California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed Assembly Bill (AB) 1867, to create COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave (CPSL) requirements for employers with 500 or more employees, filling a gap left by the federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) which applies only to employers with under 500 employees.  The new law also codifies existing supplemental paid sick leave requirements for certain food-sector workers that were implemented in April under California Executive Order E.O. N-51-20.

AB 1867 took effect on September 19, 2020.  It will expire on December 31, 2020, although if Congress extends the emergency sick leave provisions of the FFCRA, the provisions of AB 1867 would automatically be extended for the same period.

Continue Reading California Mandates COVID-19 Supplemental Sick Leave for Larger Employers

On September 11, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued revised regulations to clarify certain rights and employer responsibilities under the paid sick leave and expanded family and medical leave provisions of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”).  The revisions were made in response to a recent decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”), which invalidated certain provisions of the FFCRA regulations.

The FFCRA, which we discussed here, requires employers with fewer than 500 employees to provide emergency paid sick leave (“EPSL”) and emergency Family and Medical Leave Act leave (“EFMLA”) to employees who meet certain COVID-19-related conditions.  DOL issued regulations implementing the FFCRA on April 1, 2020.

Continue Reading DOL Revises FFCRA Regulations in Response to Federal Court Decision Invalidating Parts of the FFCRA

A New York federal district court judge has struck down significant portions of the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) joint employer rule, which went into effect earlier this year.  As a result of this ruling, certain companies may be more likely to be deemed joint employers and exposed to liability for wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

As we described here, in March 2020, a final rule issued by DOL went into effect implementing a four-factor test for determining whether more than one entity may be considered an individual’s employer under the FLSA.  The new test shifted the existing rule’s focus on the “economic realities” of the alleged employer/employee relationship to a narrower inquiry regarding whether the alleged employer actually exercised control over the alleged employment relationship.

The District Court for the Southern District of New York has now held that DOL’s final joint employer rule violated the Administrative Procedures Act for two reasons.  First, the court found that the rule contradicted the text of the FLSA because it ignored relevant concepts defined in the statute, such as the definitions of “employ” and “employee,” and that DOL had erroneously applied different standards for “primary” and “joint” employment when no such distinction exists in the FLSA itself.  Second, the court found that DOL’s reasoning for the rule change was arbitrary, capricious, and not supported by adequate evidence.

Continue Reading Federal District Court Strikes Down DOL Joint Employer Rule

In an important civil rights development, the U.S. Supreme Court today issued a 6-3 opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, holding that gay and transgender employees are protected under the prohibition against workplace sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”).  Justice Gorsuch delivered the majority opinion, joined by Justices Roberts, Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.  Dissenting opinions were filed by Justices Alito (joined by Thomas) and Kavanaugh.

Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Holds Title VII Prohibits Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

On Friday 20th March, the U.K. Government announced various support measures for UK businesses.  One of these was the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (the “Scheme”), which it is hoped will reduce the risk that U.K. employers promptly dismiss employees in response to the Coronavirus outbreak.  Further guidance was published on 26th March, providing some much needed detail on various aspects of the Scheme, which is expected to be operational by the end of April.

Any employer in the U.K. can access the Scheme for assistance with salary payments to those employees that would otherwise have been at risk of dismissal for redundancy and who are described for the purposes of the Scheme as “furloughed workers” (a new concept in English law).  Some questions remain, but the key details of the Scheme are:

Continue Reading The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme – Guidance for Businesses with Employees in the U.K.

Following its announcement on Friday 20th March to provide much-needed assistance to UK employers and employees in the short-term through the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, and intense pressure to provide similar assistance to self-employed workers, the UK Government has released details of a similar scheme intended to support this group: the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme (the “SEISS”).

The SEISS will support self-employed individuals (including consultants and members of partnerships) whose income has been negatively impacted by COVID-19, but is unlikely to apply to consultants who provide their services through a personal services company, given the criteria set out below.  Further, the Chancellor indicated that tax payable by the self-employed would, in future, need to be brought in line with that paid by employees.

Continue Reading U.K. Government Announces Self-Employment Income Support Scheme

As the COVID-19 public health crisis continues, businesses are dealing with unprecedented disruptions to operations and workforce stability. Most employers undoubtedly want to assist their employees during this uncertain time, but they are struggling to balance the cost of maintaining their workforce with shrinking profits. The frequent result of such a balancing act is a mass layoff. While such a reduction in workforce may be inevitable, below are options that employers can consider to try to avoid that outcome. For all of these alternatives, employers should be careful to apply any changes consistently across the workforce to avoid claims of inequity or discrimination.

Continue Reading Ten Ways to Avoid Layoffs During the COVID-19 Pandemic

In view of the coronavirus crisis, employers are faced with numerous questions of employment law, ranging from the question of compulsory employment and possible release of employees in the event of illness or closure of the business, through remuneration issues in the event of a lack of childcare, to the currently extended options for receiving

  • The speed and severity of the current crisis means UK employers face very difficult and pressing decisions.
  • Some intermediate steps can be taken to preserve workforces for a period and avoid immediate redundancies.
  • Some form of individual or even collective consultation with employees or their representatives may be necessary. This can be used as an opportunity to seek creative, collaborative solutions to preserve jobs in the short-term.
  • We set out a checklist of potential measures below.


Continue Reading Five Ways to Avoid Redundancies During The Coronavirus Crisis