With the Georgia Senate race and control of the Senate hanging in the balance, a Biden Administration’s ability to enact new employment-related legislation is questionable. However, with the stroke of a pen, a Biden Administration can make significant changes through Executive Order. In this post, we attempt to identify several areas where rule by Executive Order may come.
On October 21, 2020, OFCCP released a highly anticipated Request for Information (“RFI”) seeking information from federal contractors, federal subcontractors, and employees of federal contractors and subcontractors regarding diversity-related training, workshops, or similar programming provided to employees. This RFI follows President Trump’s recent Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping (“Executive Order”), which purportedly prohibits federal contractors from promoting race or sex stereotyping or scapegoating through workplace training (see prior blogs on this subject here and here). READ MORE
On October 7, 2020, OFCCP issued initial guidance regarding President Trump’s recent executive order prohibiting certain diversity-related training by federal contractors (“Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping”). As we previously reported, under this Executive Order, all government contracts entered into after November 21, 2020 must contain certain provisions related to the prohibition of workplace trainings that encompass “race or sex stereotyping” or “race or sex scapegoating,” and covered contractors are prohibited from implementing such trainings in their workforces. READ MORE
Oregon employers should take note of new state Occupational Health & Safety Administration (“OR OSHA”) standards that are likely to take effect soon. On September 25, 2020, OR OSHA’s Infectious Disease Rulemaking Advisory Committee published its final COVID-19 Temporary Standard (following a brief notice and comment period). READ MORE
On September 17, 2020, California Governor Newsom signed SB-1159. Effective immediately, the bill adds three new sections to the California Labor Code (§§ 3212.86-3212.88) which create a rebuttable presumption that certain employees who test positive for COVID-19 contracted it in the workplace. For these employees, the legislation modifies the definition of “injury” for the purposes of workers’ compensation, to include illness or death resulting from COVID-19. The legislation also creates a COVID-19 reporting requirement for employers who employ at least five employees, and makes several other nuanced changes to the way employers must treat workers’ compensation claims based on COVID-19 infections. READ MORE
On September 22, 2020, President Trump issued an Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping prohibiting certain diversity-related training in the federal workforce and among government contractors. Specifically, the executive order provides that the United States will not promote “race or sex stereotyping or scapegoating” in the federal workforce or in the Uniformed Services, the government will not allow grant funds to be used for those purposes, and federal contractors cannot “inculcate such views in their employees.” While the executive order may have significant implications for contractors, the lasting impacts are currently uncertain, including in light of the upcoming election and expected legal challenges. READ MORE
On September 9, 2020 Governor Newsom signed AB 1867 into law, giving California employers just 10 days to implement new COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave statewide. Below we highlight the major provisions of the new law (Labor Code 248.1, or “LC 248.1”) as well as nuances employers should keep in mind as they put their program into place. (For clarity, we refer to this new leave as “LC 248.1 leave” to avoid confusion between this new statewide mandate and other federal and local laws expanding available paid sick leave due to COVID-19.) READ MORE
On July 13, 2020, three prominent whistleblower law regulators spoke at PLI’s Corporate Whistleblowing in the Coronavirus Era 2020, which was co-chaired by Orrick partners Mike Delikat and Renee Phillips. With the standard disclaimer that their comments and opinions were their own and not the official comments of their respective agencies, each spoke about their agencies’ whistleblower program’s current progress, challenges, and priorities. READ MORE
Today the European Court of Justice (CJEU) published its highly anticipated judgement in the case of Data Protection Commissioner Ireland v Facebook Ireland Limited, Maximillian Schrems, colloquially known as “Schrems 2.0”. There were three key elements to the decision: READ MORE
Whatever the outcome of Schrems 2.0, the key takeaway is, don’t panic.
Tomorrow, July 16, 2020, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) is expected to rule in the case of Data Protection Commissioner Ireland v Facebook Ireland Limited, Maximillian Schrems, colloquially known as “Schrems 2.0”.
The main ingredients haven’t changed much for this long-awaited sequel to the decision that invalidated the Safe Harbor regime in 2015: Austrian data protection activist Max Schrems, Facebook Ireland, Ltd, and another commonly used international personal data transfer mechanism on the chopping block for invalidation.
This time around the court is considering the validity of the Standard Contractual Clauses (SCC) adopted by the European Commission, which goes beyond EU-U.S. transfers and could affect most agreements governing data sharing between the EU and the rest of the world. Regardless of the outcome, tomorrow’s decision is going to have a profound impact on the way international data transfers are treated for years to come – but the key takeaway is not to panic. In this blog post, we have set out the three potential rulings open to the CJEU and what steps you can take to following such a ruling. READ MORE