, and tax in each desired country.

This Annual Report on EEOC Developments—Fiscal Year 2022 (hereafter “Report”), our twelfth annual publication, is designed as a comprehensive guide to significant Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “the Commission”) developments over the past fiscal year. The Report does not merely summarize case law and litigation statistics, but also analyzes the EEOC’s successes, setbacks, changes, and strategies. By focusing on key developments and anticipated trends, the Report provides employers with a roadmap to where the EEOC is headed in the year to come.

Generative AI, which is a type of artificial intelligence that can produce or create new content, has already started to impact the workplace in various ways. On the positive side, it can automate repetitive and time-consuming tasks, leading to increased efficiency and productivity. For example, it can assist with data entry, customer service, and content creation. Additionally, it can help businesses to analyze and make sense of large amounts of data, leading to better decision-making.

The Decent Work Agenda (DWA) 2023 is the most important Portuguese legislative package dedicated to labor and employment law enacted over the last 10 years. The DWA entered into force on May 1, 2023, and has modified more than 70 aspects of the Portuguese Labor Code and other employment-related legislation (e.g., social security, temporary work law, Portuguese Labor Code of Procedure, and the Act for Services of Inspection by the Portuguese Labor Administration).

Employers face numerous legal and workplace complexities in managing their inclusion, equity and diversity (IE&D) programs, from the repercussions of the U.S. Supreme Court’s affirmative action decisions to new anti-IE&D state laws and mounting calls for corporate leaders to take a stance on social issues.

How are employers responding to this critically important – and increasingly embattled – workplace issue?

The United States is not the only country currently debating a reform to the law on non-competes. Notably, the UK Government has announced legislation that would limit the duration of non-competes to a period of 3 months after termination of employment.

This Annual Report on EEOC Developments—Fiscal Year 2023 (hereafter “Report”), our thirteenth annual publication, is designed as a comprehensive guide to significant Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “the Commission”) developments over the past fiscal year. The Report does not merely summarize case law and litigation statistics, but also analyzes the EEOC’s successes, setbacks, changes, and strategies. By focusing on key developments and anticipated trends, the Report provides employers with a roadmap to where the EEOC is headed in the year to come.

The Wisconsin Fair Employment Act (WFEA) prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees on the basis of their arrest and conviction records.¹  Generally, an employer cannot make decisions on the basis of an arrest or conviction record unless the crimes “substantially relate” to the circumstances of the job at issue.²  For many years, the state agencies responsible for enforcing this law—the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (DWD) and the Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC)—have taken the view that crimes of domestic violen

Background check industry groups have mounted a full-court press to remedy the recent slowdown in criminal record searches in California state courts caused by last year’s court of appeal decision in All of Us or None v.

Two noteworthy developments have occurred since the California Fair Employment & Housing Council released draft revisions to the state’s employment non-discrimination laws on March 15, 2022 that relate to the nascent law surrounding the use of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and other data-driven statistical processes to automate decision-making in the employment context.  

On April 4, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit joined the Ninth Circuit in holding that a plaintiff lacked Article III standing to prosecute her statutory claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in federal court. The Eighth Circuit’s opinion in Schumacher v. SC Data Center, Inc. deepens the split between the circuit courts on standing and increases the chances that the U.S. Supreme Court eventually will have to weigh in on the issue again.

Background: Spokeo and Ramirez

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) is a federal law that governs employment-related background checks.  Most lawsuits asserting federal claims proceed in federal court.¹  The FCRA is atypical in that FCRA claims can proceed in either federal or state court.  A new opinion from a California court of appeal in Hebert v.

Rod Fliegel talks about employee background screenings – the FCRA issues for employers to consider, the importance of providing a pre-adverse action notice and common mistakes employers make.

Workest by Zenefits

View

It used to be that employers had the luxury of waiting until January 1 to be vigilant for new employment laws and compliance challenges.  For the past several years, we have reported on employment and labor laws taking effect mid-year.  The trend is increasing, with states and cities passing a multitude of new workplace regulations throughout the calendar year. 

California state and local governmental bodies—our state legislature, and counties and cities—were active again this year in their efforts to regulate the workplace. Littler Workplace Policy Institute has been tracking these bills as they worked their way through the legislature. Some were signed into law by Governor Newsom earlier this year and have already gone into effect.

A May 2021 court decision in California, All of Us or None v.

Rod Fliegel, William Simmons and Wendy Buckingham discuss the current limitations on the use of background checks for employment in California.

SHRM Online

View (Subscription required.)