A few days ago, the much-anticipated official Corona-Warn-App, commissioned by the German government, went live – and has since been downloaded over 10 million times. The goal is to convince as many people as possible to use the track-and-trace-app to curb the spread of COVID-19. While extensive use of the app can be a benefit for employers who are looking at re-opening and return to work planning, some legal questions come up in the employment context.
How Does the App Work? READ MORE
On June 22, 2020, the White House issued the “Proclamation Suspending Entry of Aliens Who Present a Risk to the U.S. Labor Market Following the Coronavirus Outbreak” which is the latest in a series of U.S. immigration restrictions purportedly tied to the COVID-19 outbreak and its impact on the American economy. READ MORE
As much of the US re-opens, governmental agencies are issuing updated guidance to guide the return to the workplace. Here’s the latest from OSHA and the EEOC. READ MORE
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act” (Public Law 116-136)) allows employers and self-employed individuals to defer payment of the employer share of the Social Security tax from March 27, 2020 (the date of its enactment) through December 31, 2020, that they otherwise would be responsible for paying to the federal government with respect to their employees. Employers generally are responsible for paying a 6.2-percent Social Security tax on employee wages. READ MORE
On June 15, and just in time for LGBTQ+ Pride month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The decision is among the most Court’s most significant federal non-discrimination rulings in the last several decades, and immediately resolves a circuit split regarding the scope of Title VII’s prohibition on sex-based discrimination. The decision covers three consolidated opinions – Bostock v. Clayton Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. READ MORE
On June 11, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) again updated its compendium FAQs on COVID-19 and the workplace. The latest revisions provide additional guidance on non-discrimination obligations under various federal non-discrimination laws as employees return to work. We previously blogged about the agency’s FAQ guidance here. READ MORE
I. Premium Pay and COVID-19
Although many Americans have suffered furloughs or job losses while those more fortunate are able to work, albeit remotely, workers deemed “essential” under state executive orders and federal guidelines continue to perform their job functions in public-facing circumstances outside of the home. State lawmakers across the country have introduced measures to provide premium or hazard pay to compensate essential workers for the heightened risk of exposure to COVID-19. In addition, the House of Representatives included a premium pay component in its latest COVID-19 response measure. These measures impose the benefits and obligations of additional pay upon different groups of workers and employers, respectively, despite the same overlapping legislative intent. Moreover, the measures raise several important legal questions regarding employment classification and state pre-emption laws. As many states begin to reopen their economies while both the public and private sectors face significant budget constraints, a question remains: will these premium pay measures be dismissed by lawmakers in light of the economic downturn or set the stage for further discussions on either the state or federal level in providing additional pay to those who continue to work during a declared public emergency. READ MORE
As we reported last month, the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) has continued to award numerous multi-million-dollar bounties under its Dodd-Frank whistleblower program notwithstanding the current COVID-19 crisis. READ MORE
As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to financially impact companies worldwide, employers have been working to implement creative compensation strategies to mitigate the financial impact on their workforce, continue to incentivize employees and reward on-site essential workers. While cash is king, equity awards have long been a key component of an overall compensation and benefits strategy for many companies, from small to large, private and public. In difficult economic times such as these, granting equity awards can help companies save cash while filling a compensation gap created by salary reductions, unpaid furloughs or decreased benefits. Equity awards could also soften the blow to employees losing their jobs due to layoffs and redundancies resulting from an employer’s Coronavirus-related financial losses and cost-cutting measures. READ MORE
As we recently reported, the DOL promulgated three new final rules regarding wage and hour issues last month. One of these rules brings a much-needed dose of clarity for certain employers on an unusually thorny issue: what exactly is a “retail or service establishment” for purposes of the “retail exemption” under Section 7(i) of the FLSA? This section exempts certain commissioned employees in “retail or service establishments” from the FLSA’s overtime compensation requirement, but the list of qualified employers has been notoriously confusing and vague. Effective May 19, 2020, the DOL’s final rule nixed its almost half-century old catalog of qualifying establishments and adopted a new and uniform framework for determining eligibility for the exemption. READ MORE
