The EEOC recently updated its Pandemic Preparedness in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act Guidance, first published in 2009, to specifically address the COVID-19 pandemic. The updated guidance is here.

Significantly, the EEOC confirms that the COVID-19 pandemic meets the “direct threat” standard for employee medical examinations and disability

Layoffs, reduced schedules, sick leave, and telecommuting—these are just a few of the issues that employers are navigating as they quickly adapt to the effects of the global pandemic. While moving full speed seems to be the only way to keep up with the rapidly-evolving landscape, companies should take a moment to ensure that they

Last week, in Kim v. Reins International California, Inc., No. S246911, after more than two years on review and extensive briefing by amicus curiae, the California Supreme Court unanimously resolved an issue of first impression concerning the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA): whether settlement of individual Labor Code claims extinguishes PAGA standing.

California’s Labor Code contains a number of provisions designed to protect the health, safety, and compensation of workers. Among those laws, PAGA provides a mechanism for employees to enforce the Labor Code as the state’s designated proxy. In particular, PAGA authorizes “aggrieved employees” to pursue civil penalties on behalf of the state. Those penalties differ from statutory damages or other penalties an employee may recover individually for alleged Labor Code violations because relief under PAGA is intended to benefit the general public, not the party bringing the action.


Continue Reading

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

As multinational companies compete for highly skilled employees around the world, they are often confronted with a deceptively simple question: Do they impose a noncompetition agreement on their employees?

This article is part one of a two-part article addressing how multinational companies can use a noncompetition agreement on their highly skilled employees to protect their

Last week, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released a comprehensive breakdown of the workplace discrimination charges received in 2019. The report shows that fiscal year 2019 continued the trend of declining numbers of pending charges. Interestingly, the number of charges filed in 2019 is the lowest intake in any fiscal year since at least 1997. While there may be any number of explanations for the decrease, one possibility is that employees are turning to expanding state anti-discrimination laws and more active state administrative agencies rather than the EEOC.

Continue Reading

U.S. merger and acquisitions activity had another busy year in 2019, with total domestic M&A transactions at $1.1659 trillion, almost equal to 2018’s momentous year, according to reports from the fifth annual global transactions forecast by Oxford Economics Ltd. and Baker McKenzie.

With these transactions, many companies have been looking to acquire businesses with

Mark your calendars for a new law prohibiting “no-rehire” provisions in settlement agreements. California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill No. 749 into law on October 12, 2019. Effective January 1, 2020, “no-rehire” provisions are void as a matter of law in California.

Continue Reading

The Seventh Circuit significantly narrowed the EEOC’s broad interpretation of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) last month. The court held that the ADA does not cover discrimination based on a future impairment.

The Seventh Circuit determined that the “regarded as having” prong of the ADA does not extend to applicants who are rejected due to an employer’s concerns about future disabilities. Shell v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry Co. The Seventh Circuit joins the Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits in holding that the present tense “having” in the ADA does not include the future tense “will have.” The facts here involved an obese applicant, and not an applicant with an existing predisposition, so its practical impact may be narrower than at first blush.


Continue Reading