First, the bad news:  As if HR personnel who are responsible for managing leave requests aren’t already stretched thin due to COVID-19 issues, they now have another item for their to do list:  Become familiar with, and begin using, new Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) forms issued late last week by the federal Department of Labor (“DOL”).

Now, the good news:  Overall, despite being longer and wordier, the new FMLA forms appear likely to be embraced by employers, employees, and medical providers alike for being more clear, helpful, and user-friendly than prior versions.

The new FMLA forms are available on the DOL’s website.  They include revised versions of the following forms:

• Combined Eligibility Notice / Notice of Rights and Responsibilities (WH-381);
• Designation Notice (WH-382);
• Certification of Health Care Provider (one for employee’s own serious health condition; one for leave relating to care of a covered family member; WH-380 E and WH-380 F);
• Certification of Military Family Leave (including forms relating to Qualifying Exigency leave and leave relating to a Current Servicemember or Veteran; WH-384 and WH-385/WH-385-V).

One overarching revision is that each form now includes more “explanatory” language relating

Recent state and federal developments are a reminder that the COVID-19 landscape is continually changing and demonstrate that businesses must remain alert and nimble as they address rapidly evolving mandates from both the federal and state sectors in the COVID-19 environment. Specifically, in the last week: (1) the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) issued interim guidance1 for critical infrastructure workers; and (2) an April 8, 2020 the Governor of New Jersey signed a new Executive Order2 expanding the state’s Stay-at-Home restrictions.

Businesses that continue to operate under Stay-at-Home orders can expect evolving requirements intended to keep workplaces safe. The New Jersey order is an example of just one state with recent changes; however, it is not alone. Many states are modifying their orders or issuing new guidance as the nation continues to learn more about COVID-19 and as the business community tries to understand and adjust to the orders. One of the biggest challenges is that there is no one source from which updated requirements for businesses might come. New requirements may be issued by state or local health departments, state or local executive orders, and federal agencies. These two most recent developments underscore the importance of continued monitoring to ensure businesses

As the Coronavirus spreads on a worldwide level, employers have started to put into place certain measures group-wide, to limit risks of contagion, such as forbidding travel to certain countries (mainland China, South Korea, Northern Italy, Iran and Singapore) or restricting non-essential travel to certain regions (such as Asia). In addition to these measures, employers may quarantine staff which have returned from a dangerous zone or have been in contact with a contagious person.

What rules would apply during the quarantine?

During the quarantine period, the employer can request employees to work remotely if the nature of their work so justifies and if the employee has tools to do so. Certain companies are now requesting their employees to bring back their laptops home daily so that employees are ready to work remotely if they need to be quarantined urgently.

In France, an employer may impose such remote work to all employees who are able to work remotely to ensure business continuity and the employees’ protection, without obtaining their approval and without any specific formalism (a simple email would suffice), in the event of exceptional circumstances, such as the Coronavirus epidemic.

Remote work may also be envisaged if an employee’s children

We continue to speak with clients on a regular basis about preventing bullying in the workplace, and taking steps to foster a safe environment. If you would like to hear more on these topics, please join me for an upcoming CLE webinar, “Workplace Violence Law: Minimizing Claims” on Tuesday, February 25, 1:00pm-2:30pm EST. Click this link for more information: https://www.sp-04.com/r.php?products/tlgehceena

Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP has a team of knowledgeable lawyers and other professionals prepared to help employers review their employee policies. If you or your organization would like more information on this or any other employment issue, please contact an attorney in the Employment and Labor practice group.

A growing chorus of cities, counties, and states have passed “ban-the-box” laws that restrict when and how employers can consider an applicant’s or employee’s criminal history. Currently, thirteen states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington) and eighteen cities and counties (Austin, Baltimore, Buffalo, Chicago, Columbia (MO), District of Columbia, Kansas City (MO), Los Angeles, Montgomery County (MD), New York City, Philadelphia, Portland (OR), Prince George’s County (MD),  Rochester, San Francisco, Seattle, Spokane, and Westchester County (NY)) have ban-the-box legislation for private employers.

However, employers often forget that use of an individual’s criminal history in making employment decisions may also violate the federal prohibition against employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. For instance, an employer’s neutral policy to exclude applicants from employment based on certain criminal conduct may disproportionately impact individuals of a certain race or national origin.

Recently, Dollar General Corp. agreed to pay $6 million to resolve a discrimination suit brought by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over the use of Dollar General’s broad criminal background check policy that purportedly discriminated against African-American applicants and employees. In addition to the monetary settlement, Dollar

Summary

Our November update considers recent developments in employment law, including cases on religion and belief discrimination, third party harassment and investigations. We also outline other points of note, including the new EU Whistleblowing Directive and the EHRC’s Guidance on NDAs.

Dismissal not unfair where in-house counsel recommended changes to investigation report

The EAT has held that a dismissal was not unfair where a draft investigation report prepared by HR and an investigator was altered on the recommendation of in-house counsel.

In this case, the in-house solicitor had advised the investigator to remove his evaluative opinions and conclusions of whether the employee’s conduct amounted to misconduct, and to limit the findings to whether there was a prima facie case to answer. This was on the basis that the conclusions should be left to the disciplinary panel that was subsequently appointed.

The EAT upheld the Tribunal’s decision that the overall dismissal was still fair as there was no evidential material that had been withheld from the investigation report for review by the disciplinary panel.  As part of this decision, the EAT took into account that the appeal hearer (who was a barrister) reviewed the draft investigation reports and did not find

When one employer purchases the assets of another and intends to employ some or all of the seller’s employees, it is very common for the asset purchase agreement to require the seller to disclose certain personnel information regarding those employees.  Often this disclosure includes such items as name, title, hire date, current salary, and other compensation and benefit information.  However, such provisions may violate state and local bans on salary history inquiries.

To date, fourteen states and Puerto Rico have prohibited or restricted private sector employers from seeking information about a prospective employee’s past compensation.  In some of those states, employers are permitted to ask about compensation history only at a certain point in the hiring process.  But in most, employers are never allowed to seek this information.  Many local governments have also enacted their own bans.

Colorado’s new statute is typical.  Effective January 1, 2021, it will be unlawful for employers to “seek the wage rate history of a prospective employee or rely on the wage rate history of a prospective employee to determine a wage rate.”  The statute defines “wage rate” broadly to mean (a) for hourly employees, the hourly rate plus the value per hour of all

Despite calls for the start date to be delayed, it appears that the extension of the off-payroll working rules to private sector engagements will go ahead in April 2020.

Under the draft legislation, responsibility for determining whether engagements with individuals who provide their services through an intermediary (typically a “PSC”) are within the off-payroll working rules shifts to the client, with the burden of operating PAYE and collecting National Insurance Contributions (“NICs”) falling on the relevant “fee payer” in the work supply chain. More detail about the requirements under the draft legislation can be found in our earlier blog.

As they prepare for the changes, many medium and large businesses are taking the opportunity to review their use of consultants and the terms of their contractor services more widely, in some cases leading to a major shake-up in engagement models. In addition to reviewing the terms which apply where a business contracts directly with a PSC, it is also important to consider the terms on which employment agencies provide contractor services.  With only six months to go until the changes go live, businesses which have not started the review process should act now.

Our September update considers recent key developments in UK employment law, including a case on calculating holiday pay for irregular workers and a Supreme Court decision on non-party access to court documents. We also outline other points of note, including developments relating to non-disclosure agreements and gender pay gap reporting.

Read more here

Illinois employers must begin preparing now for the host of new legal requirements impacting the workplace beginning in 2020.  With legal changes on topics ranging from hiring practices and pay equity to drug testing and severance agreements, employers should not only review and revise their policies, practices and expectations, but also ensure that their Human Resources and management personnel receive training to ensure compliance.

Amendments to the Illinois Human Rights Act (“IHRA”)

Under new amendments to the IHRA, more employers are now subject to the IHRA, more protections are now provided to employees (and others), sexual harassment training is now a requirement, and employers now have reporting obligations to the Illinois Department of Human Rights (“IDHR”) regarding adverse judgments, administrative rulings, and settlements.  Specifically:

• Beginning July 1, 2020, rather than applying only to employers with 15 or more employees, the IHRA applies to all employers with one or more employees in Illinois during 20 or more calendar weeks. Newly covered employers should ensure that HR personnel and managers are aware of the areas in which the IHRA is broader than federal anti-discrimination laws, including but not limited to: (1) pregnancy accommodation requirements; (2) prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender