Gender Pay Transparency Act Vetoed. On Sunday, October 15, California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the California Gender Pay Gap Transparency Act, AB 1209, a proposed law that would have required (1) large employers in California to collect and disclose data on how they’re paying men and women differently, and (2) the California Secretary of State to publicly post the data on a state government website. The proposal – previously deemed a “job killer” by the California Chamber of Commerce, and characterized as the “public shaming of California employers” bill by many – was strongly opposed by the business community. The Governor expressed concern about the proposal’s ambiguous language and expressed concern that the ambiguity “could be exploited to encourage more litigation than pay equity.” Continue Reading California Governor Vetoes and Approves Pay Equity Bills
On August 31, 2017, a federal district court judge in Texas struck down the Department of Labor’s Obama-era controversial 2016 rule that raised the minimum salary threshold required to qualify for the Fair Labor Standards Act’s “white collar” exemption. Under the proposed regulations, the minimum salary threshold was raised to just over $47,000 per year, and increased the overtime eligibility threshold for highly compensated workers from $100,000 to about $134,000.
The Department of Justice’s (“DOJ’s”) often criticized rulemaking delays have resulted in no new website accessibility rules for places of public accommodation to receive notice of and implement. Notwithstanding the obvious due process concerns raised by these delays, more and more website accessibility cases are being threatened and filed every day. Most, not unexpectedly, settle. Winn-Dixie did not, and what happened next is worth a closer look.
It should come as no surprise that California, known for regulating work, also regulates rest. Section 551 of the California Labor Code states that, subject to certain exceptions, all employees are entitled to “one day’s rest” from labor “in seven” and Section 552 states that employers shall not “cause  employees to work more than six days in seven.” The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court in Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc. these three specific questions:
On March 1, 2016, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) sued employers for the first time for sexual orientation discrimination. The EEOC filed lawsuits in federal courts in Pittsburgh and Baltimore against manufacturing and health care employers for unlawful sex discrimination on behalf of employees alleging they were harassed and discriminated against based on their sexual orientation.
On January 20, 2016, the administrator of the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD), David Weil, issued an “Administrator’s Interpretation” (AI) regarding the agency’s interpretation of joint employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA). The new AI purports to clarify the WHD’s position that joint employment under these statutes “should be defined expansively.” When considered alongside the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB or the Board) controversial decision in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015), in which the Board dramatically expanded the definition of “joint employer” under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the AI may be another step in a coordinated federal agency push to expand joint-employer liability under a variety of labor and employment statutes.