This article is a follow up to our previous articles on the new California Paid Sick Leave requirement. As effective date of July 1, 2015 fast approaches many employers still have questions about what must be offered and are wondering if their current offerings are already compliant with the new requirements. To recap briefly, effective July 1, 2015 California employees are entitled to paid sick leave accordance with the Healthy Workplaces / Healthy Families Act of 2014, below is a brief summary of this new requirement.
Well, the good news is that labor numbers look very good for US businesses, which means there are more employees in the workplace and the economy is showing good signs for recovery. However, with more employees comes responsibility as the frost from a slowed economy begins to thaw.
The California courts this month were abuzz with a look at arbitration in employment from the state’s high court. The court’s review continues to stress the issues inherent to negotiating employment agreements to arbitrate workplace disputes. Generally, employees cannot be required to sign these provisions as a condition of employment. An employer must also assure that these clauses are reader-friendly and must assume the costs of the procedure, and when and if there are clauses which seek a waiver of any specific claims — including wage and hour administrative hearings — these clauses may still be overlooked and it is highly likely parties will be ordered to litigate matters through traditional means. The truth is that the decision whether an arbitration agreement is enforceable lies wholly within the discretion of the fact finder/arbitrator/court hearing the matter.
MMC would like to congratulate one of their own, Crystal O’Brien, for receiving multiple awards for her excellent performance in 2012.
February 2013 Employment Law Updates
California State Update:
Should The Law Protect Accused Harassers From Alleged Investigator Bias?
Ever wonder what becomes of investigator recommendations that are not relevant to a workplace harassment investigation? Can an employee’s actions to frustrate an investigation lead to termination? Are all participants of a harassment investigation afforded ‘immunity’ from subsequent disciplinary action? McGrory v. Applied Signal Technology, Inc., a January 24, 2013 6th District decision, examines these questions.
A termination spurred by conduct that is unlawfully motivated by sex, ethnicity or age discrimination, in furtherance of unlawful retaliation, or which breaches a contract, or violates a well-established public policy is “wrongful.” Such that courts in this country will generally award an employee suffering job loss as the result of a wrongful termination with civil damages. So what must an employer do when poor performance or a lack of business resources legitimately forces an adverse employment decision, or perhaps more curious when an employee simply quits because he or she believed their job was in jeopardy? In a single word: document.
In the past year, amendments have been made to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA). Based on guidance from employers, court cases, and recommendations from the U.S. Department of Labor, Congress has adopted amendments intended to clarify and update existing law. The Final Rules for how amendments are to be adopted by employers has been summarized, in part, below.
In follow up to our previous article, this second installment of our What To Do During An Economic Downturn article reviews best practices for when employee lay-offs are unavoidable.
Legal commentators speculate that 2009 – 2013 will see an increase in litigation arising out of reductions in force (“RIF”) cases. Generally, this is because RIF cases involve plaintiffs who are often more sympathetic than other employment law litigants.
When you suspect employee bad acts or theft in the workplace, quickly terminating the suspected employee might feel like the best solution to the problem, but not so fast! Making a hasty termination decision can sometimes backfire into an employment law claim for discrimination or harassment against the employer.
Even when you believe there is no question of wrongdoing, conducting an internal workplace investigation is critical for avoiding the pitfalls of terminating an employee without fail-proof evidence. Generally, an employer’s reasonable, good faith decisions will support a termination that is based on suspected employee misconduct. The hinge pin question