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.

Aaron Crews describes the various duties of legal technologists.

Legaltech News

View Article 

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

Scott Forman explains how firms must adopt integrated technology in order to operate collectively.

LegalTech News

View Article (Subscription required.)

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?

How should an employer respond when an employee is accused, charged, or convicted of a crime?

Fortunately, this is not a day-to-day issue that HR teams tend to deal with, but when it does arise, it can raise complex employment law issues and employers may have a PR crisis on their hands.

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.

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:

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.

Earlier this year, New York State adopted anti-sexual harassment legislation that the Governor described as the "strongest and most comprehensive" in the country, and that is now fully effective. As of October 9, 2018, employers must distribute to all New York-based employees an updated anti-sexual harassment policy that covers a number of key areas. Over the next 365 days, employers also must train all New York-based employees regarding sexual harassment and retaliation, and repeat such training annually thereafter.

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 

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.) 

Libby Henninger discusses the DOL’s proposal to expand overtime pay protections to more workers and why it may result in a legal battle.

Bloomberg Law

View (Subscription required.)

Alexander Thomas MacDonald discusses an upcoming Supreme Court case that may determine how much power the National Labor Relations Board should have. 

The Federalist Society

View

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.

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.

Jim Paretti weighs in on the NLRB’s latest effort to broaden the joint employer rule.

Law360 Pulse

View (Subscription required.)

Alexander MacDonald comments on the implications of SpaceX’s lawsuit against the NLRB, which alleges that the board violates constitutional separation of powers and due process protections by wielding different types of authority in the same case.

Bloomberg Law

View (Subscription required.)

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

At the end of January 2024, the UK Government set out a surprise proposal to introduce a £55 fee for individuals to bring proceedings in the Employment Tribunals (ET) and Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

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

In London District Catholic School Board v.

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).

Jeff Nowak says this case will test when workers can take federal job-protected leave prior to a baby’s arrival and won’t drastically change life as we know it because employers are overwhelmingly supportive of their employees’ FMLA rights.

Bloomberg Law

View (Subscription required.)