The US Department of Labour has announced a final rule (the new rule) that updates several regulations regarding what forms of payment employers can exclude in the time-and-a-half calculation for overtime pay. The new rule clarifies that employers can exclude a range of employee perks and state-mandated payments in calculating overtime under federal law. Employers should review their pay practices with the new rule in mind.
The 2019 California legislative year has officially come to a close. Unsurprisingly, there are dozens of new employment laws hitting the books on 1 January 2020 which will introduce a number of changes, including a ban on arbitration, an extension of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) statute of limitations and a new bill which amends the definition of 'race' under the FEHA. This article highlights 10 of these new laws and provides key takeaways for covered employers.
In the three-year saga over anticipated changes to the minimum salary threshold for overtime exemptions under the Fair Labour Standards Act, the latest – and probably final – development occurred on 24 September 2019, when the US Department of Labour issued its new final rule updating the regulations in this regard. The new regulations will become effective on 1 January 2020. As such, employers must evaluate their workforces to identify positions that will need to be reclassified or modified.
Assembly Bill (AB) 5 has finally been signed into law, making it more difficult for California businesses to classify workers as independent contractors. AB 5 codifies and expands the California Supreme Court's holding in Dynamex and applies the 'ABC' test to most independent contractor questions under California employment law. Now that it has been signed into law and its retroactive effect codified, employers must audit their independent contractor arrangements and pay close attention to the exemptions.
The National Labour Relations Board recently issued a decision that expands the Supreme Court's decision in Epic Systems Corp v Lewis and further authorises employers to limit employees' ability to file or opt in to a class or collective action against their employer. In light of the decision, employers may not only require employees to enter an arbitration agreement that requires one-on-one arbitration, but also impose such an agreement after, and in response to, employees filing or opting in to a class or collective action.
The Supreme Court recently denied Domino's Pizza's request to review the Ninth Circuit's decision that Domino's must make its website accessible to persons with visual impairments under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Given that any business with a website may be targeted by website accessibility claims, companies must take preventative measures, including adopting website accessibility policies and updating their websites to meet trending website accessibility and lawsuit deterrence standards.