Dykema Labor & Employment Law Blog
Posts by Allison M. Scott
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on TwitterTopics
- Age Discrimination
- Americans With Disabilities Act
- Arbitration
- Class Actions
- Discrimination
- Disparate Impact
- EEOC Regulations
- Employee Benefits
- Family Medical Leave Act
- Harassment
- Immigration
- Independent Contractors
- Labor Law
- Michigan Employment Issues
- National Labor Relations Act
- Noncompete Agreements
- OFCCP
- Privacy
- Religion In The Workplace
- Retaliation
- Right To Work
- State Employment Regulation
- Trade Secrets
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Wage and Hour
- Whistleblower
Contributors
Recent Posts
- Hidden in the American Rescue Plan Act: More Reasons for Employees To Take FFCRA Leave and More Time for Employers To Receive Tax Credits
- Change is Near: What the Biden Executive Order Means for Title IX Misconduct Claims
- What Does Governor Abbott’s “Reopening Texas” Executive Order Mean For Texas Employers?
- Is Wi-Fi Sickness a Disability? California Appellate Court Holds That It Is Under FEHA
- Whistle While You Work: Congress Strengthens Protections for Employees Reporting Antitrust Violations
- California Employment Law Alert: New Employment Laws Effective On or Before January 1, 2021
- EEOC Issues Technical Assistance Regarding Vaccination and Anti-Discrimination Laws
- The CDC’s New Definition of “Close Contact”: What You Need To Know
- Election Day Obligations: What Employers Need to Know
- Michigan Employers and Employees Enjoy New Protections After Governor Whitmer Signs New Laws
Showing 5 posts by Allison M. Scott.
Is Wi-Fi Sickness a Disability? California Appellate Court Holds That It Is Under FEHA
Is Wi-Fi sickness a disability? The California Court of Appeal just said it is in Brown v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2d Dist., Div. Eight), Case No. B294240. In a case that tests the limits of California’s liberal pleading standard, the appellate court green-lighted a claim of a woman who asserted a disability of “electromagnetic hypersensitivity,” or, as the concurring justice put it, “Wi-Fi sickness.” Read More ›
California Employment Law Alert: New Employment Laws Effective On or Before January 1, 2021
The emergence of COVID-19 has changed the workplace as we once knew it. California employers need to be prepared for unprecedented compliance challenges in recent legislation related to the ongoing pandemic, expanding leave protections, wage and hour compliance risks, and much more. Employers will need to review and adapt their policies and procedures in order to keep up in the coming year with California’s ever-changing employment laws. Read More ›
California Expands Workplace Protections Related to COVID-19 by Enacting Two Statutes Regarding Notice Requirements and Workers’ Compensation Coverage
On September 17, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom signed two bills that expanded worker protections related to COVID-19. AB 685 imposes reporting requirements related to when employees are exposed to COVID-19 in the workplace. SB 1159 codifies Governor Newsom’s Executive Order providing workers’ compensation insurance coverage to employees who test positive for COVID-19 in connection with their employment between March 19 and July 5, 2020, and creating a new framework for workers’ compensation coverage for employees who test positive for COVID-19 after July 5, 2020. Read More ›
California Expands Coronavirus Paid Sick Leave with the Enactment of AB 1867
The federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) generally requires employers with fewer than 500 employees to provide up to 80 hours of paid sick leave to eligible employees for qualifying reasons related to COVID-19. On September 9, 2020, California’s Governor Newsom signed AB 1867. This law expands access to paid sick leave (“Coronavirus PSL”) to California workers employed by entities with 500 or more employees in the United States. Read More ›
AB 5 Is Making Waves in California by Changing the Way Businesses Classify Workers
AB 5 is making waves in California by changing the way companies will classify workers. AB 5 codifies the ABC test adopted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.4th 903 (“Dynamex”). In Dynamex, the Court held that for violations of California’s wage orders, a worker is presumed to be an employee, unless the business proves the following: Read More ›