Businesses are constantly challenged by the ever-evolving landscape of labor and employment law, with new legislation and judicial developments occurring almost daily fueling a seemingly never-ending stream of litigation. For companies operating in multiple states, complying with this patchwork of federal, state, and local laws and developments can be daunting. Knowing these issues are a top concern for management and in-house counsel, Morrison Foerster keeps pace with this rapidly evolving landscape. MoFo ELC equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues covering key judicial, litigation and legislative developments, their implications for employers, and strategies to ensure compliance and avoid lawsuits.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

Editors

turnbull_andrew_blog_150x150.png

turnbull_andrew_common_640x280.jpg

turnbull_andrew_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

turnbull_andrew_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

turnbull_andrew_social_600x600.jpg

Co-Chair, Global Employment and Labor Practice

Partner

Andrew Turnbull represents companies on a broad range of labor and employment litigation and counseling matters. He has successfully defended clients in complex employment litigation before federal and state courts and administrative agencies. A primary focus of his practice involves helping companies navigate the unique employment issues that arise when doing business with the federal government, including advising on all aspects of OFCCP compliance, creating and implementing affirmative action plans, defending OFCCP audits and onsite investigations, conducting mock pay equity audits, drafting and developing business ethics policies and programs, and complying with the Service Contract Act, E-Verify, and the Drug Free Workplace Act.

Andrew Turnbull

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

MoFo ELC equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues, covering key judicial, litigation, and legislative developments, their implications for employers, and strategies to ensure compliance and avoid lawsuits. To learn more about our capabilities, please visit the <a href="https://www.mofo.com/capabilities/employment-labor" target="_blank">Employment + Labor</a> practice page and read about our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/people?practices=Employment%20%2B%20Labor" target="_blank">Team</a>.

Welcome to the MoFo ELC Blog

elcblog-header-image.jpg

Welcome to the MoFo ELC Blog

elcblog-header-image

MoFo ELC equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues covering key judicial, litigation and legislati

Announcements

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Cookies

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contract Insights Blog

Government Contract Insights

Looks behind the headlines to explore the trends, identify the opportunities, analyze the issues, and provide guidance for science and technology-based companies.

MoFo Tech Blog

News and thought leadership from lawyers whoa re adding value to the legal profession and the communities we call home.

 MoFo+ Blog

MoFo+

Read our Employment Law Commentary blog for the latest insights in employment and labor law, covering issues from ADA compliance to trade secrets protection.

Employment Law Commentary

MoFo ELC | Latest Employment Law Developments and Commentary

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

ELC Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

By submitting your data to subscribe to this blog, you approved Morrison & Foerster LLP to email you future information about MoFo news and events. You may opt-out at any time by sending a request to <a href="mailto:mofonews@mofo.com" target="_self">mofonews@mofo.com</a>. To learn more about how Morrison & Foerster LLP uses and protects your personal data, please view our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/about/privacy-policy.html" target="_self">Privacy Policy</a> at <a href="https://www.mofo.com/">www.mofo.com</a>.

Never miss a post from MoFo ELC. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

Practical Answers to Employment Law Issues

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Artificial Intelligence

Coronavirus (COVID-19)

Department of Labor (DOL)

Discrimination

EEOC

European Union

Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

Immigration

Intellectual Property

Leaves of Absence

Legislation

NLRB

Non-Compete

OFCCP

PAGA

Paid Sick Leave

Pay Equity

Privacy & Data Security

Reductions in force (RIFs)

Trade Secrets

Wage and Hour

Workplace Misconduct

Topics

Blog - Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

Andrew R. Turnbull

More

DOJ Creates Initiative to Pursue Aggressive False Claims Act Enforcement Against DEI Programs and Civil Rights Violations

Fourth Circuit Stays Injunction of Trump DEI Executive Orders

President Trump Rescinds Affirmative Action for Federal Contractors and Requires Enforcement Plan to End Unlawful DEI at Private Companies

FAR Council Withdraws “Pay Equity and Transparency” Proposed Rule

The “Preventative Duty”: New Law Places Active Duty on Employers in the UK to Prevent Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

LinkedIN

Nine months ago, we discussed several issues that had been raised by COVID-19 face mask-related litigation.<a href="https://classdismissed.mofo.com/topics/warnings-from-recent-face-mask-litigation.html">[1]</a> Soon after, COVID-19 infection rates spiked to unprecedented levels. But with the emergency use authorization of three COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, the state of the pandemic has drastically changed during the first half of 2021. Vaccines are now widely available for people 12 years of age and older, and infection rates have drastically declined across the United States as a result.With months of real-world data showing the safety and efficacy of the Moderna, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson vaccines in hand, the CDC issued Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People (“CDC Interim Recommendations”) on May 13, 2021, which has changed the way people are thinking about masks. The CDC Interim Recommendations have also prompted a range of reactions from companies and employers and impacted mask-related disputes in the courts. This post provides an overview of these recent developments, which businesses and employers would be wise to keep in mind.Read our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/210709-a-return-to-normalcy.html?utm_source=publication&utm_medium=email">client alert</a> for more information.

aubry_lloyd_blog_150x150.png

aubry_lloyd_common_640x280.jpg

aubry_lloyd_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

aubry_lloyd_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

aubry_lloyd_social_600x600.jpg

Of Counsel

Lloyd W. Aubry, Jr. is a member of our Employment and Labor Group. Lloyd’s practice encompasses all aspects of employment and labor law, including litigation and counseling.

Lloyd Aubry

Lloyd Aubry’s practice encompasses all aspects of employment and labor law, including litigation and counseling. He represents public and private clients in a variety of matters relating to wage and hour law, employment discrimination, wrongful discharge, safety and health issues, and National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) issues. Mr. Aubry represents clients before administrative agencies and in state and federal court. A significant part of his practice involves expert testimony and consulting on issues relating to the Department of Industrial Relations. In this capacity, he has served for both employers and employees.

ahern_michael_blog_150x150.png

ahern_michael_common_640x280.jpg

ahern_michael_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

ahern_michael_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

ahern_michael_social_600x600.jpg

Associate

Michael Ahern is an associate in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s New York office.
Prior to joining Morrison Foerster, Mr. Ahern clerked for the Honorable Eileen Bransten in the Comm

Michael G. Ahern

Michael Ahern

07_09_returntonormalcymasklitigation_blog.jpg

A Return to Normalcy? Check Your Local Rules – An Update on Mask Litigation and Guidelines

A Return to Normalcy? Check Your Local Rules – An Update on Mask Litigation and Guidelines

07_09_returntonormalcymasklitigation_blog

Nine months ago, we discussed several issues that had been raised by COVID-19 face mask-related litigation.[1] Soon after, COVID-19 infection rates spiked to un

On June 17, 2021, Cal/OSHA adopted revised COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards, relaxing many of the previous COVID-19 requirements for employers in light of the growing number of vaccinated individuals in the state. The new standards go into effect immediately and apply to most workers in California not covered by Cal/OSHA’s Aerosol Transmissible Diseases standard.Read our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/210624-cal-osha-covid-19-workplace-restrictions.html?utm_source=publication&utm_medium=email">client alert </a>for more information.

Andrew co-chairs the firm’s Global Employment and Labor Group. He represents companies on a broad range of labor and employment litigation and counseling matters, successfully defending clients in number complex matters before federal and state courts and administrative agencies.

new_cal_osha_covid.jpg

New Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Standards Relax Workplace Restrictions

New Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Standards Relax Workplace Restrictions

new_cal_osha_covid

On June 17, 2021, Cal/OSHA adopted revised COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards, relaxing many of the previous COVID-19 requirements for employers 

In the wake of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s first grant of Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for a COVID-19 vaccine, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) updated its pandemic guidance to address the legal issues surrounding the intersection of the COVID-19 vaccine and Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) laws. The guidance—in the form of Technical Assistance Questions and Answers called What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws (“New Guidance”)—is the EEOC’s first substantive position statement on the requirements of EEO laws relative to vaccines since the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic and paves the way for COVID-19 vaccines in the workplace. During the H1N1 pandemic, EEOC advised employers, “Generally, ADA-covered employers should consider simply encouraging employees to get the influenza vaccine rather than requiring them to take it,” and noted that any employer requirement that employees take the influenza vaccine must allow for reasonable accommodations for disabilities and sincerely held religious beliefs under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”).In its New Guidance, EEOC has backed off of its recommendation of avoiding vaccine mandates but never squarely states that employers may require COVID-19 vaccines. Nevertheless, based on EEOC’s conclusion that vaccines are not regulated “medical examinations” and the inclusion in the New Guidance of an entire section devoted to the rules governing the administration of mandatory vaccine programs, it appears EEOC agrees that employers may indeed mandate vaccines, subject to a number of caveats.

covid_02_28_elc_blog_600px_v2-300x200.jpg

What Employers Need to Know: EEOC Serves Up COVID-19 Vaccine Guidance

Virginia Becomes the First State to Adopt COVID-19 Workplace Safety Mandates

covid_02_28_elc_blog_600px_v2-300x200

In the wake of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s first grant of Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for a COVID-19 vaccine, the Equal Employment Opportunity

What Employers Need to Know: EEOC Serves Up COVID-19 Vaccine Guidance

While the use of masks to combat the spread of COVID-19 has become a politicized issue in the United States, the scientific community largely agrees that wearing face coverings is one of the most effective ways to slow infections. State and local governments have issued orders requiring residents to wear masks in public, with some advising employers to provide their employees with face coverings or reimburse the reasonable cost of obtaining one. Governor Gavin Newsom of California, for example, has issued a number of mandates to slow infections. One of those mandates is that all individuals must wear a mask or face covering in public or common spaces statewide. Federal agencies such as the CDC and OSHA have issued non‑binding guidelines that also advise people to wear masks in public.It might seem that as long as businesses comply with these federal, state, and local requirements and guidelines regarding masks, they can expect to be shielded from lawsuits related to their mask-related policies. A few recently filed putative class action lawsuits, however, show that plaintiffs and their attorneys are nevertheless seeking ways to turn mask issues into litigation.See more on <a target="_blank" href="https://classdismissed.mofo.com/ada/warnings-from-recent-face-mask-litigation/">MoFo's Class Dismissed Blog</a>.Morrison & Foerster’s <a href="https://www.mofo.com/capabilities/class-actions-mass-torts.html">Class Action + Mass Torts Group</a>, <a href="https://www.mofo.com/capabilities/employment-labor.html">Employment + Labor Group</a>, and Coronavirus Task Force have advised and represented many clients on developing COVID-19 protocols and emerging claims related to COVID-19.

sosa-acosta_michelle_blog_150x150.png

sosa-acosta_michelle_common_640x280.jpg

sosa-acosta_michelle_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

sosa-acosta_michelle_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

sosa-acosta_michelle_social_600x600.jpg

Michelle Sosa-Acosta is an associate in the  Securities Litigation, Securities Enforcement, and Investigations + White Collar Defense Groups in Morrison Foerster’s San Francisco office. 

Michelle Sosa-Acosta

Are You Covered? Warnings From Recent Face Mask Litigation

While the use of masks to combat the spread of COVID-19 has become a politicized issue in the United States, the scientific community largely agrees that wearin

Are You Covered? Warnings From Recent Face Mask Litigation

FMLA, CFRA, NPLA, ADA, FEHA, NYPFL, SFPPLO.  The alphabet soup of leave laws with which employers must comply is enough to make the heads of even the most seasoned HR professionals and in-house counsel spin.  With an increasing number of municipalities jumping into the game, the number of laws keeps growing.  Realistically, mere mortals cannot memorize the details of each law, and, luckily, it is not necessary as long as they know how to spot issues and when to seek counsel.  Today, we address three key topics to help employers stay ahead of their leave of absence obligations: (1) recognizing leave issues buried within an employee’s questions, statements, or conduct; (2) keeping abreast of the existence of state and local laws in addition to the better-known federal laws; and (3) understanding the difference between the right to protected time off and the availability of full or partial wage replacement during time off. Recognizing Leave IssuesEmployee comments that might set off alarm bells for an experienced HR professional or in-house attorney may easily be overlooked by the front-line supervisors who have the most contact with employees.  It is crucial that supervisors and other people responsible for HR compliance be able to spot these issues. Employee rights to time off generally derive from the following sources:<ul><li>State and local paid sick leave laws;</li><li>The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)[1] and state and local equivalents;</li><li>California’s Pregnancy Disability Leave law (PDL)[2] and similar laws in other jurisdictions;</li><li>Federal and state military leaves;[3]</li><li>Miscellaneous state leave laws protecting time off for jury duty, voting, witness duty, crime victims (domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking), emergency responders, school activities, organ donation, etc.;[4]</li><li>Paid vacation (not mandated by law, but employer must comply with its own policies); and</li><li>Time off beyond whatever the law or company policy mandates as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, and state equivalents.[5]</li></ul>Attorneys and HR professionals may think about leave issues in terms of these statutes, but the people who often have the most regular contact with employees—front line supervisors—do not typically think about employee issues in these legal buckets.  It is therefore important that supervisors and other company employees responsible for HR compliance be sensitized to an employee’s statements and actions that might implicate his or her right to leave.  More important than being able to distinguish among the finer points of PDL, FMLA, and ADA is the ability to recognize the following kinds of employee statements as possible triggers of a right to a job protected leave of absence:<ul><li>“My wife was wounded serving in Iraq and will be stuck in bed for the next two months.”  (FMLA and state military leave laws)</li><li>“Ugh.  I think I have the flu.”  (Federal FMLA and state law equivalents if the illness is sufficiently severe)</li><li>“My boyfriend hit me and I need Thursday morning off to go to court to get a restraining order.”  (Domestic violence leave under state law)</li><li>“My son has been suspended from school, and the principal wants to meet with me next week.”  (School leave under state law)</li><li>“The CIA is listening to my thoughts through my fillings.”  (Time off under the FMLA and state law equivalents for mental disability; reasonable accommodation under the ADA and state law equivalents)</li><li>“I’m sorry I’m late for work again.  I forgot to refill my Ritalin prescription.”  (Reasonable accommodation under the ADA and state law equivalents for ADHD)</li><li>“I realize I’ve used up all my FMLA time due to my surgery, but my doctor says I’ll be as good as new if I can just have a few more weeks off.”  (Reasonable accommodation under the ADA and state law equivalents)</li></ul>The time and resources devoted to training supervisors how to spot these issues will be time and resources well spent.  Not only will they help avoid lawsuits, but they may prevent morale problems and bad publicity.State and Local Regulation of Leaves From WorkCalifornia employers should know by now that California mandates paid sick leave, but some employers might not be aware that, as of January 2019, seven California cities have their own paid sick leave laws:  Berkeley, Emeryville, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, San Francisco, and Santa Monica.[6]  Some of these laws conflict with California’s law and with each other.  For employers with employees in other states, things get even more complicated.  For example, the state of New York does not have a paid sick leave law, but New York City does.[7]  Nearby New Jersey has a state paid sick leave law, but no local laws which would be preempted under the state law.[8]Family and medical leave laws pose similar issues for employers.  California employers with 50 or more employees have long had to comply with the federal FMLA and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA).[9]  Since January 1, 2018, smaller California employers with 20 or more employees must comply with the New Parent Leave Act (NPLA), which allows eligible employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job protected leave to bond with a new child.[10]  Like California, the state of New York has its own version of the FMLA—the New York Paid Family Leave Benefits Law (NYPFL),[11] and New Jersey has the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA).[12]  It is not only states and cities that traditionally have more favorable laws for employees that are getting into the act.  Tennessee, for example, does not have a state equivalent to the FMLA, but has the Tennessee Maternity Leave Act (TMLA), which provides leave for qualified individuals for adoption, pregnancy, childbirth, and infant nursing.[13] In almost every case where multiple laws apply to the same employee, the employer must comply with the law that offers the most protection to the employee.  To stay compliant, employers must be vigilant in keeping abreast of federal, state, and local laws in every location where the company has employees.  This obligation can be especially tricky for companies with a smattering of employees spread throughout the country.  Companies that have one sales representative in each state or region can face compliance challenges as can employers that permit employees to work remotely from a city or state where the company has no offices or other employees. Some employers minimize the compliance burden by adopting company-wide policies applicable to all employees.  This approach requires the employer to adopt a policy that complies with the most employee-friendly leave laws applicable at any company location.  Although doing so may cost the company more money, in return the employer gets consistency and avoids morale problems that might arise when employees in one city learn that a colleague working at a facility a few miles away receives more paid sick leave or baby bonding leave simply because of geography.  Even companies that go this route must remain vigilant.  Given the pace at which state and local laws are being enacted, today’s most protective law can quickly become tomorrow’s has-been.Distinguishing Between Protected Time Off and Wage Replacement Anyone responsible for administering leaves of absence should be mindful of these basic rules:<ul><li>Leave Entitlement ≠ Entitlement to Be Paid.</li><li>Entitlement to Be Paid ≠ Leave Entitlement.</li></ul>While these rules seem straightforward, employers sometimes confuse laws that guarantee employees time away from work with laws or programs that offer full or partial wage replacement while an employee is off work. California’s Paid Family Leave (PFL) is one of the bigger culprits when it comes to confusion.[14]  PFL provides up to six weeks of partial wage replacement to an eligible employee who needs time off to provide care for a seriously ill family member or bond with a new child.  PFL is a form of wage replacement funded through a payroll tax paid by employees, but it does not entitle employees to any time off or reinstatement.  In fact, a person need not even be employed to receive PFL so long as she or he is actively looking for work at the time the person needs to care for a family member.[15]  The state of New York, by contrast, has taken a different approach than California with New York’s Paid Family Leave Benefits Law (NYPFL).  NYPFL applies to all private employers that employ one or more employees and: (i) guarantees time off for reasons parallel to those under the FMLA; and (ii) provides partial wage replacement during leave.  The leave is funded by employee payroll taxes and is paid through Paid Family Leave insurance that the employer must secure. An Illustration of the Myriad Laws in ActionConsider a pregnant woman, Wilma, who works as the controller of the Acme Company, which has 15 employees in California.  Wilma becomes disabled and is ordered to bed rest for the last two months of her pregnancy.  California’s Pregnancy Disability Leave law (PDL) guarantees her up to four months off work due to the disability and the right to be reinstated to her position (or a comparable position if her original position no longer exists) upon end of the disability.  Wilma’s job is safe despite the small size of the Acme Company and her extended time off.  PDL does not, however, entitle Wilma to any pay during her disability leave.  Wilma will, however, likely be eligible for partial wage replacement through California’s State Disability Insurance (SDI) (funded through payroll deductions) after a one-week waiting period.[16]  Wilma may use accrued paid sick leave or possibly accrued vacation, during the waiting period. Wilma delivers the baby through a normal vaginal delivery and her doctor certifies her as disabled under PDL for six weeks after the birth.  Wilma then decides she wants a few months of maternity leave to bond with her new baby.  Wilma may be entitled to Paid Family Leave (PFL) to partially cover her wages during maternity leave, but the Acme Company is not legally obligated to provide Wilma with any time off for baby bonding.  With only 15 employees, the Acme Company is not covered by the CFRA or NPLA, which guarantees employees of larger employers up to 12 weeks off for baby bonding after the end of any pregnancy disability.  The Acme Company, with only 15 employees, may voluntarily offer employees time off for baby bonding, or the company may allow Wilma to use accrued vacation, but despite the availability of PFL to pay for time off with the baby, Wilma has no protected right to time off for baby bonding.If the Acme Company were located in New York instead of California, Wilma would be entitled to guaranteed time off for baby bonding and partial wage replacement under NYPFL.  On the other hand, New York does not have an equivalent to California’s PDL.  Unlike in California, the Acme Company in New York would not have been required to hold open Wilma’s job for the three and a half months she was disabled due to pregnancy and childbirth.  Acme Company might have decided that it could not function without a controller for more than three months and lawfully terminated Wilma’s employment before the baby was born.ConclusionThe patchwork of leave laws throughout the country creates many traps for the unwary.  Employers of all sizes in all states are well-served by ensuring that HR professionals and supervisors are trained and sensitive to the issues.  It is also crucial to stay abreast of the quickly expanding universe of laws and to consider ways of mitigating the compliance burden, such as adopting uniform company policies in all locations.[1] 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.[2] Cal. Code Regs., tit.2, § 11042[3] See e.g., the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq.; FMLA, 29 U.S.C. §§2612(a)(1)(E), 2612(a)(3); Cal. Military & Vet. Code § 395.10.[4] California Labor Code §§ 230-230.8.[5] 42 U.S.C. § 12101; see also, e.g., California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code § 12940; New York State Human Rights Law, Article 15, § 290 et seq.[6] Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014, Cal. Labor Code §245 et seq.; Berkeley Paid Sick Leave Ordinance, Berkeley Municipal Code, Ch. 13.100; Emeryville Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Leave Ordinance, § 5-37.03; Los Angeles Minimum Wage Ordinance, §187.04; Oakland Paid Sick Leave ordinance, Oakland Code of Ordinances, § 5.92.030; San Diego Earned Sick Leave and Minimum Wage Ordinance, San Diego Municipal Code § 39.0101; San Francisco Paid Sick Leave Ordinance, San Francisco Administrative Code Ch. 12W; Santa Monica Minimum Wage Ordinance, Santa Monica Municipal Code Ch. 4.62.[7] New York City Earned Sick and Safe Time Act, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 20-911 to 20-924.[8] New Jersey Earned Sick Leave, N.J.S.A. 34:11D-1.[9] California Family Rights Act (CFRA), Cal. Gov. Code § 12945.2[10] California New Parent Leave Act (NPLA), Cal. Gov. Code § 12945.6.[11] New York Paid Family Leave Benefits Law, final regulations, tit. 12 N.Y.C.C.R. Part 380 et seq.[12] New Jersey Family Leave Act, N.J.S.A. 34:11B-16[13] Tennessee Maternity Leave Act, Tenn. Code Ann. 4-21-408.[14] Cal. Unemp. Ins. Code § 3300 et seq.[15] To complicate things a bit more, employers in San Francisco with 20 or more employees must supplement employees’ PFL by the amount needed to true up the employee to 100% of his or her regular salary.  See San Francisco Paid Parental Leave Ordinance, San Francisco Police Code 33H (2016).[16] Cal. Unemp. Ins. Code § 2601 et seq.

paid-time-off-thumb.jpg

Navigating the Seas of Federal, State, and Local Leave of Absence Laws

Navigating the Seas of Federal, State, and Local Leave of Absence Laws

shutterstock_329338832_small.jpg

Paid Time Off - Post Size

FMLA, CFRA, NPLA, ADA, FEHA, NYPFL, SFPPLO.  The alphabet soup of leave laws with which employers must comply is enough to make the heads of even the most seaso

A California jury recently awarded a $3.3 million verdict to a California Department of Transportation (“CALTRANS”) employee who alleged a variety of disability-related claims involving CALTRANS’s failure to properly accommodate his allergy to certain scents and his supervisor’s and co-workers’ retaliatory actions in light of his requests for accommodation. The basis of the award was failure to accommodate the plaintiff’s disability – his allergic reaction to certain scents – and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and a similar state law. While it may be easy to dismiss such claims as insignificant or overwrought, the jury awards and settlements described below make clear that these claims can be serious and must be addressed.Read our <a href="https://media2.mofo.com/v3/assets/blt5775cc69c999c255/blt039af4d340e65018/62730eee5f7b601eaaebcd8a/170628-employment-law-commentary.pdf" target="_blank">newsletter</a>.

When One Person's Scent Is Another Person's Disability

elcblog-june-_2017.jpg

When One Person's Scent Is Another Person's Disability

elcblog-june- 2017

A California jury recently awarded a $3.3 million verdict to a California Department of Transportation (“CALTRANS”) employee who alleged a variety of disability