California recently passed new legislation that will require employers to provide their California employees with up to 80 hours of supplemental paid sick leave for various COVID-19-related reasons. Sound familiar? There are some similarities between the new law and the 2020 COVID-19 supplemental paid sick law, but the differences are significant for many employers. We’ve put together key takeaways for you to consider before the law becomes effective on Monday, March 29, 2021.
Minneapolis employers in the hospitality industry will likely soon have to contend with a new set of worker protection laws. The Minneapolis City Council is currently considering a citywide Hospitality Worker Right to Recall Ordinance, which would require employers to rehire workers previously terminated due to the Coronavirus pandemic. If adopted, the Ordinance will go into effect on May 1, 2021. Meanwhile, the Minnesota Legislature is considering a similar right to recall law, which would apply statewide to a larger group of employers.
Many employers are seeking ways to encourage their employees to get vaccinated for COVID-19. For those wishing to stop short of making it mandatory, incentivizing voluntary vaccination is an option, but one that comes with its own set of potential legal pitfalls employers should be aware of.
While the ordinance does not directly affect the increasingly complicated and ever-changing analysis of when an individual is properly utilized as an independent contractor (as opposed to being treated like an employee), Minneapolis businesses should be cautious when preparing the written agreement required under the ordinance.
Youth sports organizations are often run by people who are volunteers. Sometimes one volunteer within the group opens a bank account in the name of the sports organization, so fees can be deposited and expenses paid. Many times, a member of the group will suggest that the organization should formalize itself and set up a 501(c)(3) or an LLC to run the programs. What do these terms mean and when would it benefit a youth sports organization to formally organize as a 501(c)(3) or an LLC? Heidi Christianson explains.
More than four months after Gov. Tim Walz declared a peacetime emergency in Minnesota, many employers are eager to return to normal (to the extent possible). But two recent developments in Minnesota that have further pushed back the timeline for returning to “business as usual.”
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.
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.
The threat to these industries is nothing short of existential, says Special Counsel John Levy in a presentation that he gave with Club E Digital on April 30, 2020.
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.