ILN Today Post

NCOVID-19 & FORCE MAJEURE

The pandemic situation related to the NCovid-19 virus spread, as it has been declared by the World Health Organization, and the effects of the measures introduced, both at a national and international level, are raising serious challenges to companies and families, which could jeopardize the stability of business and, consequently, of the worldwide economy.

From a legal standpoint, it is necessary to assess if the above-mentioned outbreak constitutes, or not, a force majeure situation, especially regarding its effects on the fulfilment of contracts. Read more…

Read full article

Court Invalidates Portion of U.S. DOL’S Business-Friendly Joint Employer Final Rule

On September 8, 2020, a federal district court struck down the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) Final Rule on joint employer liability, concluding that the Rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) by impermissibly narrowing the definition of joint employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), departing from the DOL’s prior interpretations on joint employment without adequate explanation, and otherwise being arbitrary and capricious.  We previously blogged about the details of the Final Rule here.  The DOL published the Final Rule in the Federal Register on January 16, 2020 with an effective date of March 16, 2020.

Read full article

EEOC Issues Updates and Additions to COVID-19 Guidance, With a Focus on Return-to-Work

On September 8, 2020, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) released updates to its What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws Technical Assistance Questions and Answers (“FAQs”), addressing questions largely focused on return-to-work questions and concerns such as permissible and impermissible inquiries, reasonable accommodation and confidentiality of employee health information.

Read full article

Ninth Circuit Concludes That Apple Retail Employees Are Entitled to Summary Judgment on Exit Search Claim Continue Reading…

Many employers with operations in California may already be familiar with Frlekin v. Apple, Inc.  The heavily litigated case, first filed in 2013, involves claims that Apple retail employees are entitled to compensation for time spent waiting for and undergoing mandatory exit searches.

The Ninth Circuit has now concluded that those employees are entitled to be paid for that time, holding that they are entitled to an award of summary judgment in their favor.  That is a far cry from the original 2015 ruling in the case in which United States District Court Judge William Alsup denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to Apple, concluding that such time did not qualify as “hours worked” under California law because the searches were peripheral to the employees’ job duties, and could be avoided if the employees chose not to bring bags to work.

Read full article

Webinar Video: Wage & Hour – Returning to Work – Class Action Avoidance Series

In this installment of Epstein Becker Green’s “Class Action Avoidance” webinar series, attorney Paul DeCamp discusses wage and hour issues that could arise from transitioning out of the work-from-home reality so many businesses have faced and into the return-to-work phase.

Employers across the country should focus on creating a safe working environment. Certain states and localities have required that employers bringing employees back to the workspace provide or pay for any mandatory personal protective equipment (PPE), including thermometers, gloves, and masks. Additionally, employers should be aware of the time employees take for self-screening and employer-provided screening, such as temperature checks, questionnaires, and handwashing upon arrival.

Read full article

Rainmaking Recommendation from Jaimie Field: What Fears are Keeping You from Becoming a Rainmaker?

In the latest post from rainmaking expert and trainer, Jaimie Field, she delves into the fears that may be keeping you from becoming a rainmaker.

***

Fear.

We all have fears.

Read full article
ILN Today Post

DEEMED IDEL EXTENDED TO JANUARY 2, 2021

What is IDEL?

The acronym “IDEL” refers to the Ontario government’s Infectious Disease Emergency Leave, which was added to the Employment Standards Act (the “ESA“) in March, 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The IDEL is a job-protected leave under the ESA, which means that employees cannot be terminated, penalized or reprised against for requesting or taking an IDEL. The IDEL is an unpaid leave of absence.

Read full article

COVID-19 Trend Watch: Employers Respond to Employees’ Voting Concerns with New PTO and Other Election-Related Policies

As has been true for so many issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, growing concerns about safely voting in the 2020 elections are beginning to permeate the workplace, prompting employers nationwide to create or revise policies to address employee apprehensions about voting amidst a pandemic. Time to Vote, a self-described “business-led, nonpartisan coalition that aims to increase voter participation in the U.S. elections,” founded by numerous major companies, reports that, as of August 27, 2020, more than 700 companies, representing about two million workers, have pledged to grant their employees unpaid or paid time off (“PTO”) to vote on Election Day and to promote initiatives such as early voting and vote-by-mail. In addition, some employers are also providing time off for employees to engage in election-related activities, such as serving as poll workers (in response to the anticipated shortage of such workers due to the pandemic).

Read full article

Networking Happens Everywhere – the Quarantine Edition

Unless you’re new here (and if you are, welcome!), you’ll know that I often say that networking happens everywhere. So what happens when your “everywhere” gets slimmed down during a pandemic, and even when you ARE out and about, your (hopefully) smiling, open and friendly face is hidden behind a mask?

We adapt!

Read full article

Missouri Court Rules in Favor of Business Owners in COVID-19 Coverage Lawsuit

Following up on our recent post about a business interruption insurance decision by a Washington D.C. court, a federal judge in Missouri ruled last month, in Studio 417, Inc., et al. v. The Cincinnati Ins. Comp., No. 20-cv-03127-SRB, that businesses can sue their insurance carrier for business interruption losses caused by COVID-19.

Plaintiffs, owners of a hair salon and various restaurants (the “Insureds”) purchased an all risks policy from Cincinnati Insurance Company (the “Insurer”). As a result of losses sustained due to COVID-19, the Insureds sought business income, civil authority, ingress and egress, dependent property and sue and loss coverages under their policies. The policies did not include a virus exclusion. After the Insurer denied their claims for losses related to COVID-19, the Insureds brought a putative class action against the Insurer for breach of contract and declaratory judgment.

Read full article