In November 2023, soon after Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed amendments to the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act (the “Act”), several staffing agencies and associations sued for an injunction against enforcement of certain provisions of the Act.  In Staffing Services Association of Illinois v. Flanagan, Case No. 23-CV-16208, these parties claimed that Sections 11, 42, and 67 of the Act were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and the due process clauses of the U.S.

Ellen Donovan McCann says post-employment benefits are often the first to be amended when businesses experience budget challenges, but employers may have to take more care in changing them if SCOTUS decides that former employees can sue over those benefits.

SHRM

View (Subscription required)

Chelsea Lewis provides recommendations for navigating the challenges that may arise when customers or clients refuse to abide by COVID-19 mandates.

ACC South Florida

View Article 

Erin Webber explains how a remote environment requires more leadership responsibility, skills and choices.

The American Lawyer

View Article (Subscription required.) 

Largely overshadowed by the rise in COVID-19 deaths and the January 6, 2021, siege on the Capitol, the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act of 2019 (“the Act”) became law on December 23, 2020. See 15 U.S.C. § 7a-3. The Act, which Senator Chuck Grassley sponsored, prohibits employers from retaliating against individuals who report criminal antitrust violations to their employer or the federal government, or who participate in a federal governmental criminal antitrust investigation or proceeding.  

Background

Michael Lotito shares his predictions for workplace training and labor management under Marty Walsh’s leadership.

Law360

View Article (Subscription required.) 

Terri Solomon talks to HR Dive about how employers can best handle mental health crises in the office.

HR Dive

View 

Natasha Adom discusses proposals from the FCA, PRA and Bank of England that would require financial services firms to provide more detailed monitoring and report of diversity and inclusion. 

IFA Magazine

View

Michael Lotito and Bruce Sarchet share their thoughts on SB 93, a new California law that requires some employers in the hospitality industry to prioritize recalling workers who were laid off due to COVID-19.

SHRM Online

View (Subscription required.)

Raoul Parekh and Natasha Adom write in support of updating laws to help give employers more freedom to create the real change that so many want and promote more diversity and equality in workplaces.

The Law Society Gazette

View

Michael Royal and Alyssa Peterson discuss two new laws that will bring changes for employers in Texas by expanding protections for employees who assert claims of sexual harassment under the Texas Labor Code.

SHRM Online

View (Subscription required.)

Jorge Sales Boyoli answers questions about whether mandates requiring employees to get vaccinated are legal under Mexico’s labor laws.

Entrepreneur

View 

Libby Henninger offers tips for employers paying disabled workers lower wages.

Law360 Employment Authority

View (Subscription required.)

On December 23, 2021, President Joe Biden signed into law the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (the “Act”),¹ which bars the importation into the United States of products made from forced labor in the Xinjiang region of China.  This Act will significantly impact many multinational employers’ supply chains because raw materials from this region – such as cotton, coal, chemicals, sugar, tomatoes and polysilicon (a component in solar panels) – have found their way into many global supply chains.  Indeed, these materials arrive on U.S.

On April 1, 2022, a Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that California Assembly Bill 979—a bill designed to increase diversity and improve the persistently low number of underrepresented groups on corporate boards—violated the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution and was therefore unenforceable. In its ruling, the court acknowledged the pitfalls of homogeneity in business and communities, but it cautioned against quotas and specific number requirements.

Donald Dowling says abusive labor practices are a huge problem around the world, and often the smaller local manufacturers, miners and growers within countries that are committing labor abuses are bigger problems than the multinational firms.

SHRM Online

View (Subscription required).

On December 29, 2022, President Biden signed a new whistleblower law that significantly increases the risk and cost of whistleblower claims for domestic and overseas financial services institutions that must be cognizant of anti-money laundering (AML) laws and regulations. This covers 26 categories of institutions, including banks, branches and agencies of foreign banks, broker-dealers, insurance companies, operators of credit card systems, mutual funds, certain casinos, and travel agencies.

As workplace issues have become more complex, human resource professionals and managers often turn to employment lawyers for advice in sorting out matters involving the interaction between business requirements and the requirements of employment laws and regulations. When is such advice protected from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege?

The Massachusetts legislature has expanded the reasons employees can use Massachusetts Earned Sick Time through provisions in a larger bill entitled, “An Act Promoting Access to Midwifery Care and Out-of-Hospital Birth Options.”  Employees may now use Massachusetts Earned Sick Time to “address the employee’s own physical and mental health needs, and those of their spouse, if the employee or the employee’s spouse experiences pregnancy loss or a failed assisted reproduction, adoption or surrogacy.”

In 2017, companies in Brazil welcomed changes to its labor code that introduced the option for securing enforceable releases to employment law claims. The changes to the labor code included allowing parties to seek a ratification of a private settlement with the labor courts. The rationale behind the new law was to permit parties to settle matters in an amicable way, thereby reducing judicial disputes.

At the November 5, 2024 election, California voters will determine the fate of Proposition 32, which proposes to increase the state minimum wage and provide for automatic future adjustments tied to inflation.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic required nearly every employer around the globe to take stock of its workforce, policies and practices, and adapt to a rapidly changing and unpredictable environment.  COVID-19 will eventually pass, but transformative issues laid bare by the pandemic—which were already in motion—will remain, likely at an accelerated pace.

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

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.

The United States is not the only country currently debating 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 three months after the termination of employment.

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.

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.

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.)