States are becoming more focused on labor relations! Check out some of the most recent state law updates on employer-employee relationships, minimum wage and paid leave.
The Colorado Wage Theft Employee Misclassification Enforcement Bill (S.B. 22-161) concerns the modernization of penalties and procedures for the enforcement of laws governing the employer-employee relationship. The bill updates and modifies laws pertaining to labor relations and payroll.
H.B. 2495 amends the prohibitions on nondisclosure agreements as related to sexual harassment in the workplace to prohibit employers from entering into such agreements.
H.B. 962 / S.B. 643 has caused The Maryland Personal Information Protection Act to be revised. The law applies to employers and businesses that maintain personal information on employees, applicants and other individuals residing in the state. The revisions seek to alter certain security procedures and practices and security breach notification requirements.
H.B. 4554 prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of natural or protective hairstyles, including braids, locks, twists Bantu knots, etc.
The Michigan Court of Claims has voided the current minimum wage law and the paid medical leave law, and re-established previous versions of both laws (minimum wage law and paid medical leave law). See Mothering Justice, et al. v. Nessel, Mich. Ct. Cl., No. 21-000095-MM (July 19, 2022).
- A.B. 9513 extends COVID-19 vaccination leave time until December 31, 2023. Previously, the provisions were set to expire on December 31, 2022.
- The Westchester County Human Rights Law has been amended by the county to require employers with 4+ employees to disclose salary information in job postings. Starting November 6, 2022, covered employers must provide the minimum and maximum salary in postings for jobs, promotions and transfer opportunities for all positions that may be performed in Westchester County. These disclosure requirements to not apply to job postings for temporary employment at temporary help firms.
An Austin City ordinance has sought to include the term “protective hairstyles” in the city’s code definition of “discriminatory employment practice.” Under the amendment, it is illegal for a covered employer to discriminate against an employee or applicant on the basis of a protected hairstyle.