On December 29, 2022, President Biden signed the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections (“PUMP”) for Nursing Mothers Act into law. The law went into effect immediately, as we previously reported. The United States Department...more
5/26/2023
/ Breastfeeding ,
Employee Rights ,
Employees ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Field Assistance Bulletins ,
Labor Reform ,
New Legislation ,
Pregnancy ,
Pregnancy Discrimination ,
Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (“PUMP Act”) ,
Reasonable Accommodation ,
Wage and Hour
On June 16, 2020, the Colorado Legislature passed the Healthy Families and Workplaces Act which becomes effective on January 1, 2021 for employers with 16 or more employees and on January 1, 2022 for employers with 15 or more...more
The recent outbreak of respiratory disease caused by a novel coronavirus that was first detected in Wuhan City, Hubei Province, has left many employers across the country grappling with how to effectively and lawfully protect...more
2/27/2020
/ Best Practices ,
Business Continuity Plans ,
China ,
Coronavirus/COVID-19 ,
Emergency Management Plans ,
Employee Privacy Rights ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Health and Safety ,
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) ,
Infectious Diseases ,
Leave of Absence ,
OSHA ,
Policies and Procedures ,
Public Health ,
Risk Management ,
Wage and Hour ,
Workplace Safety
The Courts were kind to California employers in September, 2019, issuing two decisions which substantially reduce the damages which plaintiffs can recover in wage and hour cases. ...more
In an unpublished opinion, the Colorado Court of Appeals recently held that a departing employee's right to vacation pay at separation is dependent on the company's policies. Nieto v. Clark’s Market, Inc., 2019 COA 98....more
Although it may seem counterintuitive that an employer should keep time for an exempt employee, there may be sound reasons at times for doing so. In a recent case in California, Furry v. East Bay Publishing, LLC (January 4,...more
Notwithstanding two previous California Supreme Court decisions which essentially held that “[u]nder the common law, corporate agents acting within the scope of their agency are not personally liable for the corporate...more