Kevin O’Neill co-authored this article about how employers can combat workplace bullying.

Corporate Counsel

View Article (subscription required)

Katherine Cooper Franklin co-authored this article about how employers can combat workplace bullying.

Corporate Counsel

View Article (subscription required)

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 

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:

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.

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.

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.
 

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.

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.) 

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.)

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.)

Update: This law was enacted on January 20, 2024.  It goes into effect March 20, 2024.

*  *  *

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

Law360 Pulse

View (Subscription required.)

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

Asian Robotics Review

View

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.)

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

"If Chevron is overturned or modified in a significant way by the Court, some impacts will be immediate," the writers state. "For one, it will affect current litigation, such as the lawsuits that have been filed to challenge the Department of Labor’s independent contractor rule, the Davis-Bacon reform rule, and the ESG investing rule."

March 8, 2024

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.

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.)

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.)

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.)

Jim Paretti comments on a recent boost in EEOC commissioner charges.

Bloomberg Law

View (Subscription required.) 

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

Alexander MacDonald says overtime exemptions are about to get more expensive as the salary necessary to qualify for the FLSA’s “white collar” exemptions will rise in July and again in January 2025.

The Federalist Society

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.)

Robert W. Pritchard comments on the dismissal of a longstanding dispute between Uber and its former drivers.

The Legal Intelligencer

View (Subscription required)