Dykema

Subscribe to Dykema's Posts

As Election Day quickly approaches in the highly anticipated presidential and congressional elections, employers are faced with a slew of questions about their employees’ rights on November 3 and beyond.

Election Day is not a national holiday; therefore, federal law does not mandate employers provide employees with time off to vote. Employers must assess their obligations under state law as to whether their employees can leave work to vote and, if so, whether they must pay employees for time spent at the polls. More than half of states require employers to provide employees time off from work to vote. Of those states, the law varies as to how much time is allotted and whether that time is paid or unpaid. Some states’ laws are subject to further caveats, for example, proof a ballot was cast. Employers should also ensure their handbook’s time-off provisions are consistent with their state’s voting rights. For example, in Texas, an employee has the right to take paid time off to vote on Election Day. If, however, the employee has at least two consecutive hours off of work while the polls are open, the employer need not allow the employee to leave in the middle of his or her shift.
Continue Reading Election Day Obligations: What Employers Need to Know

On October 22, in a display of bipartisan politics, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed four new COVID-19 and employment related bills into law which together provide employer immunity from liability from COVID-19 related claims and protections for employees affected by COVID-19.
Continue Reading Michigan Employers and Employees Enjoy New Protections After Governor Whitmer Signs New Laws

On September 22, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) released its first-ever proposed rule outlining a test for when a worker is an employee or independent contractor under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

In its proposed rule, the DOL has created a new framework for the well-established “economic reality” independent contractor test. This test is used to determine whether the individual is truly in business for themselves (an independent contractor) or is economically dependent on their employer for work (an employee).
Continue Reading To Be or Not to Be (An Independent Contractor): DOL Seeks to Clarify Independent Contractor Test in Landmark Proposed Rule

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.
Continue Reading California Expands Workplace Protections Related to COVID-19 by Enacting Two Statutes Regarding Notice Requirements and Workers’ Compensation Coverage

The EEOC has been regularly updating its Technical Assistance Questions and Answers entitled “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws.” This guidance is only valid during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, and was most recently updated on September 8, 2020. While the full guidance is worth a thorough read by HR professionals and attorneys, the following summarizes ten key highlights from the EEOC’s guidance:…
Continue Reading 10 Things You Should Know About the EEOC’s COVID-19 Guidance

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.
Continue Reading California Expands Coronavirus Paid Sick Leave with the Enactment of AB 1867

On August 27, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer released Executive Order 2020-172, entitled “Protecting workers who stay home, stay safe when they or their close contacts are sick,” which replaces Executive Order 2020-166. The new executive order is nearly identical to the one it replaces, with two important differences. First, the new order recognizes that an employee’s symptoms could be explained by other medical conditions, which should not prevent an employee from reporting to work. Second, the new order recognizes that an employee should not be required to stay home simply because he or she displays one of the more innocuous symptoms of COVID-19 on its own.
Continue Reading What Employers Need to Know About Michigan’s Latest Executive Order Protecting Workers

On August 24th, the Department of Labor issued a Field Assistance Bulletin (“FAB”), available here, regarding “Employers’ obligation to exercise reasonable diligence in tracking teleworking employees’ hours of work.” While FABs are not legally binding authority, they provide guidance on the WHD’s enforcement positions and policies. This recent FAB is useful in suggesting best practices for those charged with ensuring that employees are paid for all hours worked—a task that has been made much more difficult by the current remote work environment.
Continue Reading Working Hard for The Money: Department of Labor Issues Guidance on Tracking and Paying for Remote Work Hours

On Monday, August 3, 2020, a New York federal judge issued a decision invalidating portions of the DOL’s regulations implementing the Families First Coronavirus Relief Act (“FFCRA”). The decision’s impact changes the legal landscape employers confront as they strive to comply with the FFCRA—a landscape that is unstable as the DOL and the courts sort out the legality of the disputed regulations.
Continue Reading Are Parts of Paid COVID-19 Leave Regulations in Jeopardy? Federal Court Rejects Parts DOL’s FFCRA Regulations, Employers Brace for Possible Fallout

Unexpectedly siding with the liberal wing of the Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch penned a 6-3 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, holding that Title VII’s prohibition on sex-based discrimination also covers sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. The Court’s decision dealt a historic victory for proponents of expanding gay and trans protections for workers under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is clear that this decision will have wide reaching implications for employers.
Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Makes Pride Month History by Holding That Title VII Bars Job Discrimination Against LGBT+ Workers