The California Supreme Court issued an important pair of decisions today clarifying that California-compliant wage statements need to be provided only to workers who perform the majority of their work in California, or who are based for work purposes in California.
Category: Legal Insights
On July 1, 2020, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (“USMCA”) will enter into full force, when it will replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) as the primary agreement governing trade relations between the United States, Mexico, and Canada.
The new Proclamation seeks to bar entry into the United States of individuals who are using a visa in one of several temporary visas categories.
Posted June 18, 2020 with Tags Corporate Immigration
In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court issued today a legal defeat to the Administration’s termination of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The program (initially announced in June 2012) allows certain foreign nationals who were brought to the United States as children to request permission to remain in the United States (also known as deferred action) and work for a period of two years if specific requirements are met. An estimated 700,000 beneficiaries have received DACA benefits to date.
The Supreme Court has ruled in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals from being discriminated against in employment. The 6-3 opinion consolidates three cases from the Second, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits, each of which involved individuals fired from their jobs because of either their sexual orientation or gender identity. Each case called the question: Is discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity a type of prohibited discrimination “because of sex” under Title VII?
June 2020 is already proving itself to be a challenging month for employers who sponsor foreign workers.
Business owners are facing decisions most never anticipated. Legal directives are not the only factor holding back the economy. Everyone is eager to see workplaces return to normal operations. At the same time, no business wants to put its workers and customers in danger.
Retail businesses and restaurants have been devastated by stay-at-home orders intended to combat the COVID-19 epidemic. As restrictions begin to loosen, businesses have more freedom to open their doors, but in doing so, face the risk of lawsuits brought by employees or customers who allege that they were exposed to COVID-19.
On Wednesday, June 5, 2020, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Kenneh vs. Homeward Bound, Inc., upholding the “severe or pervasive” standard applied to sexual harassment claims due to hostile work environment under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The standard, adopted from parallel federal Title VII litigation, has been applied to hostile work environment claims under the MHRA for over 30 years. It confines actionable sexual harassment to severe (meaning bad) or pervasive (meaning frequent) conduct that sufficiently alters the conditions of employment.
This week, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed Emergency Executive Order 20-54 (“EO 20-54”), addressing the need for employers to protect all workers, regardless of immigration status, from unsafe work conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
After sheltering-in-place, remote working, and business closures, employers across the country have started planning to bring employees back to work. The first item of business is how to ensure the workplace is safe for employees and the general public. For this, many employers are turning to employee health checks.
Home-bound employees must use their home internet to perform work, but is it reimbursable?
With the unprecedented steps being taken to slow down the spread of COVID-19, it is important that those companies whose products effectively kill or contain the spread of Coronavirus be able to market their products’ efficacy to consumers. It is equally important that unscrupulous companies not be allowed to capitalize on the current crisis by misleading desperate consumers into believing that their products are more effective at killing or containing the spread of the Coronavirus than they actually are.
Prior to reopening, everyone involved in the business of youth sports, clubs, camps, and daycares should concentrate on these two areas.
The COVID-19 pandemic and related "stay-at-home" orders have required changes to employers' everyday practices, impacting nearly all aspects of operations. Employers have worked hard to meet the demand for rapid flexibility in the interest of continuing operations and keeping their workforce safe and intact. For good reason, many of these policies (such as temporary remote work policies) may have been implemented outside of the traditional planning processes that employers use when rolling out new policies.
The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way that associations and its members are engaging. With the stay at home orders in place across the country, in-person meetings have been replaced with video or teleconferences, and a lot more communication is being done in writing.
A significant concern for employers is potential liability to employees who contract COVID-19 at work – either employees in essential businesses who continued to work or employees who may be called back to work after restrictions are eased.
The Federal Reserve Board clarified nonprofits are ineligible for the Main Street Lending Program, but also noted they are evaluating a separate approach specific to nonprofits.
In this unprecedented business environment, many employers have been forced to take swift action to stay afloat during the pandemic. Two common actions have been furloughs and layoffs. But each raises legal risks under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“WARN”) and related state laws.
Impact Analysis for Higher Education: Weighing Risks Posed by Demands for Tuition and Housing Refunds
“Stay-at-home” orders in response to COVID-19 have shifted learning from college classrooms to online platforms and emptied residence and dining halls. Campus administrators are responding to demands from parents and students to refund tuition, housing and meal plan costs, and student fees. Most institutions have adopted policies to reimburse prorated fees and expenses, but are not offering tuition refunds. For many families, this is not enough, and several have filed class-action lawsuits against the schools, with more likely to come.