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.

As part of an employer’s EEO compliance efforts, minimizing the risk of harassment claims should be a top priority. Recent statistics issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) indicate that the number of harassment charges has continued to spike upward over the past several years, including the monetary recovery for such claims.

On May 15, 2024, the EEOC issued its annual statistics on charge activity, which indicated the following:

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

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.)

Updated July 31, 2023: The Council’s Modifications to Employment Regulations Regarding Criminal History discussed in this Insight have just been approved by the Office of Administrative Law, and the modified regulations will go into effect on October 1, 2023. Key changes from the initial proposal include:

Rod M. Fliegel and Alice H. Wang discuss the Civil Rights Council of the California Civil Rights Department’s latest revisions to the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) regulations that govern employers' use and consideration of criminal history in employment decisions.

SHRM Online

View (Subscription required.)

Alice Wang and Rod M. Fliegel say the Fair Chance Act of 2023, a California bill under consideration in the state senate, “would more or less upend the ordinary hiring process for just about every employer in California,” if passed.

HR Dive

View

For nearly a decade, Chicago has maintained a “ban-the-box” ordinance restricting employer’s use of criminal records in employment screening. This ordinance largely mirrored the requirements of Illinois’ state-wide Job Opportunities for Qualified Applicants Act (JOQAA), albeit with some important differences.

Philip M. Berkowitz talks about background checks and “Ban-the-Box” laws that financial services organizations must comply with when hiring.

Global Banking & Finance Review

View

Pennsylvania and Philadelphia recently enacted changes that impact employer criminal background screening.

State Law

Enacted on December 14, 2023, and effective February 12, 2024, Pennsylvania’s House Bill No. 689 amends Pennsylvania law relating to the expungement of certain criminal record information and employer immunity when hiring individuals with expunged records. 

Companies that hire employees and engage independent contractors in California should brace themselves for an even greater slowdown in background checks that include criminal record searches in Los Angeles County.¹ This will result from the drastic impact of the court of appeal’s 2021 opinion in All of Us or None v.

On March 14, 2024, the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed legislation that would add a new provision to the Massachusetts Consumer Protection law and would bar the use of true credit reports for employment purposes, i.e., for the purpose of evaluating an individual for employment, promotion, reassignment, or retention as an employee.  The legislation, entitled An Act Reducing Barriers to Employment Through Credit Discrimination (H.1434), is expected to be adopted by the Massachusetts Senate and promptly signed into law by Governor Maura Healy.  Once adopted, th

The Lehigh County Human Relations Ordinance was enacted February 26, 2024, establishing county-specific non-discrimination requirements for employment, housing, education, health care and public accommodations.  The ordinance also creates a Lehigh County Human Relations Commission charged with investigating and enforcing claims of discrimination.  The ordinance becomes effective June 1, 2024.

Expanded Protected Characteristics and Employer Coverage

The Prince George’s, Maryland County Council recently enacted Bill CB-019-2024, amending the county's Fair Criminal Record Screening Standards. Effective September 16, 2024, the ordinance—renamed “Access to Employment for Returning Citizens”—significantly restricts employers' ability to conduct criminal background checks on job applicants. Changes to the law include a smaller threshold for employer coverage, expanded limitations on employer inquiries into applicant criminal histories, and expanded protections for employees.

Employer Coverage Threshold

Eric Compere, William Kim, Melissa Peters, Kennell Sambour and Krystal Weaver provide insight on Cal/OSHA’s new FAQs.

SHRM Online

View (Subscription required.) 

The federal Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has announced that certain employers can claim federal tax credits when employees use emergency paid leave to accompany an individual to obtain a COVID-19 vaccination and/or to care for an individual recovering from an injury, disability, illness, or condition related to the vaccine.

Effective October 1, 2021, the New Jersey Division of Taxation (the “NJDT”) ended the temporary relief period with regard to employers’ obligation to withhold income taxes for teleworking employees who work in New Jersey.¹  Employers must therefore stop basing their obligation to withhold and remit income taxes on the employer’s jurisdiction, and instead should do so based on where the employee’s service or employment is performed. If that location is New Jersey, employers should withhold New Jersey taxes from such wages.

El 7 de enero de 2022, el Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI) publicó los nuevos valores para la Unidad de Medida y Actualización (en adelante “UMA”) que entrará en vigor el 1 de febrero de 2022, de acuerdo con lo establecido en el Artículo 5 de la Ley para Determinar la Unidad de Medida y Actualización.

Los valores de la UMA para el 2022 serán los siguientes:

On June 30, 2022, the governor of Puerto Rico signed into law Act No. 52 (Act 52-2022), which amended the concept of “engaged in trade or business” under the Puerto Rico Internal Revenue Code of 2011, to address the pandemic-related issue of employees working remotely from the Island for “out-of-state” employers with no business nexus to Puerto Rico.

Pursuant to Act 52-2022, for taxable years commencing after December 31, 2021, businesses with employees working remotely from Puerto Rico will not be deemed “engaged in trade or business,” provided the following conditions are met:

On September 17, 2022, Puerto Rico Governor Hon. Pedro Pierluisi issued Executive Order No. OE-2022-045, declaring a state of emergency due to the passing of Hurricane Fiona through the Island. Likewise, on September 21, 2022, President Joseph Biden authorized a disaster declaration for Puerto Rico, opening up additional relief and assistance for Puerto Rico's recovery process after the devastation left by the hurricane.

Dear Littler: Considering the recent passage of the federal Speak Out Act limiting the use of pre-dispute nondisclosure and non-disparagement clauses involving sexual assault and sexual harassment claims, what impact will this have on our template releases, separation agreements, and litigation settlement agreements? How do you recommend we revise those documents?

                                         —Revising Releases

Dear Revising,

Since October 1, 2020, Oregon employers have operated under the Workplace Fairness Act (“OWFA”), which restricts employers from including confidentiality, non-disparagement, and no-rehire provisions in settlement agreements and separation agreements unless the employee specifically requests them. In March 2022, Governor Kate Brown signed Senate Bill 1586 into law, which amends the OWFA effective January 1, 2023, and clarifies many of the provisions of the original OWFA.

LaToi Mayo, Kellan Coffey and Amanda Combs discuss the new Kentucky laws that focus on measures to attract businesses, increase workforce participation and increase economic growth.

The Lane Report

View

On June 15, 2023, Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo signed SB 290, which requires early wage access (EWA) providers to obtain a license from the Commissioner of Financial Institutions. This is the first EWA law enacted by any state. 

Early Wage Access Generally

In Escano v. Innovative Financial Partners, LLC,¹ a magistrate judge held that the defendants’ decision to withhold funds from a payment required under a settlement agreement when the plaintiff refused to provide a Form W-9 did not violate the agreement.

The Massachusetts Department of Family and Medical Leave (Department) just announced the 2025 weekly benefit amount and contribution rates for both employers and employees under the state’s Paid Family and Medical Leave benefit program, which is funded through a payroll tax.

Bradford J. Kelley and Maria Malaver-Reyes discuss how Loper Bright will impact federal and state administration of AI statutes, regulations and guidance.

Westlaw Today

View (Subscription required.)

Rebecca Goldstein talks about new workplace violence prevention laws in California and New York.

Bloomberg Law

View (Subscription required) 

Kerry E. Notestine, Chad J. Kaldor, Shawn Matthew Clark and Garrick D. Josephs compare and contrast the Maryland WARN Act and its federal counterpart, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act.

SHRM

View (Subscription required)

Adam Fiss and Sebastian Chilco review updates to California’s paid leave law.

Wolters Kluwer

View (Subscription required)

Bradford Kelley and Britney Torres predict politics in the workplace will remain an issue beyond the election and so California employers need a long-term plan measures for issues that include voter intimidation and discrimination and employees taking time off to vote.

Law360

View (Subscription required)

Adam Joshua Fiss and Sebastian Chilco discuss a new California law that will eliminate employers’ ability to require employees to use up to two weeks of company-provided vacation before they start receiving paid family leave benefits.

SHRM

View (Subscription required)

Following other states and cities across the nation, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 988, the Freelance Worker Protection Act (FWPA), into law on September 28, 2024. This new law aims to provide greater protections to freelance workers (e.g., “independent contractors”).

Kerry Notestine, Chad Kaldor, Shawn Matthew Clark and Garrick Josephs discuss the Maryland WARN Act and compares and contrasts it with its federal counterpart, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act.

Wolters Kluwer

View (Subscription required)

Over the years, attempts to arbitrate breach of fiduciary duty claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Section 502(a)(2) have had varying results.¹  One court recently recognized that “whether any benefits plan may agree to submit to arbitration and/or whether an individual employment agreement may compel claims on behalf of a benefits plan to proceed to arbitration are not issues of clearly settled law.”²  This issue is before two circuit courts of appeal this year.  So far, the court rulings in the cases seem to provide some guidance while a

Michael Lotito offers insight on the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (or PRO Act), which includes a change to a standard known as “joint employer.”

Entrepreneur

View