SINCE THE Pregnant Workers Fairness Act took effect in June 2023, there’s been a huge spike in lawsuits against employers alleging failure to reasonably accommodate workers covered by the landmark legislation.

In the first 11 months following enactment of the law, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received 1,869 complaints from workers who allege their employer failed to provide them with reasonable accommodation under the PWFA, according to an article in Business Insurance, a trade publication.

As a result, the EEOC has taken action and between Sept. 10 and Oct. 11, 2024 it initiated four federal lawsuits against companies over alleged violations of the law.

The recent activity should be a wake-up call to employers to put as much effort into complying with this new law as they do the Americans with Disabilities Act, which is similar to the PWFA in that it requires employers to initiate an interactive process with a worker who seeks reasonable accommodations under the act.

The law

Essentially, the PWFA requires employers to make reasonable accommodation for workers covered by the act if they request it, particularly if they are temporarily unable to perform one or more essential functions of their job due to issues related to their pregnancy or recent childbirth.
“Reasonable” is defined as not creating an “undue hardship” on the employer. “Temporary” is defined as lasting for a limited time, and a condition that may extend beyond “the near
future.” With most pregnancies lasting 40 weeks, that time frame would be considered the near future.

What’s required

The law requires employers, absent undue hardship, to accommodate job applicants’ and employees’ “physical or mental condition related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”
The condition does not need to meet the ADA’s definition of disability and the condition can be temporary, “modest, minor and/or episodic.”
The PWFA covers a wide range of issues beyond just a current pregnancy, including:

• Past and potential pregnancies
• Lactation
• Contraception use
• Menstruation
• Infertility and fertility treatment
• Miscarriage
• Stillbirth
• Abortion.

Reasonable accommodation

The law’s definition of reasonable accommodation is similar to that of the ADA.

The takeaway

The PWFA poses an employment liability risk and employers will need to ensure that they properly handle and respond to accommodation requests under the PWFA.
Employers should ensure that personnel who are responsible for handling accommodation requests under the ADA are also trained in how to respond to requests under the PWFA.

THE CALIFORNIA Workers’ Compensation Uniform Statistical Reporting Plan requires that employers report small, medical-only first-aid claims to their insurance carrier.

 

Many employers fail to report these claims as they consider them too small since the worker doesn’t lose any time from work and they don’t have to go to a doctor. Under Rating Bureau rules, employers are required to report the cost of all claims for which any medical care is provided and medical costs are incurred — including those involving first aid treatment — even if the insurer did not make the payment.
The term “small medical-only claim” is also used to refer to first aid claims.
For workers’ comp purposes, that also means that the injured worker did not miss work because of the injury. Besides these rules, there is a very good reason for reporting these claims because what starts as a first aid claim can develop into a larger claim over time. At that point, if you never reported the claim in the first place, coverage issues may arise.

Additionally, any physician attending any injured employee must send copies of the Doctor’s First Report of Occupational Injury or Illness to the workers’ compensation insurance carrier or employer within five days of the initial examination. The insurer or employer must submit the physician’s report to the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) within five days of receipt.
Penalties for non-compliance Any employer or physician who fails to comply with the submission of the Doctor’s First Report for first aid claims may be assessed a civil penalty of not less than $50 nor more than $200 by the DIR if a pattern or practice of violations or a willful violation is found.

FIRST AID CLAIM EXAMPLES
• Abrasions and cuts that require cleaning, flushing, or soaking.
• Using hot or cold therapy for a muscle injury.
• Drilling a fingernail to relieve pressure, or draining fluid from a blister.
• Removing foreign bodies from the eye using only irrigation or a cotton swab.
• Removing splinters or foreign material from areas other than the eye by irrigation, tweezers, cotton swabs, or other simple means.

THE EQUAL Employment Opportunity Commission continues seeing a steady flow of complaints for one of the more common forms of workplace bias — age discrimination.

 

The number of court filings the EEOC made under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) in fiscal year 2023 was more than double that of fiscal year 2022. As the EEOC steps up its efforts under the Biden administration, it’s crucial that employers have in place policies and employment standards to avoid any appearances of discrimination against workers based on age.

The ADEA prohibits harassment and discrimination on the basis of a worker’s age for individuals over 40. This extends to any aspect of employment, including hiring, job assignments, promotions, training, benefits and more. The law even applies to employers that use third party recruiters to screen job applicants, according to EEOC guidance.

What you can do
Age discrimination in the workplace doesn’t just negatively affect employees. It also affects your company. Over the past 15 years, age discrimination cases have accounted for 20- 25% of all EEOC cases — and such cases typically receive the highest payouts.
Ageism in the workplace is bad for business. Not only do you risk a large settlement, but you also miss out on a large talent pool of older workers in your hiring practices. You also miss out on the major contributions that older workers can make to your organization.

To prevent age discrimination at your firm:

• Train your managers and supervisors on age discrimination and that it won’t be tolerated. Have in place consequences (and follow through on them) for managers who discriminate against an employee due to any protected status, including age.
• Consider taking out any sections of your application that disclose information about an applicant’s age. Removing the date that an applicant graduated or completed their degree is helpful. This can allow hiring managers to focus on the skills and experience an applicant brings to the table rather than their age.
• If you have to go through a layoff, ensure you don’t make any decisions based on age. You should focus only on two things during this process: making choices solely based on performance and the necessity of the position they hold. Even a seniority-based system is acceptable.

The takeaway and insurance
Often when the EEOC settles these cases, it will require the employer to sign a consent decree requiring them to implement age-discrimination training for hiring managers.  You shouldn’t wait for an order by the agency to do the same.
Finally: In the event you are sued for age discrimination, if you have in a place an employment practices liability policy, it may cover your legal costs and any potential settlements or verdicts.
Besides age discrimination, these policies will cover a host of other lawsuits by employees.

RECENT CASES

• In March 2023, Fischer Connectors settled with the EEOC for $460,000 over accusations that the manufacturer fired a human resources director and replaced her with two younger workers after she had spoken up about company plans to replace other older workers.
• In September 2023, two former IBM human resources employees who were both over 60, sued IBM after they were terminated, alleging age discrimination.
• Wisconsin-based Exact Sciences agreed to pay $90,000 to settle a lawsuit alleging that it discriminated against a 49-year-old job applicant based on his age after it had turned him down for a medical sales rep position in favor of a 41-year-old.
• A 52-year-old woman sued a Palm Beach restaurant, alleging violations of the ADEA and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. She claims that after working for 10 years as a seasonal server, she was terminated on the grounds that the restaurant was moving to year-round employment, yet continued to hire young seasonal workers.

Cal OSHA has proposed its long-awaited indoor heat illness prevention standard as increasingly hot summers are affecting workers in indoor spaces like warehouses, production operations,
restaurants and more.
The proposed standard, largely based on the state agency’s outdoor regulations, will require employers whose workplaces at times are at least 82 degrees to have a written Indoor Heat Illness Prevention Plan.
The standard, once it takes effect, will affect employers throughout the state and many will have to take steps and invest in equipment and planning to ensure compliance. The preventative measure to which most employers will likely resort is air-conditioning.
The Standards Board wrote in its proposal, according to the Cal-OSHA Reporter trade publication: “There is likely to be a particular need to reduce temperatures in large warehouses, manufacturing and production facilities, greenhouses, and wholesale and retail distribution centers.”
Other facilities that would likely also need to install HVAC units include restaurant kitchens and dry cleaners. They may also need to improve air circulation in their operations.
Under the proposal, the following regulations apply to a workplace where the indoor temperature exceeds 82 degrees.

Access to drinking water

Employers are required to provide access to potable water that is fresh, suitably cool, and free of charge.
It must be located as close as practicable to the work area, as well as indoor cool-down areas where employees can rest. If an employer doesn’t provide water continuously, it will be required to provide at least one quart per hour per employee per shift.
Employers should encourage frequent water consumption.

Access to cool-down areas

Employers must provide at least one cool-down area during shifts, and grant a cool-down break to staff who ask for one.
Workers taking cool-down breaks shall be monitored and asked to stay in the area if they are experiencing heat illness symptoms. As long as symptoms persist, they may not be ordered back to the work they were doing.

Control measures

Employers can implement a number of measures to protect their workers:
Engineering controls – This can include barriers between heat sources and employees, isolating hot processes from workers, air-conditioning, cooling fans, mist fans, swamp coolers, ventilation, etc.
Administrative controls – This can include limiting exposure by adjusting work procedures, practices, or schedules (working during cooler periods, using work/rest schedules, or reducing the speed of work).
Personal heat-protective equipment – This could include water- and air-cooled garments, cooling vests, and more.

Emergency response procedures

Employers will need to develop and have in place emergency response procedures that workers and supervisors can follow in case they are experiencing heat illness.

Acclimation steps

Employees should be closely observed during heat waves, and new workers must be closely observed during their first 14 days of work to ensure they are acclimating.

Training

Employees and supervisors will need to be trained on:

• Personal risk factors for heat illness.
• Their employer’s procedures for complying with the regulation.
• The importance of frequent water consumption.
• The importance of acclimation.
• Signs and symptoms of heat illness, and first aid or emergency response procedures.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued new guidance on how employers can properly use software, algorithms and artificial intelligence-driven decision-making tools when screening job applicants and selecting candidates.
The EEOC has grown concerned about possible adverse impacts of these technologies that can help employers with a wide range of employment matters, like hiring decisions, recruitment, retention, monitoring performance, and determining pay, promotions, demotions, dismissals and referrals.
The guidance follows the EEOC’s recent announcement that it would pursue enforcement of violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other statutes under its jurisdiction arising from use of AI in employment decisions.

The new guidance includes a series of questions and answers to help employers prevent the use of AI and other technologies from leading to discrimination on the basis of on race, color, religion, sex or national origin, in violation of Title VII.

Main points of the guidance:

Responsibility: Employers are ultimately responsible for discriminatory decisions rendered by algorithmic decisionmaking tools, even if they are administered by another entity,
such as a software vendor.
Assessment: Employers should assess whether their use of technology has an adverse impact on a particular protected group by checking whether use of the procedure causes a selection rate for individuals in the group that is “substantially” less than the selection rate for individuals in another group.

The selection rate for a group of applicants or candidates is calculated by dividing the number of persons hired, promoted or otherwise selected from the group by the total number of candidates in that group.
If an employer is in the process of implementing a selection tool and discovers that using it would have an adverse impact on individuals of a protected class, it can take steps to reduce
the impact or select a different tool, per the guidance.
If an employer fails to adopt a less discriminatory algorithm than that which was considered during the implementation process, it could result in liability, according to the EEOC.

The takeaway

Employers using algorithmic decision-making tools for employment decisions need to take the same care as they do when making employment moves without assistance from technology.
Firms should not implement these technologies without considering possible adverse decision-making that could lead to violations of the law and prompt litigation and regulatory
action by the EEOC.
Experts advise that you move forward carefully and work with the vendor to ensure the technology doesn’t get your organization in trouble.

A U.S. COURT of Appeals has struck down a landmark California law that prohibits employers from requiring their workers to sign agreements to arbitrate any disputes arising from their employment.
The ruling clears the way for employers to continue using arbitration agreements without risking criminal liability that the law – AB 51 – calls for. The law took effect Jan. 1, 2020, but after a coalition of employers led by the California Chamber of Commerce sued to block the measure’s implementation, a lower-court judge issued a temporary restraining order, halting enforcement until the matter could be resolved by the courts.
Arbitration agreements usually require both the employer and employee to submit any employment-related disputes to arbitration, rather than to the traditional court process. They are designed to reduce tension and save both parties money and time.
The Chamber said the Feb. 15, 2023 ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals invalidating the law was a win for the state’s employers. The business advocacy group had asserted that the law contradicted federal legislation and would result in increased litigation and higher costs for employers and workers alike.
The ruling by the Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court’s preliminary injunction order and holding that AB 51 is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

What did AB 51 require?

The law made it a criminal misdemeanor for an employer to require an existing employee or a job applicant to sign an arbitration agreement as a condition of employment.
However, due to a quirk in the law, even though an employer could be subject to criminal prosecution if it required employees to sign arbitration agreements, the contracts, if signed, would still be enforceable.
The law was written in this way to avoid conflicting with the FAA. But in the end, the court opined that AB 51 was preempted by the federal law after all.

The takeaway

The ruling paves the way for employers to continue using arbitration agreements with employees in the Golden State. That said, if you are using such agreements or plan to, you should consult with your legal counsel to ensure your agreement is up to date.
If the case is not appealed, the court’s opinion will likely lead to the law being nullified.
But an appeal would be an uphill battle, legal observers say. “SCOTUS (the U.S. Supreme Court) has clearly said that state rules burdening the formation of arbitration agreements are at odds with the FAA,” the law firm of Fisher Phillips wrote in a blog about the ruling.
One important note: The Ninth Circuit’s decision does not affect the federal Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, which gives employees the right to opt for arbitration agreements and class- or collective-action waivers if they are making sexual assault or sexual harassment claims.

A slew of new laws and regulations that will affect California businesses are taking effect for 2023.

Last year was a busy one, with ground-breaking new laws on employee pay disclosures, a law prohibiting discrimination against cannabis-using employees and another expanding the circumstances when employees can take leave to care for a loved one. The following are the top 10 laws and regulations that employers in the Golden State need to stay on top of.

1.  Pay disclosure

This sweeping law in part requires more disclosure of pay information by employers. Under current law, employers are required to provide the pay scale for a position upon reasonable request by a job applicant. SB 1162 goes a step further by:

• Requiring employers, upon request by a current employee, to provide the pay scale of the position they are employed in.
• Requiring employers with 15 or more workers to include pay scale in any job postings for open positions.
• Requiring employers to maintain records of job titles and wage rate history for each employee while employed for the company, as well as three years after their employment ceases.

Note: The law defines “pay scale” as the salary or hourly wage range that the employer “reasonably expects” to pay for the position. Penalties range from $100 to $10,000 per violation. This law took effect Jan. 1, 2023.

 

 2.  State of emergency and staff

This new law, SB 1044, bars an employer, in the event of a state of emergency or emergency condition, from taking or threatening adverse action against workers who refuse to report to, or leave, a workplace because they feel unsafe. “Emergency condition” is defined as:

• Conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons or property caused by natural forces or a criminal act.
• An order to evacuate a workplace, worksite or worker’s home, or the school of a worker’s child due to a natural disaster or a criminal act.

SB 1044 also bars employers from preventing employees from using their mobile phones to seek emergency assistance, assess the safety of the situation or communicate with another person to confirm their safety. The law, which took effect Jan. 1, 2023, does not cover first responders and health care workers.

 

3. Cannabis use and discrimination

This law bars employers from discriminating in hiring, termination or other conditions of employment based on employees using cannabis while off duty. The bill’s author says the legislation is necessary because THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), the active ingredient in marijuana, can stay in a person’s system after they are no longer impaired. As a result, drug testing may detect THC in an employee’s system even if they used it weeks earlier and it is having no effect on their job performance. AB 2188 does not require employers to permit employees to be high while working. The bill would exempt construction trade employees and would not preempt state or federal laws that require employees to submit to drug testing. This law takes effect Jan. 1, 2024.

4.  Leaves of absence

The California Family Rights Act and the state’s paid sick leave law allow employees to take leave to care for a family member, defined as a spouse, registered domestic partner, child, parent, parent-in-law, grandparent, grandchild or sibling. The definition has been expanded to include “any individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is equivalent of a family relationship.”

5.  Contractor workers’ comp

Starting July 1, the following contractors must carry workers’ compensation coverage regardless of if they have employees or not:

• Concrete (C-8 license)
• Heating and air conditioning (C-20)
• Asbestos abatement (C-22), and
• Tree service (D-49).

Starting Jan. 1, 2026, all licensed contractors must have coverage.

6.  OSHA citation postings

Under current law, employers that receive citations and orders from OSHA are required to post them in or near the place the violation occurred, in order to warn employees about a potential hazard. Starting Jan. 1, 2023, they must post the notice not only in English, but also: Spanish, Chinese (Cantonese, Mandarin), Vietnamese, Tagalog, Korean, Armenian and Punjabi.

7.  Permanent COVID standard

Cal/OSHA has a permanent COVID-19 prevention standard that will sunset in 2024. The new standard, which replaces the temporary emergency standard the agency had implemented, should provide more certainty for prevention procedures and practices. Here are the main takeaways:

• Employers are no longer required to pay employees while they are excluded from work due to COVID-19, or to screen employees daily.
• Employers must still notify and provide paid testing to employees who had a close contact in the workplace.
• Employers can now incorporate written COVID-19 procedures into their Injury and Illness Prevention Programs.

8.  CalSavers expanded

SB 1126 requires any person or entity with at least one employee to either provide them with access to a retirement program like a 401(k) plan or enroll them in the state-run CalSavers program. Prior to this new law only companies with five or more employees that do not offer a retirement plan are required to enroll their workers in CalSavers.

9.  Bereavement leave

Employers with five or more workers are required to provide up to five days of bereavement leave upon the death of a family member, under a new law starting in 2023. This leave may be unpaid, but the law allows workers to use existing paid leave available to them, such as accrued vacation days, paid time off or sick leave. Employers are authorized to require documentation to support the request for leave.

10.  PFL wage replacement

This law was passed last year but does not take effect until 2025. Existing California law allows employees to apply for Paid Family Leave and State Disability Insurance, both of which provide partial wage replacement benefits when employees take time off work for various reasons under the California Family Rights Act. Starting in 2025, low-wage earners (those who earn up to 70% of the state average quarterly wage) will be eligible for a higher percentage of their regular wages under the state’s PFL and SDI benefit programs.

THE WORKERS’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau’s two temporary payroll reporting rules to reflect changes brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic stay-at-home orders have sunsetted.

The move came after Gov. Gavin Newsom’s June 9 executive order which revoked the statewide stay-at-home order that had been in place since March 19, 2020.

You may recall that after the stay-at-home order took effect, the Rating Bureau issued new rules for classifying staff who were suddenly working remotely, as well as payroll reporting for staff who were at home but not working.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) rules that expired are:

A. Classifying remote workers in the Classification 8810 – Clerical Office Employees – As a result of the California stay-at-home order, many employers altered employees’ duties so they could be accomplished from home, and often those duties were clerical-like in nature.

Under the rule, an employee could be assigned payroll Classification 8810 if:
• Their duties met the definition of a “clerical office employee” while working from home,
• Their payroll for the balance of the policy period was not assignable to a standard classification that specifically excludes clerical office employees.

B. Salaries of non-working staff – Salaries paid to workers who were at home not working, yet still collecting a paycheck, would be excluded from payroll for workers’ comp premium calculation purposes when the payments were less than or equal to the employee’s regular rate of pay

Expiration: This rule expired 60 days after the end of the stay-at-home order, or Aug. 10. 

The takeaway

What this means is that if you have been classifying remote workers under Classification 8810, they will need to be returned to their original classification. Also, the rules still require that you maintain records that document any changes in duties for your staff during the period these rules were in effect and they were working from home.
The rules also require you to maintain records of their payroll during that period.

AS WILDFIRES continue raging throughout California, Cal/OSHA has issued a reminder to employers that they are required to protect their outdoor workers from smoke if the Air Quality Index exceeds 150. Cal/OSHA has extended an emergency regulation it put in place in August 2019 through January 2021 as it works on a permanent regulation on wildfire smoke protection for outdoor workers in the state.

For the safety of your workers and to comply with the regulation, it’s important that you follow the regs and know when you will need to take action to protect them from outdoor smoke.
The regulation applies when the AQI for airborne particulate matter 2.5 microns (PM2.5) or smaller is 151 or greater in an area where employees are working outdoors. Here are the details:

Identification

Employers must monitor the AQI for PM2.5. You can monitor the index using the following websites:

• U.S. EPA AirNow
• U.S. Forest Service Wildland Air Quality Response Program
• California Air Resources Board
• Local air pollution control district websites or local air quality management district websites.

Training and instruction

Employers with outdoor workers need train their workers in:

• The health effects of wildfire smoke.
• Their right to obtain medical treatment without fear of reprisal.
• How they can obtain the current AQI for PM2.5.
• Actions they must take if the AQI exceeds 150 PM 2.5

Communication

Employers must implement a system for communicating wildfire smoke hazards to all affected employees, as well as a system for employees to inform the employer of smoke hazards.

The takeaway

If you have outside employees who may have to work in smoky conditions, you should stockpile a two-week supply of N-95 masks for all of them if you are unable to implement other controls to reduce their exposure.
Cal/OSHA is in the process of making the emergency rules permanent and has sent them out for public comment. We will continue monitoring the agency’s progress on the rules and update you when they have been completed.

 

 

A NEW LAW has come to the rescue of a number of freelance professions by exempting them from the onerous requirements of AB 5, which required most independent contractors to be classified as employees in California. Governor Gavin Newsom on Sept. 1 signed AB 2257 as an urgency measure so that it took effect immediately. If you remember, AB 5 set a new standard for hiring independent contractors, requiring many to be reclassified as employees covered by minimum wage, overtime, workers’ compensation, unemployment and disability insurance. It created a three-pronged test that needs to be satisfied to determine if someone is an independent contractor or an employee.

To be independent contractors under AB 5’s “ABC test,” workers must (A) work independently, (B) do work that is different from what the business does, and (C) offer their work to other businesses or the public. All three conditions must be met.

It is prong B that’s problematic. For example, a freelance writer working for a magazine would not be doing something different than the business does. The new law sets limits on the amount of income someone can receive while doing this kind of work before being considered an employee. AB 2257 also expands the “business-to-business” definition in AB 5 to cover a relationship between two or more sole proprietors.