Employment & Labor

August 24, 2020

Amid the United States’ growing opioid crisis, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued new guidance on employers’ obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) regarding job applicants or employees who legally use opioid medications or who have a history of addiction to opioids. The guidance is not new policy; rather, the guidance applies principles already established under both the ADA and previously-issued EEOC guidance.…

Labor & Employment Law Blog

Navigating Business Travel Through the Pandemic

By Wesley Shelton

August 24, 2020

With some employees returning to the office, and many states now permitting non-essential business travel, business managers are beginning to reassess the feasibility of a mobile workforce. One barrier to business travel, however, is state by state travel restrictions which vary substantially and may be inconsistent. In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) continues to recommend that employers “minimize non-essential travel,” and offers guidelines for safer business travel during the Coronavirus pandemic.…

Michigan Employment Law Advisor

Federal Court Rules for Gov. Whitmer’s Administration and Upholds Testing Plan to Protect Michigan Agricultural, Food Processing Workers

By Jason Shinn

August 24, 2020

One Big Thing in Michigan COVID-19 News: On August 21, 2020, U.S. Federal Court Judge Paul Maloney of the Western District Court for Michigan issued an order denying a motion for a preliminary injunction over the State of Michigan’s testing requirements for agricultural and food processing workers. What’s Next: This was a preliminary order for injunctive relief. So the lawsuit (Castillo v Whitmer, Case No. 1:20-cv-751) will theoretically continue. But as explained below, the Judge…

Labor & Employment Law Perspectives

Novel Lawsuits for a Novel Virus

By Patrick J. McMahon

August 24, 2020

While the landscape is far from settled, there is increasing evidence that the plaintiffs’ bar is gearing up for a wave of employment lawsuits stemming from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. These lawsuits typically allege an employer’s unlawful conduct as it relates to an employee’s pre-existing medical conditions, an employer’s obligation to accommodate for these conditions, an employer’s failure to take appropriate COVID-19 safety precautions in the workplace, or some combination thereof. A typical example of…

Labor & Employment Law Perspectives

Time for a Checkup for Your Equity Incentive Plan?

By Casey D. Knapp

August 24, 2020

Let’s take a break from worrying about the global pandemic to check on the health of your equity incentive plan. While we recommend that clients conduct a checkup every year, it is even more important when the economy is less stable. The following outlines some of the best practices in reviewing equity incentive plans maintained by privately held companies. Publicly traded companies should engage in the same exercise, but are advised to consider slightly different…

Labor Days

NLRB Approves Video Hearing For Nurses Against Hospital’s Opposition – But It’s Not All Bad…

By Mark A. Konkel & Alison Frimmel

August 24, 2020

In an August 13 decision the National Labor Relations Board upheld an administrative law judge’s decision denying William Beaumont Hospital’s motion for an in-person hearing for an unfair labor practice charge. The charge was brought by the Michigan Nurses Association alleging “numerous Section 8(a)(3) and (1) violations during an organizing campaign.” The Board shot down the Hospital’s “list of sundry problems” which could potentially occur during a video hearing as speculative and premature, and found…

The Benefit of Benefits

California Rideshare Companies At The Intersection Of AB5 and Proposition 22

By Scott E. Galbreath, J.D., LL.M (Tax)

August 24, 2020

On August 10, 2020, a California Superior Court Judge granted a preliminary injunction against rideshare companies Uber and Lyft requiring them to stop classifying their drivers as independent contractors violating AB5. The injunction was stayed for 10 days to give the companies time to appeal. AB5 codified the California Supreme Court’s Dynamex decision and became effective this past January. Boom Goes the Dynamex!. The motion for a preliminary injunction was filed by California Attorney…

Workers Compensation - Washington

Light Duty Work in L&I Claims and Workers’ Compensation Claims

By Tara Reck

August 24, 2020

After a work injury or occupational disease, people with an L&I claim or workers’ compensation claim might have medical conditions that impact their ability to return to work. We refer to workers incapable of working during their recovery as temporarily and totally disabled. These workers receive time-loss compensation benefits, which is a type of wage replacement. When […] The post Light Duty Work in L&I Claims and Workers’ Compensation Claims appeared first on Workers Compensation – Washington…

California Employment Law Update

“Oh, We Were Just Leaving!”: California Court Halts Order Requiring Uber and Lyft to Reclassify Drivers

By Tony Oncidi, Kate Gold & Philippe A. Lebel

August 24, 2020

Last week, Uber Technologies, Inc. and Lyft, Inc. announced that they would suspend ridesharing operations in the State of California in response to an August 10, 2020 San Francisco Superior Court judge’s preliminary injunction, requiring the companies to reclassify their California drivers as “employees” within 10 days. The order came in the context of a lawsuit brought by California’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra and the City Attorneys of Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco,…

Workforce Bulletin

D.C. Judge Rules COVID-19 Closure Orders Do Not Constitute “Direct Physical Loss”

By Brian L. Friedman

August 24, 2020

On August 6, 2020, in Rose’s 1 LLC, et al. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, a District of Columbia trial court granted an insurer’s cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether COVID-19 closure orders constitute a “direct physical loss” under a commercial property policy. Plaintiff insureds (“Insureds”) own several restaurants in Washington D.C. that were forced to close and suffered serious revenue losses stemming from the Mayor’s orders to close non-essential businesses and…