Photo of Benjamin C. Ho

Benjamin C. Ho

Subscribe to Benjamin C. Ho's Posts
Contact:Read more about Benjamin C. Ho

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently published proposed regulations to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (which became effective June 27, 2023). We covered the new law here, explaining how it requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations to a qualified employee’s or applicant’s known limitation related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless the accommodation will cause the employer an undue hardship. 

The proposed regulations are open for public comment through October 10, 2023, and must be finalized and implemented by December 29, 2023. Although the proposed regulations could change after the commenting period, their current form offers perspective on how the EEOC believes the PWFA should be interpreted.

Here are five significant ways the proposed regulations could change how US employers accommodate pregnant workers and those with “related medical conditions”:

Continue Reading 5 Ways the Proposed Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Regs Might Catch US Employers By Surprise

With special thanks to our presenters Matías Herrero (Argentina), Leticia Ribeiro (Trench Rossi Watanabe, Sao Paulo*), Andrew Shaw (Canada), Maria Cecilia Reyes (Colombia) and Liliana Hernandez-Salgado (Mexico).

In this session, US-based multinational employers with business operations in the Americas region hear directly from Benjamin Ho and local practitioners on the major developments they need to…

The Road Ahead Following the April 10 End of the National Emergency

We have all grown accustomed to hand sanitizer, 6-feet distance markings in hallways, face masks–and the back and forth of surging and waning COVID-19 levels in the workplace and the community. But with President Biden’s April 10 termination of the COVID-19 national emergency, can these pandemic mainstays–and employers’ pandemic policies and procedures–finally be relegated to a distant memory? Should they be? As Dr. Anthony Fauci said in a recent interview, “Everybody wants this outbreak behind us.”

Mapping the Road Forward

With little fanfare, on April 10, President Biden quietly signed a GOP-led resolution terminating the COVID-19 national emergency. Separately, on May 1 the Biden Administration announced an end to the federal COVID-19 vaccination requirements for federal employees, federal contractors, and international travelers on May 11, the same day the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency ends. The US Department of Health and Human Services and the US Department of Homeland Security also announced they will start the process to end vaccination requirements for Head Start educators, CMS-certified healthcare facilities, and certain noncitizens at the land border.

So can employers throw out all of their COVID-19 policies and procedures? Not quite.Continue Reading Can US Employers Finally Leave COVID-19 in the Rearview Mirror?

California has required all employers to provide lactation breaks (unless they can show that to do so would “seriously disrupt” their operations) since 2020. The federal government caught up late last year with the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (PUMP Act).

PUMP Act — The Basics

Effective December 29, 2022, the PUMP Act expands workplace protections for employees with a need to express breast milk. The Pump Act amends the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which required employers to provide lactating non-exempt employees with reasonable break time and a private location to express milk for one year following the birth of a child.

The previous law excluded most salaried employees, and the PUMP Act expands this right to cover all employees whether exempt or non-exempt. Now employers must provide all employees a reasonable break to express milk each time the employee has a need to express milk for one year after the child’s birth.Continue Reading ICYMI: New Federal Obligations for Employers to Provide Breaks for Nursing Mothers and Reasonable Accommodations for Pregnant Women

California legislators met on April 11, 2023 to discuss a proposed overhaul of employment-related criminal background checks. Simply put, if the Fair Chance Act of 2023 (SB 809) is passed into law, California will have the most restrictive criminal background check law in the country, and will significantly limit the way California employers can vet applicants for employment. Under existing state law, California employers may conduct a criminal background check for most positions only after making an initial offer of employment, and they may make adverse employment decisions based on criminal history only after conducting an individualized assessment that considers the nature of the offense and the duties of the job. While these existing restrictions are significant in their own right, the proposed new law will effectively eliminate criminal history consideration in most circumstances, allowing legislators to further reduce barriers to employment for people with criminal histories.

The Fair Chance Act will, among other things, “make it an unlawful employment practice to take adverse action against an employee or discriminate against an employee in the terms, conditions, or privileges of their employment based on their arrest or conviction history.” SB 809. In essence, the proposed law will all but ban employment-related criminal background checks, except for positions for which such checks are authorized or required by statute. And in the limited circumstances where criminal history checks are permitted, the Fair Chance Act will require employers to post a clear and conspicuous notice informing applicants and employees of their rights. The new law also will impose on employers additional document and data retention obligations for completed background checks.Continue Reading California Seeks to Ban Most Criminal Background Checks

Join us for a four-part webinar series as our US moderators welcome colleagues from around the globe to share the latest labor and employment law updates and trends. US-based multinational employers with business operations in Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and the Americas regions will hear directly from local practitioners on the…

As volatility and uncertainty in the global economy continues, many multinationals are taking (or considering) major changes to their workforce composition. Labor costs are typically the largest cost center for any company, so of course businesses need to understand how best to flex up and down as markets change. At the same time, a company’s…

Special thanks to Geoff Martin and Maria Piontkovska.

On March 3, 2023, the Criminal Division of the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) published details of a three year Pilot Program Regarding Compensation Incentives and Clawbacks (the “Compensation Pilot Program”). The Compensation Pilot Program is effective March 15, 2023 and from that date it will be applicable to all corporate criminal matters handled by the DOJ Criminal Division. At the same time, DOJ also updated its Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs guidance document to reflect the criteria introduced by the Compensation Pilot Program, among other updates.
 
Background and Objectives of the Compensation Pilot Program

The concept of incentivizing corporate compliance by structuring compensation programs to reward compliant behaviors and punish non-compliant ones, is nothing new. For example, prior editions of the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs addressed appropriate incentives for company management and executives to promote good governance and compliance, and expectations about the consistent application of discipline against employees found to be involved in misconduct.

However, in a September 2022 memo to DOJ prosecutors titled: “Further Revisions to Corporate Criminal Enforcement Policies Following Discussions with Corporate Crime Advisory Group“, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco indicated that DOJ intended to go further on this particular topic. In the memo, Monaco indicated that DOJ would expect companies to design compensation structures not only to incentivize and reward good compliance practices, but also to financially penalize individual employees found to have been engaged in misconduct, including by clawing back compensation after the fact.

DOJ’s objective in this initiative is to encourage companies to redistribute some of the cost and penalties associated with individuals’ criminal conduct away from the company (and its shareholders) and onto the individuals themselves. Because misconduct is often discovered after the fact, measures that enable retroactive discipline and clawback of compensation already paid, are of particular importance to DOJ. These measures also reinforce DOJ’s continued focus on individual accountability which has been another of DOJ’s recent areas of focus in addressing corporate criminal matters.

Six months after Monaco’s memo, the Compensation Pilot Program now puts concrete DOJ policy in place to implement those objectives. At the end of the three year pilot period, DOJ will determine whether the Compensation Pilot Program will be extended or modified. If it is deemed a success, we can expect the Compensation Pilot Program to be fully adopted by DOJ. Continue Reading Practical Considerations When Addressing New DOJ Compensation Incentives and Clawbacks Program

Together we navigated operational challenges caused by the pandemic, and together we will weather this. What follows is information and practical advice for employers concerned with satisfying their payroll obligations in the near term in the face of their bank falling into receivership.

  • Identify the “universe” of employment-related expenses. This will include payroll, benefits, bonus and commission comp, insurance, and severance obligations.
  • Understand that liability for unpaid wages can be significant. For example, liability in California includes:
    • Back payment of any unpaid wage amounts that employees prove they were legally entitled to.
    • Interest of up to 10% of the unpaid wages.
    • Penalties for late payment of wages equal to: (i) $100 for the first violation; and (ii) for each subsequent violation, $200 plus 25% of the amount unlawfully withheld. Penalties may apply for each pay period that wages remain unpaid.
    • If any employees leave the company after the payday date, the company can be liable for waiting time penalties for late payment of final wages. Waiting time penalties are equal to 1 day’s wages for each day an employee’s final wages are unpaid, up to a maximum penalty of 30 days’ wages.
    • Companies may be required to pay employees’ attorney’s fees if the employees prevail in litigation.
    • Criminal liability for wage theft if the act is “intentional.” Felony cases are punishable by up to 3 years in prison.  

Continue Reading Navigating Fallout From a Bank Receivership | Practical Tips for US Employers

On February 21, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a decision in McLaren Macomb holding that employers may not offer employees separation or severance agreements that require employees to broadly waive their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In McLaren, a hospital furloughed 11 employees, presenting each with a severance agreement and general release that contained confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions. (See the exact provisions copied below.) The Board majority held that merely “proffering” a severance agreement containing unlawful confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions violated the NLRA because conditioning the receipt of benefits on the “forfeiture of statutory rights plainly has a reasonable tendency to interfere with, restrain, or coerce the exercise of those rights.”

At first blush, this may feel like a sweeping change requiring immediate action. However, it is important to consider this decision with a grain (or two) of salt, breathe and thoughtfully plan your next steps. The key points identified below are designed to help you think through a tailored approach for your organization¾there is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Your approach will depend on the type of workforce you have, your risk tolerance and what you are trying to protect. We are standing by, ready to assist, should you need further guidance.

Key Points

  • For most private, nonunion employers, the risk of an unfair labor practice charge is relatively low. While it is absolutely true that the NLRA does indeed apply to most private sector employers, the NLRB and unions tend to focus more on unionized workplaces. (If you have a unionized or partially unionized workforce, the risk is higher but read on.)

Continue Reading You’ve Heard That The NLRB Restricted The Use of Confidentiality & Non-Disparagement Provisions In Separation Agreements. Here’s What Employers Need To Do About It.