Listen to this post

The Ninth Circuit recently addressed the issue of whether an employer is required to provide pay for employees taking short-term military leave when it offers other types of short-term paid leave. In Clarkson v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., the Ninth Circuit revived a class action claiming discrimination under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) for the failure to pay short-term military leave.

What is USERRA?

USERRA—a federal law applicable to both private and public employers—provides that a service member employee is entitled to the same “rights and benefits” during a military leave as similarly situated employees on non-military leave. Under USERRA , where the benefits of comparable non-military leaves differ, the employer must give the service member “the most favorable treatment” accorded to any comparable non-military leave.

Continue Reading Paid Leave For USERRA? We Recommend a Comparability Analysis
Listen to this post

California’s latest attempt to restrict employment arbitration was foiled by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last Wednesday. On February 15, 2023, a three-judge panel decided that AB 51 (which prohibits employers from “forcing” job applicants or employees to enter into pre-dispute employment arbitration agreements covering certain discrimination and retaliation claims) is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). In doing so, the Ninth Circuit reversed its prior decision in the same case, issued by the same three-judge panel, which partially upheld AB 51 in 2021. While we expect the California Attorney General to challenge the Ninth Circuit’s February 15 decision, California employers can breathe a sigh of relief for now knowing it’s still lawful for most to continue to require arbitration agreements.

Continue Reading California Employers Still Can Require Arbitration. For Now.
Listen to this post

Employers will now have to contend with a five-year statute of limitations for all employee claims under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). On February 2, 2023, in Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a five-year statute of limitations applies to all BIPA claims—even those that are tied to the publication of an individual’s data and could presumably be subject to a one-year limitations period “for publication of matter violating the right of privacy.” The Court held that the legislative intent and purpose of BIPA, and the fact that BIPA does not have its own statute of limitations, favor all BIPA claims being subject to the state’s “catchall” five-year limitations period.

What happened

Plaintiff Tims filed a class-action complaint against his former employer, Black Horse, alleging that Black Horse violated section 15(a) of BIPA (providing for the retention and deletion of biometric information), and sections 15(b) and 15(d) of BIPA (providing for the consensual collection and disclosure of biometric identifiers and biometric information). Specifically, Tims alleged that Black Horse required its employees to use a fingerprint authentication time clock, and that Black Horse violated BIPA because it (1) failed to institute, maintain, and adhere to a publicly available biometric information retention and destruction policy required under section 15(a); (2) failed to provide notice and to obtain employees’ consent when collecting their biometrics, in violation of section 15(b); and (3) disclosed or otherwise disseminated employees’ biometric information to third parties without consent in violation of section 15(d).

Black Horse moved to dismiss the complaint as untimely, arguing that it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations in section 13-201 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (Code). Black Horse argued that claims brought under BIPA concern violations of privacy, therefore the one-year limitations period in section 13-201 governing actions for the “publication of matter violating the right of privacy” should apply to such BIPA claims.

The circuit court rejected Black Horse’s argument, and denied the motion to dismiss. In doing so, the court held that violations of all three sections of BIPA were subject to Illinois’ “catchall” five-year limitations period in section 13-205 of the Code.

The appellate court, however, distinguished the applicable statute of limitations under BIPA based on the type of violation alleged. It held that violations of section 15(c) (prohibiting the sale, lease, trade or other profit from biometric information) and 15(d) (prohibiting the disclosure, redisclosure or dissemination of biometric information) were subject to the one-year limitations period in section 13-201 of the Code, while violations of section 15(a) (requiring a written policy with a retention schedule and guidelines for destroying biometric information), 15(b) (requiring notice and the specific purpose and length of collection of biometric information prior to collection), and 15(e) (requiring confidentiality and protective measures in the storage and transmission of biometric information) were subject to the five-year “catchall” limitations period in section 13-205.

Continue Reading One Limitations Period for All: Illinois Supreme Court Holds All Claims Under BIPA Have a Five-Year Statute of Limitations
Listen to this post

As we find ourselves firmly in the middle of Q1 of 2023, the avalanche of layoff headlines that started last quarter just keeps coming. Whether you follow the school of thought that the US entered a recession in summer of 2022 (after two consecutive quarters of negative gross domestic product) or not (given a strong labor market and corporate earnings growth), more and more companies are having to address overzealous pandemic hiring and the backlash from soaring company valuations. One comparatively “easy” place for multinational companies to cut costs — US workforces, where employment is generally “at-will” and absent contractual entitlements or triggering statutory notice requirements, layoffs can be carried out relatively quickly. With that said, as always, moving too quickly can create headaches that actually can be avoided — or at least dulled — with a little planning. 

Here are four tips to keep in mind when planning layoffs in the US:

  1. Beware of the WARN(ings)  

Larger layoffs have the potential of triggering the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN Act) (and analogous state laws, known as state “mini-WARN acts”) statutes. These statutes impose notice and information obligations, which can be tricky to keep track of, and carry potentially heavy penalties for noncompliance.

Federal WARN requires employers to give advanced notice to affected employees in the event of a covered mass layoff or plant closing. Under the WARN, employers must provide 60 days’ notice of termination to the impacted employees, union representatives (if applicable), and certain government authorities. Under some state mini-WARN acts, 90 days’ notice is required. Click here for more on WARN.

  • Tip: WARN should become part of the layoff checklists (again), with teams (re)sensitized to the impact on timing and costs if triggered.

Continue Reading 4 Tips To Avoid (Or At Least Dull) Headaches When Conducting Layoffs In The US
Listen to this post

Implementation status and background to the directive 

The European Whistleblowing Directive (WBD) was supposed to be implemented by the European Union’s 27 member states by no later than December 17, 2021, impacting employers with operations in those jurisdictions.

One year on from this deadline, despite the European Commission (EC) commencing infringement procedures against those countries that had failed to implement the WBD in January 2022, we are still waiting for 14 EU member states to do so.  While legislation is still awaited in a number of jurisdictions, we are now in a much better position to see the challenges the WBD poses for global employers.

This article looks at what those key challenges are and the unique support we can offer in helping global employers harmonize their global approach to managing whistleblowing reports within the prescriptive requirements of the WBD. For further practical insights into WBD compliance see our white paper “EU Whistleblowing Directive: Act Now to make your Whistleblowing Program compliant“.

Click here to continue reading.

Listen to this post

This year has started with a bang for Illinois employers. Days into 2023, the legislature passed the Paid Leave for All Workers Act (the “Act”), which would require Illinois employers to provide most employees with a minimum of 40 hours of paid leave per year to be used for any reason at all–not just for sick leave. Governor Pritzker has announced he looks forward to signing the legislation. If he does, Illinois will join Maine and Nevada and become the third state to require paid leave for employers for “any” reason. If signed, the bill will take effect January 1, 2024, and will apply to all employers with at least one employee working in Illinois.

Here’s what Illinois employers need to know now.

Who is covered–and who is not

Under the Act, an employee who works in Illinois is entitled to earn and use up to a minimum of 40 hours of paid leave (or a pro rata number of hours) during a 12- month period.

The Act looks to the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act to define “employer” and “employee” (with some additions and carve-outs), but essentially applies to all employers with at least one employee in Illinois and employees in Illinois with some notable exceptions:

  • Independent contractors under Illinois law
  • Individuals who meet the definition of “employee” under the federal Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act or the Railway Labor Act
  • College or university students who work part time and on a temporary basis for the college at which they are enrolled
  • Individuals who work for an institution of higher learning for less than two consecutive calendar quarters and who do not have an expectation that they will be rehired by the same institution
  • Employees working in the construction industry covered by bona fide collective bargaining agreements (CBAs)
  • Employees covered by CBAs with an employer that provides services nationally and internationally of delivery, pickup and transportation of parcels, documents, and freight.

Also, the Act does not apply to any employer that is covered by a municipal or county ordinance in effect on the effective date of the Act that requires employers to give any form of paid leave to their employees, including paid sick leave or other paid leave. Thus, for instance, employers covered by the Chicago Paid Sick Leave Ordinance or Cook County Earned Sick Leave Ordinance won’t be required to provide paid leave under the Act.

When and how paid leave accrues under the Act

Paid leave accrues for employees at the rate of one hour of paid leave for every 40 hours worked, up to a minimum of 40 hours of paid leave per 12-month period (or a greater amount if the employer chooses to provide more than 40 hours of leave).

An employee would begin to earn paid leave on their first day of their employment (or the first day of the 12-month period, see below)–or on the effective date of the Act, whichever is later.

Employees who are exempt from the overtime requirements of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) will be deemed to work 40 hours in each workweek for purposes of paid leave accrual unless their regular workweek is less than 40 hours, in which case paid leave accrues on a pro-rata basis based on the employee’s regular workweek.

The “12-month period”

The 12-month period can be any consecutive 12-month period designated by the employer in writing at the time of the employee’s hire.

The employer can change the 12-month period if the employer gives notice to employees in writing prior to the change, and the change does not reduce the eligible accrual rate and paid leave available to the employee. If the employer changes the designated 12-month period, the employer must provide employees with documentation of the balance of their hours worked, paid leave accrued and taken, and their remaining paid leave balance.

Employees can start using paid leave after 90 days of employment (or the Act’s effective date)

Employees can begin using paid leave 90 days after the commencement of their employment or 90 days following the effective date of the Act, whichever is later-but employers can allow employees to use paid leave earlier.

Employees determine how much paid leave they need to use, but employers can set a reasonable minimum increment for the use of paid leave not to exceed 2 hours per day. If an employee’s scheduled workday is less than 2 hours a day, the employee’s scheduled workday will be used to determine the amount of paid leave.

Continue Reading Illinois on Verge of Requiring Employers to Provide 40 Hours of Paid Leave for “Any Purpose”
Listen to this post

Special thanks to Bradford Newman and Nandu Machiraju.

Employers have been keeping a close watch for rulemaking and action by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) restricting non-competes. Earlier this month, the FTC answered the Executive Order’s call with enforcement activities and a proposed rule signaling a considerable effort to prioritize employer-employee non-compete covenants as an area for increased enforcement.

In this video, our Labor & Employment, Antitrust & Competition and Trade Secrets lawyers discuss the FTC’s proposed rule and enforcement activity, what it means for employers, and what employers can do now to protect their trade secrets in light of what may be coming from the FTC.

Click here to watch the video.

Listen to this post

Special thanks to Scott McMillen.

Looking Ahead: Exploring the Key Themes and Recommendations for US and Global Employers in 2023

Between maintaining business continuity and keeping your workforce safe, we know there’s been little time to track the rapidly changing employment, compensation and mobility law landscape — in Illinois, across the US, and globally.
 
This webinar, co-hosted by the Association of Corporate Counsel – Chicago Chapter, is designed to ensure that Midwest in-house counsel are up to speed on the top developments of 2022 and are prepared for what’s on the horizon in 2023.

This content-rich 90-minute presentation provides practical takeaways, covering the latest developments in employment, compensation and mobility, including:

  • Protecting your trade secrets in the US and globally
  • Trends in salary disclosure laws in the US and abroad
  • The NLRB: Where things stand and what to expect in 2023
  • Employment litigation trends for the year ahead
  • Significant new developments affecting equity awards in 2023
  • Equity compensation trends and best practices for public and private companies
  • Essential updates from an immigration and mobility perspective, from international travel to I-9 completion

Apply our Annual Illinois Employer Update Takeaways Checklist to help your organization’s leadership prepare for some of the most important developments in employment, compensation, and immigration and mobility in 2023.

Click here to view the webinar recording.

Listen to this post

With concerns intensifying about an economic downturn, unfortunately some layoffs or other reductions-in-force may be necessary for employers to weather the storm. 

What’s different now as opposed to early-on in the pandemic? Because of the ups and downs in the market, and phenomena like the “great resignation” and remote work on a scale never seen before, there is a greater likelihood that more employers will find themselves potentially triggering the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN Act) (and analogous state laws, known as state “mini-WARN acts”). These statutes impose differing notice and information obligations, which can be tricky to keep track of, and carry potentially heavy penalties for noncompliance.

In this latest video, our Labor & Employment lawyers share tips and “WARN-ings” for employers to keep in mind as they strategize with counsel.

Click here to watch the video.

Listen to this post

Special thanks to presenters:  Jennifer Bernardo, Jeremy Hann, Andrew Shaw, Ajanthana Anandarajah, Dave Bushuev, Matthew De Lio, Rono Khan, Junaid Malik & Juliette Mestre.

The new year brings new challenges for employers. Join us as we take stock of changes over the last year and strategize for what’s on the horizon. 

In our 75-minute “quick hits” format, we’ll help Canadian in-house counsel and human resources leaders track what to keep top-of-mind for 2023. We’ll also provide practical takeaways to help navigate the new landscape.

Among other topics, we will cover:

  • COVID-19 case law updates on vaccinations, masking and workplace health and safety policies
  • Terminations, reductions in force and ways to reduce employer liability in a changing economy
  • Changes to public sector wage caps in Ontario
  • A selection of cross-Canada legislative changes including:
    • Working for Workers (again) in Ontario
    • Paid Sick Leave in BC
    • French Language and Privacy amendments in Quebec
  • Immigration – The solution to labour shortages in a post COVID-19 world?

Date: Wednesday, February 1

Time: 10:00 am to 11:15 am ET

We look forward to connecting with you!

Click here to register for the webinar.

Also presenting: Sarah Adler.