As the COVID-19 Omicron wave recedes and the desire to get back to a pre-pandemic “normal” is stronger than ever, scores of states have either lifted mask mandates or have set a date for lifting them. But what should employers take into account before allowing employees to toss masks aside?
In this Quick Chat video,
Discussion on how employers should notify employees, health departments and others about COVID-19 cases in the workplace. This quick chat covers who must be notified, when and how notice must be provided, medical confidentiality, and other important considerations.
To learn more click here to access the video.
On June 23, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to approve “right to reemployment” legislation that requires large employers to first offer laid-off workers their old jobs back before offering employment to new applicants (“Ordinance”). It will become effective immediately upon Mayor London Breed’s signature and will expire upon the 61st day following enactment unless extended.
Advocates of the Ordinance argued the requirement is necessary to ensure employers don’t use the pandemic as an opportunity to simply replace old workers with new employees who are younger and less expensive. Organizations lobbying against the Ordinance argued that it is overly burdensome; violates core constitutional principles; runs counter to several federal and state laws; and is extremely vulnerable to abuse. Similar legislation has surfaced in Los Angeles County as well.
“Covered employers” are defined as for-profit and non-profit employers that directly or indirectly own or operate a business in the City or County of San Francisco and employ, or have employed, 100 or more employees on or after February 25, 2020.Continue Reading San Francisco Provides Temporary Right to Reemployment Following Layoff Due to COVID-19 Pandemic
On February 10, 2020, United States District Judge Dolly M. Gee denied a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin California from enforcing Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5) against Postmates Inc. and Uber Technologies, Inc. Judge Gee concluded: “Plaintiffs have not shown serious questions going to the merits — the critical factor in determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction — and, though company plaintiffs have shown some measure of likelihood of irreparable harm, the balance of equities and the public interest weigh in favor of permitting the state to enforce this legislation.”
Continue Reading Court Denies Preliminary Injunction To Halt California’s New Statutory “ABC Test” As To Gig Economy Companies And Drivers
We’re pleased to share a recent Bloomberg article authored by our colleagues, Benjamin Ho and Caroline Pham. Ben and Caroline examine what the next generation of workers, Generation Z, expect from and can offer employers.
To get ahead of the curve in preparing for the change that this new generation will bring, check
Until death do you rule, and not a single day after.
In Rizo v. Yovino, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a ruling interpreting the Equal Pay Act by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals because the Ninth Circuit improperly counted the vote of Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who died 11 days before the ruling was announced.Continue Reading From Here (But Not) To Eternity – Supreme Court Vacates Ninth Circuit Equal Pay Decision Issued By Deceased Judge
To help multi-state employers determine the minimum amount they must pay non-exempt employees, our chart below summarizes state and local increases this year. (Unless otherwise indicated, the following increases are effective January 1, 2019.)
This chart is intended to discuss rate changes that affect employers generally, and may not necessarily cover all industry-specific rate changes.Continue Reading New Year, New Minimum Wage Rates Across The US
