New York State Governor Kathy Hochul recently signed into law eight pieces of legislation designed to combat human trafficking. These laws require many hospitality industry employers to provide specific anti-human-trafficking awareness training to employees. They also require certain hospitality and transportation industry employers to post information regarding services available to human trafficking victims.

Lavanga Wijekoon and Aki Tanaka explore the significant impact of the European Union’s expected Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) on global corporate responsibility, with a specific focus on its implications for Japanese companies.

Institute for Security and Development Policy

View

On March 15, 2024, the EU member states voted in favor of the European Supply Chain Directive (Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive – CSDDD) in the EU Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER) after a long back-and-forth. The vote, originally scheduled for February 9, 2024, had been initially canceled and postponed indefinitely. The reason for this was that numerous member states – including Germany – had already announced their abstention from the vote in advance. The final version of the directive is less burdensome for companies compared to the previous draft.

On Wednesday, April 24, 2024, the EU member states in the EU Parliament voted in favor of the European Supply Chain Directive (Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive – CSDDD). This is one of the final steps in a long legislative process. The vote had been delayed several times at the beginning of the year because some EU member states—including Germany—had announced that they would vote against the directive. The planned liability regime of the directive was a particular point of contention.

Content and scope

Zev Eigen considers artificial intelligence and predictive coding to be tools in making better informed hiring decisions. 

Corporate Counsel

View Article

Marko Mrkonich comments on the current capabilities of artificial intelligence in the workplace.

Workforce

View Article 

Lee Schreter discusses the impact of artificial intelligence and data analytics on the practice of law. 

Georgia State News

View Article 

Aaron Crews explains Littler's Pay Equity Assessment Tool.

Employee Benefit News

View Article 

Aaron Crews discusses efficient ways to use AI in the workplace.

HR Dive

View Article 

Report Explores the Myriad Issues Related to Technology-Induced Displacement of Employees (TIDE)

In this podcast, Aaron Crews, Littler’s Chief Data Analytics Officer, discusses potential uses for AI in supporting HR decisionmaking with Athena Karp, the CEO and cofounder of HiredScore. They explore ways that technology – such as explainable algorithms – can serve employers by improving the effectiveness and transparency of processes for companies and other stakeholders, including candidates. They also address how organizations can structure, validate and verify their data and data training to prevent bias from sneaking into AI-driven analysis.
 

In this podcast, Aaron Crews, Littler’s Chief Data Analytics Officer, Natalie Pierce, co-chair of Littler’s Robotics, AI and Automation Practice Group and Diversity and Inclusion Council and Garry Mathiason, co-chair of Littler’s Robotics, AI and Automation Practice Group discuss what impact AI and automation will have on employers in the future.
 

Associate Matt Scherer, member of Littler’s Robotics, AI and Automation Practice Group and Data Analytics team, and Andrew Arruda, founder of Ross Intelligence, discuss how AI is being used in the practice of law, such as in legal research and contract review.

In this podcast, Littler’s Chief Knowledge Officer, Scott Rechtschaffen, talks with his Cornell Law School students about the potential for lawyers to use software to develop practical tools for the delivery of legal services. During their semester, the students experienced how to take their growing knowledge of the law, identify a problem, coordinate with subject matter and technical experts, and create a legal app designed to assist users, who might be either clients or fellow attorneys.

Mickey Chichester and Natalie Pierce examine how companies may turn to AI and robotics to mitigate disruption and some of the employment implications of such initiatives.

Supply Chain Toolbox

View Article

Welcome to our new bi-monthly series, where we compare employment law and practice from an international perspective, drawing on the experience of local and international employment lawyers who deal with these issues every day.

The first article in our series compares the new UK Government’s proposed changes to unfair dismissal protection with the law in Germany to see if there are any lessons that can be learned for UK employers from Continental Europe.

What’s to come in the UK?

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 

Yesterday’s anti-harassment training won’t cut it in the #MeToo era. Employers must take stock of steps they have taken to prevent and stop sexual harassment in the workplace, and identify how they will answer the clear call for truly effective anti-harassment training.

Jennifer Youpa, a shareholder in Littler’s Dallas office, and Kevin O’Neill, Senior Director of Littler’s Learning Group, discuss the importance of harassment complaint investigations in the #MeToo climate. As Jennifer and Kevin explain, investigatory responses can no longer be “one size fits all,” especially with the possibility of the viral disclosure of allegations or incidents through social media. In this podcast, Jennifer and Kevin reveal strategies and trends they have seen as they conduct training for employers on sexual harassment and related issues.

In this podcast, Littler attorneys Michael Kessel, Russ McEwan and Alan Model, out of our Newark office, discuss the importance of cultivating “employee engagement” to foster a productive, invested workforce. They also describe the new Littler Positive Employee Relations Series, which offers customized, intensive training to supervisors on the causes of negative morale and then arms them with practical tools to spot and handle problems before they get out of hand.
 

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.

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.

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.) 

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.

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

Asian Robotics Review

View

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.)

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.)

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).

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.

Orly Henry discusses BIPA reform and applying the law to pending cases.

Chicago Daily Law Bulletin

View (Subscription required)