Listen Now

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj_r1ntUk1M] If an employee becomes ill with COVID-19 symptoms, they may request for paid sick leave under the FFCRA only to seek a medical diagnosis, or self-quarantine only if advised to do so by a healthcare provider. If tested positive, the employee may continue to take paid sick leave. This does not apply for illnesses unrelated to COVID-19—though employers may allow them to telework at their discretion. You may not take paid sick leave under the FFCRA if you unilaterally decide to self-quarantine for an illness without medical advice, even if you have COVID-19 symptoms.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YduFG1ETZY] Under the circumstances existing currently, the ADA has specifically allowed employers to bar an employee from physical presence in the workplace if he refuses to have his temperature taken, refuses to answer questions about whether he has COVID-19, has symptoms associated with COVID-19, or has been tested for COVID-19 and is positive. If the employee claims under the ADA that they have a medical reason for refusing a temperature check, the employer can still bar them from entering the workplace. However, their reason should be documented and accommodation should be provided to the employee (i.e. work from home). If accommodations of any sort are not possible, then the employee will be on unpaid leave. They can also be fired if the role cannot stay unfilled.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6k_vgtvmTU&w=560&h=315] The simple answer is “no”. The Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA) prohibits employers from asking employees medical questions about family members, and it is still in force. GINA does not prohibit employers from asking employees whether they’ve had contact with anyone who has been diagnosed with COVID-19 or may have symptoms associated with the disease. The CDC also recently issued guidance that explained, from a public health perspective, that only asking an employee about their contact with family members would unnecessarily limit the information obtained about the employee’s potential exposure to COVID-19. So, employers should not only ask about family but about everyone. In fact, they should remove the word “family” from their attestation. Asking this question shows due diligence, best practice, and care for other employees.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwIiTDvEjmY] A new bill in California was finalized that would expand the California Family Rights Act to make it an unlawful employment practice for employers with five or more employees to refuse to grant an employee’s request to take up to 12 workweeks of unpaid protected leave during any 12-month period to bond with the employee’s new child or care for themselves or a child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner, as specified. Under existing law, family and medical leave requirements extend only to the employee’s self, child, parent, or spouse. The employer coverage threshold is currently set at 50 or more employees. This has been expanded to include a grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner. The bill also reduces the employer coverage threshold to five or more employees. Under the bill, which applies also to employees of state and local political subdivisions and cities, an employer that employs both parents of a child would be required to grant leave to each employee. Currently, the employer is only required in those circumstances to grant both employees a total of 12 workweeks of unpaid protected leave during the 12-month period.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ0aYhbhPSk] Referring to a case involving Cal/OSHA and frozen foods manufacturer Overhill Farms Inc. and its temporary employment agency Jobsource North America Inc., employers failed to protect hundreds of employees from COVID-19 at two plants in Vernon. This was due to the lack of physical distancing procedures among workers including where they clock in and out of their shift, at the cart where they put on gloves and coats, in the break room, on the conveyor line, and during packing operations. Each employer accrued over $200,000 in proposed penalties. The employers did not take any steps to install barriers or implement procedures to have employees work at least six feet away from each other and they did not investigate any of their employees’ COVID-19 infections, including more than 20 illnesses and, in the case of Overhill Farms, one death. Other violations that put workers at risk of exposure to COVID-19 include the failure by both employers to train employees on the hazards presented by the virus and failure to investigate any of the more than 20 COVID-19 illnesses and one death Cal/OSHA uncovered amongst their employees. The employers did not adequately communicate the COVID-19 hazards to their workforce, and Overhill did not report a COVID-19 fatality to Cal/OSHA. Illnesses must be investigated and additional protective measures implemented. Serious illnesses and deaths must be reported to Cal/OSHA. Employers should also notify workers of possible exposure and report outbreaks to county public health officials.

https://youtu.be/EFcPkW82VCc Under the FLSA, employees are entitled to be paid a minimum wage for each hour worked and to be paid one-and-a-half times their regular rate of pay for each hour in excess of 40 hours worked in a workweek (some states have slightly different regulations). Certain employees are exempt from these requirements, including employees who are employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity, as well as outside salespeople. A three-part test was created in order to define who are exempt professionals: The salary basis test determines that the employee must be compensated on a salary or fee basis. The salary level test determines that the salary paid must meet a specific minimum amount. The duties test determines that the employee’s primary duty must be to perform work that requires either knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science of learning, customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction; or invention, imagination, or talent in a recognized field of artistic or creative endeavor. An alternative to this three-part test for this particular exemption is the “highly compensated employee test”, which eliminates the need for a detailed analysis of the employee’s job duties. Under this test, the employee qualifies as exempt if they customarily and regularly perform at least one of the exempt executive, administrative, professional, learned, or creative duties, and receives total compensation of at least $107,432 a year. The total compensation must include at least $684 per week, paid on a salary or fee basis as well. The FLSA exemptions are just as much part of the FLSA’s purpose as the minimum wage and overtime pay requirements, and therefore must receive a fair (rather than narrow) interpretation. The Wage and Hour Division, therefore, interprets the act neither expansively nor narrowly, but instead according to conventional canons of statutory interpretation.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmjNGQGvsKg] A group of mechanics employed at a South Carolina chain of tire and automobile repair stores was paid under a compensation plan that contained two components. They received an amount determined by multiplying the particular mechanic’s “flat rate”;—an hourly pay rate assigned to each mechanic based on that mechanic’s particular skill, experience, and certifications—by the mechanic’s " turned hours," a pre-established amount of time designated by the employer for each mechanical task, for all tasks completed by the mechanic during the relevant pay period. The compensation for turned hours did not account for the actual time spent working on a particular task or during the pay period overall, however. Instead, it was based exclusively on the number of tasks completed and the pre-assigned turned hours for such tasks (the same measure of turned hours used to form a mechanic’s pay for a particular task also was used as the basis for the labor costs charged to the customer for that task, although the rates paid by the customers were greater than mechanics’ flat rates). While the above describes the key component of the compensation plan, the secondary component is that of differential pay. When the amount of a mechanic’s turned hours compensation earned over a given pay period was less than 1.5 times the statutory minimum wage multiplied by the mechanic’s actual hours worked during the same period, he or she also received a supplemental amount, referred to as “differential pay”; and designed to ensure that mechanics always earned at least 1.5 times the statutory minimum wage for all actual hours worked. The differential pay rate was set at whatever amount was needed to render the mechanic’s total compensation—i.e., turned hours pay plus differential pay—equal to $11.02 per hour for all actual hours worked during the period. As a result, if a mechanic’s turned hours fell below a certain percentage of their actual hours, he or she was compensated as though having earned a straightforward wage of $11.02 per hour. The mechanics filed a putative class-action suit against the company, after which both sides filed motions for summary judgment seeking a ruling in their favor regarding whether the employer’s method of compensation is a bona fide commission plan under the FLSA—and, if so, whether the plan was exempted from the statute’s overtime pay requirements. The employees argued that the employer’s commission rate was a "sham" that did not meet the requirements to qualify for the Section 7(i) overtime exemption, that the totality of the employer’s conduct demonstrated a clear pattern of reckless disregard for the FLSA, and that the court should find that a three-year statute of limitations applied in denying the company’s motion for summary judgment concerning employees who had filed their written consents to be part of the class within those three years. The FLSA provides two potential limitations periods: a two-year statute of limitations applies for non-willful violations, but a three-year statute of limitations applies when the violation is willful (employees bear the burden of proof when alleging that a violation is willful). In the case at bar, the employees conceded that the company’s failure to consult with a lawyer concerning its compensation plan could not alone demonstrate a willful violation of the statute. Rather, they contended that, combined with its other conduct, the company’s failure to have consulted with an employment lawyer or with the...

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5_adTNqND4] The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has laid out new workplace strategies for COVID-19-related violence prevention in order to avoid conflict if customers refuse to adhere to safety protocols being enforced by employees. The CDC has posted information on limiting workplace violence related to retail and service businesses’ COVID-19 prevention policies. This information is also intended for other customer-based businesses, including department stores, grocery stores, gas stations, and restaurants that are opened and have implemented state, municipality, and company-directed Coronavirus prevention policies. The policies that may prompt violence toward workers include requiring masks to be worn by employees and customers, asking customers to follow social distancing rules, and setting limits to the number of customers allowed in a business at any given time. The CDC defines workplace violence as “violent acts, including physical assaults and threats of assault, directed toward persons at work or on duty.” Workplace violence includes: Threat: verbal, written, and physical expressions that could reasonably be interpreted as intending to cause harm. Verbal assault: yelling, swearing, insulting, or bullying another person with the intent of hurting or causing harm. Unlike physical assaults, the intent is not necessarily to cause physical harm, but negative emotions of the person being assaulted. Physical assault: hitting, slapping, kicking, pushing, choking, grabbing, or other physical contacts with the intent of causing injury or harm. Employers are encouraged to take the following actions to prevent workplace violence: Offer customers options to minimize their contact with others and promote social distancing. These options can include curbside pick-up; personal shoppers; home delivery for groceries, food, and other services; and alternative shopping hours. Advertise COVID-19-related policies on the business website. Put in place steps to assess and respond to workplace violence. The response will depend on the severity of the violence and on the size and structure of the business. Possible responses may include reporting to a manager or supervisor on-duty, calling security, or calling 911. Assign two workers to work as a team to encourage COVID-19 prevention policies to be followed if staffing permits. Identify a safe area for employees to go to if they feel they are in danger (e.g., a room that locks from the inside, has a second exit route, and has a phone or silent alarm). Post signs that let customers know about policies for wearing masks, social distancing, and the maximum number of people allowed in a business facility.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gi7xFp--uE] We will be looking at an explanation from the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor about the Fair Labor Standards Act, specifically about employee reimbursements. Generally, the FLSA requires covered employers to pay non-exempt employees no less than the federal minimum hourly wage for all non-overtime hours worked in a given workweek. 29 U.S.C. § 206. Employees must receive these wages “free and clear.” 29 C.F.R. § 531.35. An employee’s wages include the “reasonable cost” of “board, lodging, or other facilities” that primarily benefit the employee, and therefore the reasonable cost of such items count towards satisfying an employer’s obligation to pay the minimum wage. 29 U.S.C. § 203(m). But the cost of “other facilities” that are primarily for the benefit or convenience of the employer cannot be counted as wages. 29 C.F.R. § 531.3(d). Those costs include tools of the trade, required uniforms—or required use of a personal vehicle. An employer violates the FLSA “in any workweek when the cost of such tools” (and the like) “cuts into the minimum or overtime wages required to be paid….” Id. § 531.35. Therefore, an employer violates the FLSA if the employee’s wages, minus expenses, end up below the federal minimum wage for a given non- overtime workweek. See id.; see also id. §§ 531.3(d), 531.36(b). A reimbursement to cover expenses incurred on the employer’s behalf or for the employer’s convenience is sufficient if it “reasonably approximates the expenses incurred.” Id. § 778.217(a).2 A reimbursement amount based on IRS guidelines, including the annual standard mileage rates, “is per se reasonable.” Id. § 778.217(c). While employers must keep records of “the dates, amounts, and nature” of items added to or deduct from each nonexempt employee’s wages, neither the FLSA nor WHD’s regulations require them to keep records of employees’ actual expenses. Id. § 516.2(a)(10). Employers are instead required to keep records that they used to determine the number of additions to or deductions from wages paid. Id. § 516.6(c)(2).

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2Q8P2LF124] The Department of Labor has posted a clarification letter about the FLSA and addresses the question of whether commercial drivers can be paid solely on a commission basis. The FLSA exempts from its overtime pay requirements certain employees of “retail or service establishment[s]. The exemption applies to any employee: who works at a retail or service establishment, whose employee’s regular rate of pay exceeds one and one-half times the applicable minimum wage in the workweek in which he or she works overtime, and whose earnings in a representative period consist of more than 50% commissions The United States Supreme Court recently held that exemptions under the FLSA deserves a “fair (rather than narrow) interpretation” because the exemptions are “as much a part of the FLSA’s purpose as the overtime-pay requirement.” Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 138 S. Ct. 1134, 1142 (2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, WHD must apply a “fair reading” standard to all exemptions to the FLSA—including the Section 7(i) exemption addressed in this letter. The client who sent in the letter employs truck drivers from three different establishments and pays the drivers solely on a commission basis to transport fluid waste from customer oil field locations to disposal facilities. The client pays each driver 27% of the gross revenue received by the client for each truck driven regardless of how many hours are worked each week. Each driver works approximately 60 each week scheduled as 12-hour shifts, five days a week. The inquiry letter represents that the regular rate of pay for each driver exceeds one-and-one-half times the federal minimum wage. The truck drivers qualify for the Section 7(i) exemption if the client is a retail or service establishment. To qualify as a “retail or service establishment,” (1) your client must “engage in the making of sales of goods or services”; (2) “75 percent of its sales of goods or services, or both, must be recognized as retail in the particular industry”; and (3) “not over 25 percent of its sales of goods or services, or of both, maybe sales for resale.” The letter by the Department of Labor concludes that the client—provided that they provide waste removal service, has services that are recognized as retail within the waste removal industry, has trucks that are not that different from what is used for the general public and uses a quantity that is relatively similar to that of a retail service provider—would qualify as a retail or service establishment. Their employees would, therefore, be exempt. If not, they need to track the hours of their workers as they will be entitled to overtime and minimum wage payments.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYX_R6_GXVs] The Equal Employment Opportunity Council released guidance early in August 2020 that addressed employees who may be suffering from opioid addiction, referring to it as an opioid disability protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act. While this guidance is directed specifically towards employees, employers can read through the document to help them think about how to deal with the issues addressed. When an employee comes to an employer with an addiction, especially opioid addiction, understand that it is classified as a disability under the ADA, meaning the employer is required to provide reasonable accommodation. If the company has a drug testing policy and an employee tests positive for a particular drug, if they have a prescription for it—in order to treat something that is a legitimate medical concern—know that this is a disability and not a reason to fire them. If the employee is unable to safely operate heavy machinery under the particular drug, reasonable accommodation may be needed if the employer can afford it.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz13X5PfR4Y] Employees that work from home on an hourly basis need an ability to clock in and out for their scheduled hours and an ability to report the time that they worked in an unscheduled time. For example, if the employer was not expecting the employee to work at 10 pm, and yet they did, the employer has to put together a reasonable process for reporting the unscheduled work time so that the employee can be paid accordingly. It can be a discipline issue if they work unscheduled hours, and the employer may have to bar access to their clocking in if need be. No matter the circumstances, however, the employee must always be compensated for the extra hours. This Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) provides guidance regarding employers’ obligation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA or Act) to track the number of hours of compensable work performed by employees who are teleworking or otherwise working remotely away from any worksite or premises controlled by their employers. In a telework or remote work arrangement, the question of the employer’s obligation to track hours worked for which the employee was not scheduled may often arise. While this guidance responds directly to needs created by new telework or remote work arrangements that arose in response to COVID-19, it also applies to other telework or remote work arrangements. However, if an employee fails to report unscheduled hours worked through such a procedure, the employer is not required to undergo impractical efforts to investigate further to uncover unreported hours of work and provide compensation for those hours. Id. However, an employer’s time reporting process will not constitute reasonable diligence where the employer either prevents or discourages an employee from accurately reporting the time he or she has worked, and an employee may not waive his or her rights to compensation under the Act. Id. at 939; see also Craig v. Bridges Bros. Trucking LLC, 823 F.3d 382, 388 (6th Cor. 2016).

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUn4WQ017ds] It can be difficult for management to understand why an employee may be excelling in one area of a job while underperforming in another. Performance is evaluated on an ongoing basis but, often, it is an annual review. A Performance Improvement Program (PIP) basically shortens the length of performance reviews. It provides more feedback more often to an employee, normally around a specific issue.   A PIP should be implemented when an employee consistently performs poorly or behaves inappropriately. For example, if an employee is consistently late for work, missing due dates, or conducts themselves in an improper manner, a PIP may be a necessary initiative. Although it may be easy to identify where an employee falls short of expectations, it can be difficult to identify the root cause of the problem. For instance, issues in an individual’s personal life, conflicts at work, or even management style may all be the reasons for performance issues.   PIPs can give employees the opportunity to correct any behavioral or performance issues that may be affecting their overall success. By providing employees with achievable and timely goals, employees are given the opportunity to be more engaged at work. The facilitator of the PIP should meet regularly with the individual throughout the process to provide feedback that can keep the employee motivated and productive, as well as to hear feedback from the employee.   Although PIPs are centered around employee work performance, there are a variety of benefits for both the employee and the company. Organizations have reported the following benefits as a result of implementing PIPs: Increased productivity Greater quality of work Deepened relationships between management and the employee Greater job fulfillment   In short, PIPs are there to help pinpoint a specific issue and work together for the future of the employee and the company. Greater job fulfillment on behalf of the employee is almost always the result of a successful PIP. It is important to let your employee know that they have great potential and that you truly want them to succeed with the company, hence why you are implementing a PIP instead of simply firing them.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_35zj3H11g] The short answer to this question is “yes”. Of course, telecommuting is preferable. If the work can be done from home, the employer and employee should discuss options to prevent complications that arise due to situations such as the current lockdowns or city-wide protests. Do keep in mind that factors such as business expenses vary by state whether they are reimbursable by the employer. The processes for tracking attendance and upholding performance standards for exempt employees should be planned out. If it is necessary to come in for work, note that, so far, in each state that has instituted a curfew due to “social unrest”, commuting to or from work is still allowed. To avoid confusion, and keep your employees safe, create a letter for each employee on the company letterhead to keep in their car when traveling to and from work. It is as simple as modifying the standard letter used for essential businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic, which you may refer to below. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Disclaimer: Businesses should consult the relevant guidelines to determine whether they are an essential business.] [Date] [Employee Name and Address] To whom it may concern: The employee identified above is employed by [Name of Business], which [Describe services your business provides] and is continuing operations at [Address of Business] during {the shelter-in-place order as an essential business under the relevant law. } OR {the times at which the city has instituted a curfew}. [Company name] is committed to complying with the relevant requirements and appreciates your assistance in enabling our employees to continue to provide business functions to the community. This employee generally works a schedule of [X to X] and this letter does not apply to time outside of normal working hours. If you have any questions, please contact me at the number below. Sincerely, _____________________________ [Name of Executive] [Phone Number]

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfwwapAGcco] In answering this question, it is important to note the differences between “noncompete”, “non-solicitation”, and “company” or “trade secrets” when navigating future opportunities. “Noncompete” simply means that the employee cannot seek work in the same industry by becoming an employee or partner of a competitor. Note that the “duty of loyalty” exists without any sort of agreement— although it is always better to spell things out to all your workers via your non-disclosures. An organization’s current employees are under a “duty of loyalty” to the organization. Each state defines that duty a bit differently. In general, employees are not permitted to induce current customers, suppliers, or other employees to leave the organization, nor are they allowed to operate a competing business while still employed by the organization. When that duty is breached, the employer may be entitled to collect lost profits, punitive damages, and out-of-pocket costs incurred to train replacements. Offending employees may be forced to forfeit their salaries and to give up any profits they made as a result of the disloyal conduct. Also, courts may issue injunctions forbidding the employees to engage in similar conduct for a specified period. Under the duty of loyalty, the law generally prevents an individual from using trade secrets or proprietary information of a current or former employer to the detriment of that employer. A trade secret can be any information that derives independent economic value from not being generally known or readily ascertainable. Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia have adopted in whole or in part the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA). The UTSA codifies the basic principles of common law trade secret protection and may afford employers protection even in those states, like California, where restrictive covenants are generally not enforceable. The UTSA protects an employer from misappropriation and misuse of actual trade secrets, which are defined as information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, process, drawing, data, or customer list that: Derives independent economic value — actual or potential — from not being generally known to or readily ascertainable (by proper means) by other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use. Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. An employer must take reasonable measures to maintain the confidentiality of trade secrets. In determining whether reasonable steps have been taken, courts balance the costs and benefits on a case-by-case basis. Even states that have not adopted the UTSA generally accord similar protection to trade secrets under the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 757. To determine whether a piece of information is a trade secret, states following the Restatement of Torts will generally examine the following six factors: The extent to which the information is known outside the business. The extent to which it is known by employees and others involved in the business. The...

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHr2N0tkHcc] In this episode, we dive into Post Accident Drug Testing. After Oct 2018, OSHA has stated that most instances of workplace drug testing are permissible, including:   Random drug testing; Drug testing unrelated to the reporting of a work-related injury or illness; Drug testing under a state’s workers’ compensation law; Drug testing under another federal law, such as a U.S. Department of Transportation rule; and Drug testing to evaluate the root cause of a workplace incident that harmed or could have harmed an employee. However, the Department warned that, if the employer chooses to use drug testing to investigate an incident, the employer should test all employees whose conduct could have contributed to the incident, not just the employee who reported an injury.   And in TENNESSEE, we dove a little deeper into the minimum property damage levels stated in TN Laws.   Reasonable suspicion testing   Reasonable suspicion” is based on a belief that an employee is using or has used drugs or alcohol in violation of this company’s policy and is based on specific, objective and articulable facts and reasonable inferences drawn from those facts in light of experience. Among other things, such facts and inferences may be based upon, but not limited to, the following:   Observable phenomena while at work such as direct observation of substance abuse or of the physical symptoms or manifestations of being impaired due to substance abuse; Abnormal conduct or erratic behavior while at work or a significant deterioration in work performance; A report of substance abuse provided by a reliable and credible source; Evidence that an individual has tampered with any substance abuse test during his or her employment with this company; Information that an employee has caused or contributed to an accident while at work; Evidence that an employee has used, possessed, sold, solicited, or transferred drugs while working or while on the employer’s premises or while operating the employer’s vehicle, machinery, or equipment; or Involvement in an accident that results in an injury to another individual or in property damage exceeding Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or such minimum amount as set by U.S.DOT Guidelines, if less.   The key takeaway from this episode is that laws and regulations change often and quickly. Before 2016, the above would work, from 2016-2018, no...

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opgvh1N2grU] This episode goes through law updates in August 2020: Nebraska Employee Misclassification: The Employee Classification Act is amended to change enforcement provisions. The change provides that the commissioner may issue a citation to a contractor when an investigation reveals that a contractor has violated the act. Nebraska Smoking in the Workplace: The Nebraska Clean Indoor Air Act is amended to exempt electronic smoking device retail outlets from smoking prohibitions under the law. The limited exemptions under the law permit smoking in public places where the public would reasonably expect to find persons smoking, including guest room suites designated as smoking rooms, institutions engaged in research related to smoking, and tobacco retail outlets, electronic smoking device retail outlets, and cigar shops, with narrow application and restrictions under the law. Nebraska Wage Payment: The Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act is amended to provide and change requirements for wage claims under the Act; to prohibit employers from discriminating or retaliation against employees who file a suit or complaint under the Act or who testify, assist or participate in an investigation, proceeding, or action concerning a violation of the Act; to provide restrictions on employers with unpaid citations; to require the Department of Labor to post certain information related to compliance and enforcement of the Act on its website. New Hampshire Criminal Background Checks: A new law prohibits a public employer from inquiring about or conducting a criminal background check on a prospective employee prior to an interview. Such inquiries are permitted during an interview, however, effective September 22, 2020. New Jersey Minimum Wage: The New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development has adopted new regulations to protect fair wages for tipped workers. The regulations specifically state that tips belong exclusively to the employee. Puerto Rico Workplace Harassment and Bullying: Puerto Rico Governor Wanda Vazquez Garced signed House Bill 306 on August 7 to create the “Law to prohibit and prevent workplace harassment in Puerto Rico,” which establishes the policy against harassment in the local workplace, defines its scope, procedures, prohibitions, and sanctions. Rhode Island Equal Opportunity in State Employment: A new law creates a new process with standards to be utilized when deciding whether past convictions should disqualify an applicant from receiving the state-issued occupational license, permit, certificate, or registration they seek. Further, the law prohibits state agencies from discriminating by considering protected characteristics in the granting denying, or revoking of a license or charter. Vermont Unemployment...

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O-t_rz13pU] This episode goes through law updates in August 2020: Georgia Disaster and Emergency Services Volunteer Leaves: Under the Disaster Volunteer Leave Act, employees of state agencies who are certified disaster service volunteers may be granted paid leaves of absence for no more than 15 workdays in a 12-month period to participate in specialized disaster relief services for the American Red Cross. Georgia Meal and Rest Periods: A new law requires employers to provide a paid break time of reasonable duration to an employee who desires to express breast milk at the worksite during working hours. Georgia Paid Sick Leave: Without action by the Georgia General Assembly, the state’s sick leave laws were set for automatic repeal effective July 1, 2020. However, the Assembly did act to extend the state’s sick leave laws, until July 1, 2023. Georgia Unemployment Insurance Law: The method for determining maximum weekly benefit amounts is amended with regard to high average unemployment rates. For claims filed on or after June 14, the maximum benefits payable to an individual in a benefit year is to be the lesser of: (1) 14 times the weekly benefit amount, if this state’s average unemployment rate above 4.5 percent up to a maximum of 26 times the weekly amount added for each 0.5 percent increment in this state’s average unemployment rate above 4.5 percent up to a maximum of 26 times the weekly benefit amount if this state’s average unemployment rate exceeds 10 percent; or (2) one-fourth of the base period wages. If the amount computed is not a multiple of the weekly benefit amount, the total will be adjusted to the nearest multiple of the weekly benefit amount. Indiana Privacy: Indiana law prohibits an employer from requiring a candidate for employment or an employee to have a device implanted or otherwise incorporated into the candidate’s or employee’s body as a condition of employment, as a condition of employment in a particular position, or as a condition of receiving additional compensation or benefits. Indiana Unemployment Insurance: The Indiana Employment Security Act is amended to revise contribution rate schedules for calendar years after December 31, 2020. The selection of the appropriate schedule for the calendar tax year is based on the fund ratio, which is determined by taking the balance of the fund on the computation date and dividing it by the total payroll of all contributing employers for the preceding calendar year. Kentucky Drugs in the Workplace: A new law orders the Cabinet for Health and Family Services along with the Office of Drug Control Policy to promulgate regulations for employer-facilitated substance use disorder treatment programs for employees who have failed an employment-related drug screen. Maintaining such a program is voluntary on the part of employers and participation would require...

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gjNHRI2KAs] This episode goes through law updates in August 2020: California Unemployment Insurance: Tax-rated employers will receive relief from unemployment insurance benefit charges related to COVID-19. Alongside other states, California will not count COVID-19-related claims against employers. Colorado Labor Relations: The Colorado Partnership for Quality Jobs and Services Act was enacted to provide state employees with the right to self-organization. This law gives more freedom to employees to not participate in unions. Colorado Paid Sick Leave: The Healthy Families and Workplaces Act creates paid sick leave in Colorado. Under the new law, upon hire, employers begin accruing paid sick leave at the rate of one hour for every 30 hours worked, up to 48 hours. Colorado Unemployment Insurance: The maximum weekly benefit amount in Colorado effective July 1, 2020, is $590. The alternative maximum weekly benefit amount is $649. The minimum weekly benefit amount remains $25. Colorado Whistleblower Protections: The Worker Rights Related to a Public Health Emergency law prohibits employers from discriminating, retaliating, or taking any adverse action against any employee who raises a concern about workplace health and safety practices or hazards related to a public health emergency. Connecticut Minimum Wage: The minimum wage in Connecticut will increase to $12 per hour on September 1, 2020, per a scheduled increase.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts3aW2E7J1Q] This episode covers COVID-19 liability. As an employer recovering from shutdowns in your area, you may be in danger of getting a consumer or employment complaint from their potentially getting sick in your office or store. The liability shield for these situations is a major part of the discussion for the proposed stimulus bill because there is a major concern that, without it, many businesses will become vulnerable to legal troubles once they reopen. Since the federal government has not yet acted, many states have come in and put their own liability shields in place. Hunton Andrews Kurth's COVID-19 Complaint Tracker tracks by state and type. Of the 4,280 complaints filed as of August 13, most (around 1,000) are related to insurance claims, malpractice suits, civil rights cases, and government taking. The key cases to be covered by the liability shield proposed by Congress are called “consumer cases”. These include personal injury, price gouging, product liability, recurring membership fees charged during a shutdown, and wrongful deaths. Through the tracker, it was found that only a few of the aforementioned 4,280 cases are actually related to consumer cases. Nevertheless, many states have taken action to blunt the risk that businesses will be held liable for COVID-19-related injuries. Take the time to examine the CDC guidelines for businesses and employers and make sure that they are being followed, as they do provide extreme protection in the case of a lawsuit.