Employment Law Blogs
Keeping you up to date.
Let Hackler Flynn Law keep you up to date on new California employment laws and regulations. We post frequently to keep our clients up to date so be sure to check back often.
A potential employer in California can generally ask a former employer any question about a prospective employee. However, you may be hard-pressed to find a former employer who will answer any questions beyond confirming job title, dates of employed, documented departure reason, and whether they would rehire. The reason is simple. Fear of litigation. Former Employer Liability California employers have what is called “qualified privilege” when providing reference information to potential employers. This privilege provides employers with liability protection. However, qualified privilege has limits. The information provided cannot be false or made with malice. Qualified privilege does not protect information [...]
Employer considerations when providing equipment and resources What an employer provides their remote worker will be very job-specific. However, here in California, Section 2802 of the California Labor Code requires employers to reimburse their employees for the reasonable and "necessary" expenses they incur in direct consequence of discharging their job duties. So, as an employer, it is important to look at what laws may apply to providing equipment to your remote workers. Additionally, an employer needs to consider the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines. OSHA currently does not enforce federal regulations for employers to follow when their [...]
The US Supreme Court reached a landmark LGBTQ decision on June 15, 2020. The Court held that “An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII" of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case is Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 590 U.S. ___ (2020). The Supreme Court looked at the language of Title VII, which states in part that an employer cannot discriminate “because of [an employee’s] race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The court determined that “Because discrimination on the basis of homosexuality or transgender status requires an employer to intentionally [...]
The question of whether the “ABC test,” codified under Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), covers joint employment has yet to be answered. AB5 doesn’t offer definitive clarification on joint employment. Nor has any California state court confirmed whether the “ABC test” can be used to determine joint employer liability. Joint employment liability has been a central issue for years. Not only in the business community, but also for the Labor Department, the National Labor Relations Board, and the courts. Now, in the wake of Assembly Bill 5, which codifies the “ABC test” set by Dynamex West Operations Inc. v. Superior Court, [...]
Can I require COVID-19 antibody testing before employees return to work? Currently, the answer is no. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued an update on June 17, 2020 clarifying this issue. The EEOC pointed to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) interim guidelines, which state that antibody test results “should not be used to make decisions about returning persons to the workplace.” As a result, antibody testing does not meet the American with Disabilities Act’s (ADA) standard that medical examinations be “job-related and consistent with business necessity”. Requiring antibody testing before an employee can work would [...]
On June 11, 2020, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued an update on its website. The update expands EEOC’s COVID-19 technical assistance questions, providing guidance to employers on the following questions: Can employees with high-risk family members request an accommodation? The EEOC states clearly that employers are not required to provide accommodations to employees with family members who are at high risk for COVID-19. The EEOC states that “The ADA does not require that an employer accommodate an employee without a disability based on the disability-related needs of a family member or other person with whom she is associated.” [...]