On December 30, 2019, Judge Kimberly Mueller in the Eastern District of California issued a temporary restraining order that enjoined California from enforcing AB 51. AB 51 prohibits employers from requiring, as a condition of employment, employees’ waiver of any right, forum, or procedure for an alleged violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act or the California Labor Code. (For more on AB 51, read here).
Continue Reading Stop! In The Name Of The Federal Arbitration Act
Going into 2020, employers should be mindful of several new state laws aimed at limiting the enforceability of noncompete agreements against low-wage employees. Crucially, while protecting low-wage worker job mobility is the key aspect of these new state laws, each has its own unique nuances and one-off requirements, further complicating employer efforts to protect their legitimate business interests when key employees leave.
This article summarizes these new state noncompete laws (all of which became effective in 2019 or take effect in 2020), and briefly discusses new federal-level efforts to adopt legislation, tracking recent noncompete trends.
Click here to continue reading.
This article was originally published in Law360.
Join us in our Toronto office for our Client Appreciation and Learning Event on January 30, 2020.
Our program will start with a year-in-review to bring you up to speed on key workplace law developments of 2019 and how they impact you, followed by two panel discussions on the timely issues of diversity and inclusion and pay equity. We’re also excited to have our colleague, The Honourable Peter MacKay, P.C., joining us for an insightful keynote address.
Click here to view the invitation.
Join us for our Annual California Employer Update on January 8 in Palo Alto and January 9 in San Francisco.We’ll clarify the impact of employment and compensation developments in California, the US and abroad that raise opportunities for the visionary companies that seize them.
We will take a closer look at key developments through both a local and global lens:
• New employment laws impacting California employers
• Wage and hour updates and trends
• Living and litigating in the gig economy
• Immigration changes affecting California employers
• Preparing for global business change
• And much more!
Click here to view the invitation.
We are pleased to share a recent SHRM article, “Prepare for Talks with Canadian Employment Insurance Officers,” with insight from our Toronto colleague Claire-Marie Colantuoni. This article discusses how and why HR professionals and employers in Canada need to navigate the country’s employment insurance (EL) program after terminating employees.
Click here to view the article.
This article was originally posted in SHRM.
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 From The Seventh Circuit: Future Disabilities Not Protected Under The ADA
Hoping for 20/20 vision in the new year? Join us as we bring clarity to employment and compensation laws in Illinois, the US and abroad. This afternoon event will be held in our Chicago office on Wednesday, Dec 4.
We will start with a discussion of emerging trends in advancing Diversity & Inclusion goals followed by key updates and developments on Illinois employment law, immigration law and domestic and global compensation and benefits.
Following the program, we invite you to join us at our 9th Annual Wine and Chocolate Tasting hosted by BakerWomen and the ACC Chicago Chapter. This event begins at 5:30 pm at RPM on the Water. Transportation will be provided.
Key Takeaways From The Event Emerging trends in advancing D&I goals
• Illinois employment law year in review and predictions for the year ahead
• The latest on employment-based immigration law developments
• Developments and trends impacting domestic and global compensation and benefits
Click here to view the invitation and guest speakers.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in First Student Inc. v. NLRB suggests the judicially-created “perfectly clear” successorship standard to determine whether a company inherited its predecessor’s bargaining agreement is ripe for a challenge.
A divided panel concluded that under the National Labor Relations Act, the “perfectly clear” successor standard applied to a successor employer in order to prevent employees from being “lulled” into a false sense of security or into not looking for other work.
The Sept. 3 decision is a stark example of the need for attorneys to anticipate and to shape arguments based on the sea change occurring in America’s courts despite the “current” state of the law.
Click here to continue reading.
This article was originally published in Bloomberg Law.
Despite the hubbub, a new California law purportedly banning mandatory employment arbitration agreements does not completely change the game, and federal law still allows employers to use such agreements.
On October 10, 2019, Governor Newsom signed AB 51 (to be codified as Cal. Lab. Code § 432.6(c)). The new law on its face prohibits employers from requiring California employees to arbitrate certain employment disputes, even if the employees are given the option of opting out of arbitration. More ominously, AB 51 criminalizes retaliation against employees who refuse arbitration, among other remedies.
Companies with operations in California can exhale slightly, with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal and another California appellate court recently concluding, separately, that the rigid “ABC Test” established in Dynamex v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County does not apply in the joint employer context.
