In an unwelcome, mid-summer surprise for the business community, President Obama signed the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order on Thursday July 31, 2014 requiring federal contractors to report violations of federal and state labor and employment laws and prohibiting certain contractors from requiring that employees arbitrate disputes alleging violations of Title VII or claims for sexual assault or harassment. The Executive Order also requires federal contractors to provide relevant information about hours worked and overtime on employee paychecks.
Do mean-spirited watercooler talk, negative gossip, and backbiting have an effect on employee morale that companies would like prevent if they could? In many instances, probably yes. Why don’t employers create “no gossip” policies aimed at improving morale in the workplace? One company did implement such a policy and it didn’t work out so well. Read More
In Germany, remuneration of managers in general has increasingly come into public and political focus.
Over the last years, the German legislator enacted several law reforms concerning managers’ pay. Very recently, the German Banking Act (Kreditwesengesetz “KWG”) was amended effective January 2014, to provide for further restrictions on bonus payments for managers and employees in the banking industry. A reform of the German Stock Corporation Act (Aktiengesetz “AktG”) however, shifting the authority of determining the remuneration of board members to the shareholders’ meeting was stopped, but presumably only for the time being. Read More
On October 17, 2013, the California Supreme Court revisited the enforceability of arbitration agreements in California. The Court released its decision Sonic-Calabasas Inc. v. Moreno (Sonic II). In that 5 – 2 ruling, the California Supreme Court reversed its prior decision to strike down an arbitration agreement on the ground of FAA preemption, but remanded the case for analysis of the enforceability of the arbitration agreement under an unconscionability analysis. Read More
Welcome to the Fall 2013 edition of Orrick World: A Quarterly Report of Global Employment Law Issues for Multinationals. We have designed this newsletter to provide our multinational clients with quarterly updates on important employment law issues across the globe. Read More.
Employees who live in employer-provided housing as part of their job may not so easily claim wages for 24-hour periods of work under California’s Wage Orders, according to a recent opinion, Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc., Case No. B245019 (July 3, 2013). Mendiola involved a class of security guards who were employed at various constructions sites across California. On weekdays, the guards were scheduled from 5:00 to 7:00 a.m. and from 3:00 to 9:00 p.m. On weekends the guards patrolled from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. From 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. on weekends and weekdays, the guards were to remain on call at the construction site where they were provided trailer residences for their exclusive use during the on-call time. Read More
As the saying goes, if it didn’t end badly, it never would have ended. That is often the case for former employees who no longer simply gripe to spouses or close friends about their former employers. Disgruntled former employees and disengaged current employees often take to social media in railing on the Company for everything from a toxic work environment to lousy product to scaling back employee perks. Read More
On June 11, 2013, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed two separate lawsuits against Dollar General and BMW Manufacturing Co. LLC, accusing each company of discriminating against Black job applicants through the improper use of criminal background screens. The aggressive positions taken by the EEOC in these cases demonstrate the agency means business with respect to cracking down on criminal background check policies that it feels are not consistent with its April 25, 2012 enforcement guidance on the use of criminal conviction and arrest records in employment decisions. The lawsuits also underscore the importance of reviewing existing policies in light of the EEOC’s emphasis on this issue.
For decades, the EEOC has taken the position that criminal background check policies pose a particular threat of adverse impact discrimination against Black and Hispanic job applicants in light of statistics showing that they are convicted at a rate disproportionally greater than their representation in the population. The agency’s first written policy guidance on the use of criminal background screens, published in 1987, explains that “the Commission has held and continues to hold that [criminal background check policies are] unlawful under Title VII in the absence of a justifying business necessity.” In April 2012, the EEOC issued new guidance on the topic (click here to read our April 30, 2012 blog entry on the EEOC’s guidance). Technically, the new guidance did not establish new rules. It undoubtedly illustrates, however, the increased scrutiny under which EEOC is reviewing criminal background check policies such as those at issue in the Dollar General and BMW lawsuits. Read More
Welcome to the Spring 2013 edition of Orrick World: A Quarterly Report of Global Employment Law Issues for Multinationals. We have designed this newsletter to provide our multinational clients with quarterly updates on important employment law issues across the globe.
Can the EEOC require employers to hire convicted criminals? Last April, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued a policy guideline that calls into question the extent to which employers can incorporate a check of criminal records into a hiring decision without risking legal liability. Read More