Since the recent NYC Pay Transparency law came into effect on November 1, companies now have new requirements to consider as it relates to their job postings. With several other states and cities having enacted similar laws in recent years, and with more coming down the pike, we’ve created a new podcast, Gaining Clarity on Pay Transparency, designed to help you navigate this new law and ensure you are in compliance.
California’s passage of SB 1162 expanded the pay data reporting obligations for private employers with 100 or more employees that file annual federal Employer Information Reports (EEO-1) to include employee pay data information in a report to the Civil Rights Department (CRD) (formerly the Department of Fair Employment and Housing). While employers were previously required to disclose head count, pay and hours worked data for covered employees by race, ethnicity and sex in each specified job category, SB 1162 added several new obligations.
Today, the Senate Health, Labor, and Pensions Committee voted 13-9 to advance the nomination of Jessica Looman, who has been serving as the top official of the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor, to be the permanent administrator of the agency. Looman’s nomination has been held in the committee for several months and likely will now progress to a full vote in the Senate before the current Congressional term expires.
On October 31, 2022, the National Labor Relation Board’s (“NLRB”) General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo issued a potentially spooky memorandum for employers regarding electronic surveillance and automated management. The memo sets out to restrict the “omnipresent surveillance” of employees in the advent of work at home culture. Ms. Abruzzo specifically identifies GPS tracking, video surveillance, and key loggers as potential concerns. The memo also equates automated managing software and artificial intelligence (“AI”) to “surveillance” software.
In response to the Dobbs decisions, Califoria enacted legislation intended to enhance data privacy and block record requests by other states concerning alleged abortion-related offenses that are lawful in California. In September, California launched a website – abortion.ca.gov – dedicated to abortion access information. The website includes a disclaimer: “California protects your privacy.”
On September 27, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed unique legislation that seeks to protect abortion data privacy by preventing out-of-state law enforcement officers from executing search warrants on California electronic communication and computing services companies for the purpose of investigating another state’s abortion-related offenses. For California-incorporated or -headquartered communications or computer services companies, Assembly Bill 1242 (AB 1242) significantly changes the process for responding to out-of-state law enforcement requests and lawful court orders for records of activity, such as cellphone location or internet usage, and wiretap requests. AB 1242 includes a series of laws with the sole purpose of protecting the privacy of abortion providers and seekers in California.
Read full alert.
On Sept. 27, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law Senate Bill (SB) 1162. As previously reported, SB 1162 significantly expands pay reporting and disclosure requirements for most California employers.
Effective Jan. 1, 2023, California employers must disclose pay ranges in job postings and make pay scale information available to current employees upon reasonable request. The law also extends the California Labor Code’s retention rules to require employers to maintain records of the job title and wage history for each employee for the duration of the employee’s employment and for three years following separation.
In response to the recent Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in which the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, BakerHostetler partners have developed a podcast series aimed at providing guidance and addressing questions pertaining to the new legal and business considerations that should be made in this new landscape.
For years, employers have insisted that confidentiality and nondisparagement agreements be included in settlement agreements in a variety of employment disputes, such as discrimination, harassment, wage and hour, and others.
The reasoning is straightforward enough: Companies want to protect their reputations, and confidentiality/nondisparagement provisions in settlement agreements have been a way to ensure that unhappy employees do not continue to make disparaging statements about their current or former employers after the parties’ disputes have resolved. However, these provisions became particularly controversial in the wake of the #metoo era, when employees alleged these agreements acted as a manner of silencing employees from disclosing gender discrimination and harassment.
In 2009, the James Brown compilation album The Godfather’s Smackdown, Live! was released. It’s a two-disc compilation of live shows from 1980. I never saw James Brown live, but I did see James Brown’s Celebrity Hot Tub.
On Friday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a different kind of smackdown, chastising the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for ignoring the Circuit Court’s earlier directive about the joint employer test. Believe it or not, this case is another chapter in the ongoing Browning-Ferris saga.
Last week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced that the agencies had entered into a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The FTC press release touted the MOU as a big deal, stating that it would “bolster the FTC’s efforts to protect workers by promoting competitive U.S. labor markets and putting an end to unfair practices that harm workers.” The NLRB Press Release was a bit less definitive, describing it as “a partnership between the agencies that will promote fair competition and advance workers’ rights.” And this week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division announced its own MOU with the NLRB.