Shareholder Rachel Fendell Satinsky speaks with Pro Bono Committee Member Dave Haase regarding her work with the Pennsylvania Innocence Project over the years.

As part of the annual National Celebration of Pro Bono hosted by the American Bar Association, Littler is highlighting various pro bono efforts from around the firm. Our attorneys and professional staff demonstrate their commitment to pro bono by providing significant efforts to organizations in their communities.
   

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.

On October 4, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (Case No. 23-1039) to decide whether plaintiffs who are members of historically majority communities asserting “reverse discrimination” claims under Title VII must show there are “background circumstances” that support the inference that the defendant is the “unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”

The “Background Circumstances” Requirement

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.

Marshall v. Mercantile Exchange Corporation, 2024 CanLII 71128  (ONSC), is an action for wrongful dismissal where the employee claimed he could not mitigate his damages by seeking alternative employment indefinitely because of a mental health condition (i.e., stress and depression) allegedly arising out of his termination. He claimed a 26-month notice period. The employer sought an independent medical examination (IME) of the employee pursuant to s.

A number of Littler lawyers in our office in Toronto, Ontario, Canada recently authored the Ontario section of Employment: North America for Lexology, Getting The Deal Through.

This publication provides an overview of labour and employment law in Ontario, Canada, focusing on the following categories: 

European companies are navigating a variety of social and equality-related issues impacting their workplaces and, according to Littler’s second annual European Employer Survey, are increasingly channeling their concerns into concrete actions.

This Annual Report on EEOC Developments—Fiscal Year 2019 (hereafter “Report”), our ninth annual publication, is designed as a comprehensive guide to significant EEOC developments over the past fiscal year. The Report does not merely summarize case law and litigation statistics, but also analyzes the EEOC’s successes, setbacks, changes, and strategies. By focusing on key developments and anticipated trends, the Report provides employers with a roadmap to where the EEOC is headed in the year to come.

This year’s Report is organized into the following sections:

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. 

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?

Government-ordered office closures that swept much of Europe early in 2020 appear to have helped convince employers across the continent that workers could be just as productive remotely as they could while gathered in offices.

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

This Annual Report on EEOC Developments—Fiscal Year 2020 (hereafter “Report”), our tenth annual publication, is designed as a comprehensive guide to significant EEOC developments over the past fiscal year. The Report does not merely summarize case law and litigation statistics, but also analyzes the EEOC’s successes, setbacks, changes, and strategies. By focusing on key developments and anticipated trends, the Report provides employers with a roadmap to where the EEOC is headed in the year to come.

This year’s Report is organized into the following sections:

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.

The Firm’s International Practice Group has once again updated its COVID-19 Vaccination: A Littler Global Guide on Legal & Practical Implications in the Workplace. Two years into the pandemic, experts agree that – in the absence of newly emerging and highly transmissible variants – COVID-19 might lose its pandemic status before the end of 2022 due to the development of various COVID-19 vaccines and increasing global vaccination rates.

Employers transitioning to a post-pandemic workplace face a host of novel challenges.

High on that list is navigating hybrid work models and what a return to physical workplaces looks like – especially when, as our survey reveals, the percentage of employees who prefer remote or hybrid work is higher than the percentage of employers who plan to offer it. The survey also finds employers taking a cautious approach to asking about employees’ COVID-19 vaccination status and making a range of changes to their physical workplaces.

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

After more than a year of a crushing global pandemic, the early summer brought hope for a long-anticipated return to normal business operations, at least in the United States. But those plans were derailed by the rapid spread of the highly contagious delta variant and mounting COVID-19 infections. The abrupt change left companies – many of which had just updated plans with an eye toward a post-pandemic future – scrambling to adjust policies on such pressing issues as vaccination, return-to-office timing and mask wearing.

Despite all that remains uncertain for European employers – involving the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic, new working models or any number of other emergent workforce issues – one area has come into greater focus: Most companies are planning a return to the office in some form.

That much is clear from Littler’s fourth annual European Employer Survey. It’s less clear, however, whether companies’ plans for balancing remote and in-person work align with employee preferences – setting the stage for some very real workplace tensions in the critical months to come.

Portugal recently approved significant changes to the country’s telework regime.

This Annual Report on EEOC Developments—Fiscal Year 2021 (hereafter “Report”), our eleventh annual publication, is designed as a comprehensive guide to significant EEOC developments over the past fiscal year. The Report does not merely summarize case law and litigation statistics, but also analyzes the EEOC’s successes, setbacks, changes, and strategies.  By focusing on key developments and anticipated trends, the Report provides employers with a roadmap to where the EEOC is headed in the year to come.

This year’s Report is organized into the following sections:

No one said adjusting to the “new normal” would be easy.

That sentiment is hitting home for employers as workers increasingly return to offices in the midst of a historically tight labor market and after more than two years of a global pandemic. Issues and initiatives that have consumed the corporate world’s attention – from vaccine policies to hybrid work models to evolving regulations and emerging technologies – are now entering a pivotal phase, posing new challenges and opportunities alike.

Three years have already passed since the European Union agreed upon Directive 2019/1152 of June 20, 2019, addressing transparent and predictable working conditions in the EU in the area of civil law (Working Conditions Directive).

Just how far can companies go in requiring in-person work?

That is one of the critical questions facing European employers today, according to Littler’s fifth annual European Employer Survey. Drawing on insights from nearly 700 human resources executives, in-house attorneys, and business leaders, this year’s survey finds employers pulled in different directions as their desire to increase in-person work may conflict with the flexibility needed to attract and retain talent.

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.

This Annual Report on EEOC Developments—Fiscal Year 2022 (hereafter “Report”), our twelfth annual publication, is designed as a comprehensive guide to significant Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “the Commission”) developments over the past fiscal year. The Report does not merely summarize case law and litigation statistics, but also analyzes the EEOC’s successes, setbacks, changes, and strategies. By focusing on key developments and anticipated trends, the Report provides employers with a roadmap to where the EEOC is headed in the year to come.

Widespread economic uncertainty. Evolving workforce expectations. Accelerating adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) tools. A growing patchwork of local, state and federal regulations.

Numerous headwinds are colliding in 2023 – and presenting employers with a litany of tough decisions.

Generative AI, which is a type of artificial intelligence that can produce or create new content, has already started to impact the workplace in various ways. On the positive side, it can automate repetitive and time-consuming tasks, leading to increased efficiency and productivity. For example, it can assist with data entry, customer service, and content creation. Additionally, it can help businesses to analyze and make sense of large amounts of data, leading to better decision-making.

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.

Under pressure to provide increasingly flexible work arrangements, leverage artificial intelligence (AI) tools, and wade into contentious social issues, how are European employers responding?

Littler’s sixth annual European Employer Survey – completed by 780 human resources executives, in-house attorneys and business leaders – investigates this critical question, exploring how today’s employers are responding to widespread shifts in workplace management, policy and culture.

Employers face numerous legal and workplace complexities in managing their inclusion, equity and diversity (IE&D) programs, from the repercussions of the U.S. Supreme Court’s affirmative action decisions to new anti-IE&D state laws and mounting calls for corporate leaders to take a stance on social issues.

How are employers responding to this critically important – and increasingly embattled – workplace issue?

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.

This Annual Report on EEOC Developments—Fiscal Year 2023 (hereafter “Report”), our thirteenth annual publication, is designed as a comprehensive guide to significant Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “the Commission”) developments over the past fiscal year. The Report does not merely summarize case law and litigation statistics, but also analyzes the EEOC’s successes, setbacks, changes, and strategies. By focusing on key developments and anticipated trends, the Report provides employers with a roadmap to where the EEOC is headed in the year to come.

European businesses are navigating numerous changes impacting their workplaces, driven by factors that range from national election outcomes and the rapid adoption of AI to ESG initiatives and emerging compliance challenges.

Littler’s seventh annual European Employer Survey – completed by nearly 630 business leaders, in-house lawyers, and HR executives (57% of whom hold C-suite positions) – offers an in-depth look at how business leaders are responding to these issues and steps they are taking to prepare for what’s to come.

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

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.

It used to be that employers had the luxury of waiting until January 1 to be vigilant for new employment laws and compliance challenges.  For the past several years, we have reported on employment and labor laws taking effect mid-year.  The trend is increasing, with states and cities passing a multitude of new workplace regulations throughout the calendar year. 

The City Council of Atlanta, Georgia recently passed an ordinance that amends its existing anti-discrimination law to include protection on the basis of “criminal history status” as well as “gender expression.”  The ordinance is effective immediately.

With regard to gender expression, the law simply amends existing law to include “gender expression” as an additional protected characteristic.

Rachel P. Kaercher, Wendy Buckingham and William J. Simmons examine a new ordinance passed by the Atlanta City Council that amends its existing anti-discrimination law to include protections on the basis of criminal history status and gender expression.

SHRM Online

View (Subscription required.)

Earlier this month, Governor Ned Lamont announced the long-awaited implementation of the state’s so-called “Clean Slate Act” – sort of.  According to a recent press release, January 1, 2023 will see the full or partial erasure in some 44,000 cases involving convictions for cannabis possession.  Individuals with eligible convictions for other crimes, including most misdemeanors and certain lesser felonies, will have to wait until the second half of 2023 as a result of implementation delays.

The Clean Slate Law & How it Works

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.)