BCLP At Work

Main Content

Mandatory Paid Sick Leave for Arizona Employees: How Proposition 206 Impacts Your Business

After surviving a legal challenge rejected by the Arizona Supreme Court, Arizona’s $10 minimum wage enacted under Proposition 206 is already in effect, and the sick leave portion of the law takes effect in July. For many companies, this will require new paid time off and sick leave policies, or at least revisions to their existing policies.

With enactment of Proposition 206, Arizona joins other states with sick leave laws, including Illinois, California, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Washington, D.C. As previously reported by the Bryan Cave Retail Law blog, the Illinois law took effect in January 2017.

The Arizona law generally applies to all Arizona employees; it makes no distinction between salaried, hourly, full-time, part-time, temporary or seasonal employees. All employees must accrue one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked.

Paid sick leave can be used for medical care of a mental or physical illness,

OSHA Indefinitely Postpones Electronic Submission of Injury and Illness Records

May 26, 2017

Categories

We’d like to share with our readers a recent Client Alert from the Bryan Cave OSHA Industry Team providing notice to clients that an upcoming July 1, 2017 deadline for submission of injury and illness logs to OSHA has been delayed by the Trump Administration.  The alert also contains some additional commentary on related injury/illness recordkeeping requirements.

https://www.bryancave.com/en/thought-leadership/osha-indefinitely-postpones-electronic-submission-of-injury-and.html

Bryan Cave LLP has a team of knowledgeable lawyers and other professionals prepared to help employers assess their obligations. If you or your organization would like more information on this alert or how the new regulations affect your business, please contact an attorney in the Labor and Employment practice group.

House Passes Bill to Reduce Overtime

May 25, 2017

Categories

On May 3, 2017, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1180, Working Families Flexibility Act, a law that would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act, to allow employers to give workers paid time off or comp time instead of time-and-a-half overtime pay.  Under the Act, comp time could only be provided in lieu of overtime if it is part of a collective bargaining agreement that was negotiated with the labor organization.  For non-union employees, the employee must have knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the comp time.  There are other conditions such as the employee working a minimum 1,000 hours in a 12-month period before he or she can agree to comp time, as well as limitations, including a maximum accrual of 160 hours of comp time and a mandatory payout of compensation for any unused and accrued comp time by the end of calendar year.  See H.R. 1180 at

France’s Right to Disconnect

May 24, 2017

Categories

Early this year, France enacted a new law concerning the right of French employees to disconnect from digital devices off hours. The intent is to reduce work-induced stress and enable employees to benefit from their rest time at night, on weekends, and during vacation.

On May 9th 2017, Bryan Cave Labor & Employment lawyers Sarah Delon-Bouquet, Federica Dendena, Gary Freer, and Martin Luederitz from four jurisdictions – France, Germany, Italy and the UK – presented a highly attended webinar discussing the recent developments in France and Europe. For those clients operating globally and across various EU jurisdictions, it came as no surprise that there is no uniformity amongst the EU jurisdictions, and each requires individual interpretations that also include a consideration of the differing cultural norms and working practices.

Although there are differences, the following summary can be applied universally:

  • Try to anticipate and plan ahead;
  • Recognize the working

Reducing Exposure to Attorneys’ Fees Awards Through Use of Rule 68 Offers of Judgment (Part 2 of 2)

May 22, 2017

Categories

This is a continuation of Part 1 https://bclpatwork.com/2017/04/12/reducing-exposure-to-attorneys-fees-awards-through-use-of-rule-68-offers-of-judgment/

The Recommended Form and Content of a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment

The offer of judgment should be in writing and state that the defendant is offering to allow judgment to be taken against it for a specific dollar amount (which typically is no less than the amount of the plaintiff’s lost wages through the date of the offer, filing fees, and other recoverable costs), plus an unspecified amount described as “the reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by the plaintiff through the date of the offer in prosecuting his claims against the defendant.”

There is risk that the plaintiff will accept offer and a dispute will ensue regarding the amount of the unspecified “reasonable attorneys’ fees” offered. To guard against this, it is advisable to include the following language in the offer of judgment: “The amount of the ‘reasonable attorneys fees’ will be

Avoiding Three Common Mistakes Made By Employers When Terminating Employees (Part 2 of 3)

Common Mistake No. 2: Paying a Separating Employee Something Extra Without Requiring a Waiver and Release

This post continues the discussion of common errors made by employers terminating employees which can be easily avoided.

Whether it is advisable to pay a separating employee something extra in exchange for a waiver and release of claims against the employer depends on a number of factors, such as the strength of the potential claims that the employee would be waiving and the likelihood of the employee filing suit. That said, an employer should never pay separating employees money to which they are not otherwise entitled without requiring the execution of a waiver and release.

While the wisdom of this advice might be obvious to some, it is not uncommon in my experience to see an employer gratuitously pay a couple of weeks pay to a separating employee without requiring the employee to execute

Missouri Legislature Changes the Burden of Proof for Workers’ Compensation Retaliation Claims

May 10, 2017

Categories

On Monday, May 8, 2017, the Missouri Legislature passed Senate Bill 66.  Senate Bill 66 amended a number of sections of the Missouri Workers’ Compensation Act.  Of significant note for employment litigators, Senate Bill 66 modifies the burden of proof for workers’ compensation retaliation claims under §287.780 R.S.Mo.  This change was a direct response to the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision in Templemire v. W&M Welding, Inc., 433 S.W.3d 371 (Mo. 2014).  

In Templemire v. W&M Welding, Inc., the plaintiff alleged he was fired in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the employer.  The Missouri Supreme Court ultimately reversed and held that to make a submissible claim of retaliation under §287.780 R.S.Mo., “an employee must demonstrate his or her filing of a workers’ compensation claim was a ‘contributing factor’ to the employer’s discrimination or the employee’s discharge.”  The Templemire decision was

Missouri Legislature Passes Significant Changes to the Missouri Human Rights Act

May 9, 2017

Categories

Today, the Missouri House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 43, which makes significant changes to the Missouri Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), Missouri’s fair employment practices law.  Having now passed both Chambers, Senate Bill 43 now goes to Governor Greitens desk for approval.  Senate Bill 43 makes a number of important changes to the MHRA: 

Burden of Proof Changed to Motivating Factor

The burden of proof on claims under the MHRA is changed to “motivating factor.”  In 2003, the Missouri Supreme Court held there was a right to a jury trial under the MHRA.  In 2005, an advisory committee on Missouri’s jury instructions considered the need for a new instruction for claims under the MHRA, and ultimately recommended that the burden of proof for claims under the MHRA be “contributing factor.”  The Supreme Court adopted that recommendation, and in Daughtery v. City of Maryland Heights, 213 S.W.3d 814

Avoiding State Law Pitfalls (Part 2 of 4)

May 8, 2017

Categories

This is the second hypothetical in our series showing how well-intentioned employers can violate unfamiliar state laws.

Scenario #2

A manager of a Chicago, Illinois restaurant calls you regarding a long-term employee whose son is in the U.S. Marines. The employee would like to take a month off work to spend time with his son before he departs for Iraq. The employee does not have any unused vacation or other form of leave available under the Company’s policies. The manager advises that the employee’s performance is average, but a 30-day leave would negatively impact the restaurant’s operations during the busy summer months. You advise the manager that the Family & Medical Leave Act does not apply because neither the employee nor his family member suffers from a serious health condition, and the Uniformed Services Employment & Reemployment Act (USERRA) is inapplicable because that statute only protects employees who are, themselves,

The Use of Unconditional Offers of Reinstatement to Reduce Damages Exposure

This post discusses the underutilized litigation strategy of extending an unconditional offer of reinstatement to a former employee-plaintiff who has filed (or has threatened to file) suit challenging his or her termination from employment.

How the Rejection of an Unconditional Offer of Reinstatement Impacts Damages

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a former employee’s rejection of an unconditional offer of reinstatement (i.e., one that does not require the plaintiff to waive or compromise his or her discrimination claim) to a substantially equivalent position tolls the accrual of the employer’s back pay liability:

An unemployed or underemployed claimant, like all other Title VII claimants, is subject to a statutory duty to minimize damages. . . . This duty, rooted in an ancient principle of law, requires the claimant to use reasonable diligence in finding suitable employment. Although the unemployed or underemployed need not go into another line of work, accept

The attorneys of Bryan Cave LLP make this site available to you only for the educational purposes of imparting general information and a general understanding of the law. This site does not offer specific legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP or any of its attorneys. Do not use this site as a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney. Much of the information on this site is based upon preliminary discussions in the absence of definitive advice or policy statements and therefore may change as soon as more definitive advice is available. Please review our full disclaimer.