Articles Posted in Posts for Employers

The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), which includes the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act and the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act, is a new law passed by the federal government in response to COVID-19 (Coronavirus). The law provides paid sick leave and expanded family and medical leave to employees impacted by COVID-19.

When does the law start?

The FFCRA’s paid leave provisions are effective on April 1, 2020, and apply to leave taken between April 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020.

On March 19, 2020, the Governor of California issued a “Safer at Home” Order and declared that only essential businesses should remain open to the public. Other states have issued similar mandates. Currently, millions of Americans have already lost their jobs due to the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) crisis and, according to a Federal Reserve estimate, the projected unemployment total could reach 47 million.

Employers all around the country are struggling with how to respond to this difficult situation. The following information is intended to help employers make an informed decision.

Layoffs

COVID-19 (Cornoavirus) was first identified in Wuhan, China in late 2019 and has since spread across the globe. The rapid response of federal, state and local governments has created an adverse impact on local businesses. At Davis & Wojcik APLC, our goal is to help businesses survive COVID-19.

Workplace Safety

California’s Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 (“Cal-OSHA”) requires that employers provide “safe and healthful working conditions for all California working men and women.” (Labor Code § 6300). This includes protecting workers exposed to airborne infectious diseases such as the coronavirus.

The Federal Government has passed urgent legislation in response to COVID-19 (Coronavirus) in order to ease the financial impact on families impacted by the disease. The following are important laws that every employee should know about should they become infected by COVID-19.

Paid Sick Time Laws

California has been at the forefront of sick time laws. Currently, California law requires that employers provide 24 hours (or 3 days) of paid sick leave per year for full-time employees, which can be used beginning on the 90th day of employment.

COVID-19 (Cornoavirus) has shaken the U.S. and World economies. Many businesses are shutting down to stop the spread. This has raised important some important employment law issues. Here are a few frequently asked questions.

What is the best practice for employers regarding COVID-19?

The Department of Industrial Relations has made the following recommendations for employers

As expected, the legal battles over AB5 (California’s Independent Contractor Law) have begun.

The American Society of Journalists and Authors and the National Press Photographers Association have filed a lawsuit challenging AB-5 on constitutional grounds (First and Fourteenth Amendment), as the law only allows 35 submissions per year for the same publication without becoming an employee.

In November 2018, the California Trucking Association is challenging AB5 on the basis that it runs afoul of federal law which prohibits states from enforcing any law related to the price, route, or service of a motor carrier.

Employment law is constantly evolving. Every year, the state of California passes new labor laws that impact the employment relationship. The following are some of the most prominent changes that will take effect on January 1, 2020.

AB 5: Independent Contractors

AB 5 codifies California Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, making it more difficult to treat workers are independent contractors. The passage of this bill has been discussed in depth in a previous blog article.

In the 1940’s, a soap company in Chicago hired a small crew of firefighters to live on the premises and be available for emergencies. The crew officially worked a nine-hour shift but were also required to sleep in a designated location and respond alarms, if necessary. A legal dispute arose about whether the “on call” time should have been compensated as hours worked. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it did, with Justice Robert Jackson stating:

“Of course an employer, if he chooses, may hire a man to do nothing, or to do nothing but wait for something to happen. Refraining from other activity often is a factor of instant readiness to serve, and idleness plays a part in all employments in a stand-by capacity. Readiness to serve may be hired, quite as much as service itself, and time spent lying in wait for threats to the safety of the employer’s property may be treated by the parties as a benefit to the employer.” Armour & Co. v. Wantock (1944) 323 U.S. 126, 133.

The Supreme Court’s ruling opened the door for a litany of subsequent cases on the issue of “on call pay.” In the days of modern cellphone technology, the issue has become even more complex. After all, with a cellphone in every pocket, a beckoning call from an employer is just seconds away.

In 1973, the NCAA enacted a rule prohibiting student athlete drug use. Unfortunately, there was no standardized drug test to enforce the rule. At the 1983 Pan American Games in Caracas, Venezuela, several college student athletes tested positive for prohibited drugs, causing great embarrassment for the NCAA and raising questions about competitive fairness. How was the alleged “drug ban” being enforced?

The NCAA needed a solution, which, unfortunately, would invade the privacy of student athletes. In 1986, the NCAA adopted a mandatory drug testing program. Among other things, the drug testing policy required student athletes (1) to disclose medications they may be using and other information about their physical and medical conditions; (2) to urinate in the presence of a monitor; and (3) to provide a urine sample that reveals chemical and other substances in their bodies.

In 1990, a linebacker on the Stanford football team and the co-captain of the Stanford women’s soccer team sued the NCAA, alleging that the drug testing requirements violated their right to privacy. In the landmark case of Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1, 38, the California Supreme Court held that Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution, which recognizes certain “inalienable rights” including the right of privacy, creates a private right of action against private parties.

When Thomas Jefferson commissioned an expedition to explore the western frontier in 1803, he called upon two men who, among other things, were valiant record-keepers. Meriwether Lewis, a secretary, and William Clark, a cartographer, spent three years exploring and documenting an unknown territory. Some of the most important things to come from the Lewis and Clark Expedition were their personal journals, which contained invaluable information used by those who followed their trail westward.

thomas-jefferson-3-1421198-182x300
The value of record-keeping cannot be overstated. Advanced civilizations require written language, arts, sciences and government – which all begin with record-keeping. The same can be said about business. While all businesses keep records, there is a significant difference between a cave painting and the Great Library of Alexandria. Unfortunately, some business owners remain in the stone age of record-keeping, which can create significant liability.

Both Federal and State law require employers to create and maintain employment records. This includes payroll records, employee’s name, address, occupation, hours worked each day and week, wages paid and date of payment, amounts earned as straight-time pay and overtime, and deductions. These records must be maintained for three years. [Lab.C. §§ 226(a), 1174(d), 29 CFR § 516.5]. Other records, such as time and earning cards and work schedules must be kept for two years. [29 CFR § 516.6].