When: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Where: New York Hilton Midtown, 1335 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019

Epstein Becker Green’s Annual Workforce Management Briefing will focus on the latest developments in labor and employment law, including:

• Latest Developments from the NLRB
• Attracting and Retaining a Diverse Workforce
• ADA Website Compliance
• Trade Secrets and Non-Competes
• Managing and Administering Leave Policies
• New Overtime Rules
• Workplace Violence and Active-Shooter Situations
• Recordings in the Workplace
• Instilling Corporate Ethics

This year, we welcome Marc Freedman and Jim Plunkett from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Marc and Jim will speak at the first plenary session on the latest developments in Washington, D.C., that impact employers nationwide.

We are also excited to have Dr. David Weil, Administrator of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division, serve as the guest speaker at the second plenary session. David will discuss the areas on which the Wage and Hour Division is focusing, including the new overtime rules.

In addition to workshop sessions led by attorneys at Epstein Becker Green – including some contributors to this blog! – we are also looking forward to hearing from our keynote speaker, Former New York City Police Commissioner William J. Bratton.

View the full briefing agenda here.

Visit the briefing website for more information and to register, and contact Sylwia Faszczewska or Elizabeth Gannon with questions. Seating is limited.

Retaliation claims were once again the number one type of charge filed, up 5% from last year for a total of 44.5% of all charges. Race claims were second, making up 34.7% of claims. 30.2% of charges alleged disability discrimination, up 6% from last year. Ronald M. Green from Epstein Becker Green (EBG) gives more detail on what’s behind the numbers.

View the episode below or read recent comments about the EEOC’s release, from David W. Garland of EBG.

The Ebola virus disease (“Ebola”) has become a worldwide threat, which, among many other effects, has forced employers to think about how to protect their employees. Employers also must consider how Ebola might impact employment policies and procedures, including, but not limited to, those addressing attendance, leaves of absence, discipline, and medical testing.

My colleagues and I have written a detailed Act Now advisory providing legal framework of best practices and legal risks pertaining to Ebola. 

Click here to read the advisory in its entirety

We would like to call your attention to a significant change to the whistleblower statute in California that went into effect on January 1.  The statute, Cal. Lab. Code section 1102.5, has been substantially expanded beyond its prior form to now protect employees from retaliation for making internal complaints or even potential complaints about suspected violations of federal, state or local law.

California previously protected employees from retaliation for reporting reasonably suspected violations of state or federal laws to a government agency. The new law also extends whistleblower protections to employees who report behavior that they reasonably believe to be illegal to a supervisor or other employee with authority to “investigate, discover or correct,” or to a “public body conducting an investigation, hearing or inquiry.”   The new law also expands these protections to cover complaints about local laws.  Thus, it is possible that a complaint relating to the purported violation of an obscure ordinance could give rise to protection under the amended statute.

Therefore, under the new law any complaint made to human resources that relates to purportedly unlawful conduct may result in the protection of California’s whistleblower statute.  Moreover, these protections will apply regardless of whether the employee is required as a function of his or her job to disclose purported illegal activity.

Also of concern, under the revised provisions of Labor Code section 1102.5, it is unlawful for any person acting on behalf of the employer to retaliate against the employee based on a belief “the employee disclosed or may disclose” the information, either internally or to a government agency.  In effect, the revamped law protects employees who have not yet even complained against “anticipatory retaliation.”

Due to the expansive scope of the new provisions, it is possible that the changes in the law may lead to an increase in whistleblower claims and claims under the Private Attorney General Act brought on behalf of the public welfare.  As violations of Labor Code section 1102.5 may subject an employer to a variety of damages, including civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation, California employers should consider training their supervisors and human resources personnel on the expansion of the new law in order to prevent against unwitting violations or becoming a test case on the scope of these new provisions. Particularly, supervisors should be reminded to document performance issues as they occur to avoid someone turning into a “whistleblower” to forestall disciplinary action.

Following is an excerpt:

In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, one of two employment-related opinions issued on Monday by the Supreme Court, a narrow majority held that a retaliation claim brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must be proved according to a strict but for causation standard. Under such a standard, a plaintiff must present proof that “the unlawful retaliation would not have occurred in the absence of the alleged wrongful action or actions of the employer.”

The underlying facts of the Nassar case are somewhat complicated. The plaintiff, a medical doctor employed as a faculty member of the defendant medical center and staff physician for its affiliated hospital entity, resigned from the faculty claiming that the chief of infectious disease medicine at the medical center was biased against individuals of Middle Eastern heritage such as plaintiff. The hospital entity offered the plaintiff a full time position as staff physician, but later rescinded the offer after plaintiff’s former supervisor protested the job offer. The plaintiff sued, alleging that the medical center retaliated against him for his discrimination complaints by encouraging the hospital to rescind its job offer. A jury returned a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor and awarded more than $3 million in damages.

Read the full post here.