Littler attorneys comment on the results of Littler's Annual Employer Survey and analyze the impact that sweeping regulatory changes and other factors, including the #MeToo movement, have on employers.

General Counsel News

View Article 

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.
 

Employers’ compliance challenges have swelled on multiple fronts over the past year as HR and business leaders grapple with an increasingly complex regulatory landscape. With changes under the Trump administration proving slow to materialize, most employers continue to anticipate robust enforcement by the Department of Labor and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in particular.

Eighth annual survey of more than 1,300 employers finds HR and business leaders grappling with increasingly complex compliance challenges, focused on preventing workplace harassment and pay inequality

Scott Rechtschaffen suggests law firms interested in building and selling technology products should become more nimble. 

ABA Journal

View Article 

Philip Gordon suggests steps that employers should take in response to the privacy act.

SHRM Online

View Article 

In an age where computer generated imagery (CGI) and digital effects enable entire film genres to exist, like Marvel’s superhero series the Avengers or Guardians of the Galaxy, audiences have no expectation that movies they consume depict actual events or reflect reality. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the context and forum of how digital media and information is communicated, observed and consumed informs our default expectations of it.

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.

Aaron Crews describes the use of data in determining liability and building arguments in wage and hour lawsuits.

Financial Times

View Article

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.
 

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.
 

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:

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 

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.) 

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.

Jim Paretti explains his view about the independent contractor rule that applies to real estate agents, and how it’s reviving an ongoing debate weeks before the regulation is set to take effect.

Law360 Employment Authority

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

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

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

Alyesha Asghar discusses the potential impact for employers after the Supreme Court’s decision regarding Title VII in Muldrow v. St Louis.

Law360 Employment Authority

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

On August 6, 2019, New Jersey’s wage and hour laws were amended to include liquidated damages on some claims, a new retaliation cause of action, and expansion of the statute of limitations from two to six years (the “2019 amendments”).  Since then, litigants in New Jersey have struggled with the effect those amendments have had on their lawsuits.  One of the main points of confusion centered around whether the 2019 amendments applied retroactively to violations prior to August 6, 2019, or whether the changes applied prospectively only.  A significant conflict developed between federal and

What do you get when you combine a business-backed ballot initiative, the state legislature and governor’s office, and labor organizations? A deal. California style.

Marlene Muraco, Angela Rafoth and Emily Mertes discuss reforms to California's Private Attorneys General Act that address challenges and ambiguities faced by both courts and employers in the 20-year-old law.

Westlaw Today

View (Subscription required.)

Last week, Governor JB Pritzker signed into law several bills that significantly amend the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA). As a result of these amendments, Illinois employers should expect an uptick in discrimination cases proceeding through state courts and agencies.

Longer Statute of Limitations Period

Bradford J. Kelley and Michael J. Lotito discuss key steps to consider when business leaders work with their teams and HR departments to develop political speech policies and enforcement strategies.

Chief Executive

View

Philadelphia has imposed significant new recall and retention obligations on hotel, airport hospitality, and event center businesses as they struggle to recover in this uncertain COVID-19 economy.  The new obligations are contained in a legislative package, styled as the Black Workers Matter Economic Recovery Package, which became law in Januar

Just about a year ago, in the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, economic activity in many sectors went from red hot to nearly frozen, seemingly overnight.  The hospitality industry was particularly hard hit, as business and leisure travel evaporated.  Many businesses were forced to lay off workers, and California’s unemployment soared.

The Governor of Nevada recently signed into law Senate Bill 386, which is Nevada’s version of the trending “return to work” or “right to recall” laws being passed in other jurisdictions throughout the country in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  These laws typically require that employees who were laid off due to the pandemic be given priority to be offered their former jobs before external candidates are considered.  Nevada’s law, the Nevada Hospitality and Travel Workers Right to Return Act (“the Act”), does not apply to all businesses, but generally to such businesses that were most a