California has joined a growing list of jurisdictions, including New York City, Massachusetts, Delaware and Oregon, among others, banning salary history inquiries from job applicants. Governor Brown signed the law into effect last week and it becomes effective on January 1, 2018.
Jennifer Rubin focuses her bicoastal C-suite executive compensation practice on meeting the increasingly complex employment needs of executives of public and private corporations. When she isn’t negotiating employment, equity, and severance arrangements, Jen leverages her 25 years of experience as a trial lawyer to help clients craft business solutions to legal problems.
The recent controversy involving the Google employee fired for challenging his employer’s diversity policies highlights some misconceptions concerning free speech rights in the workplace.
That controversy also adds an interesting dimension to the spate of reported terminations of individuals who were internet-shamed for participating in alt-right demonstrations (such as the employee who reportedly resigned from Top Dog Café in Berkeley). Ironically enough from a timing perspective, those job actions also implicate another fundamental right – the right to freedom of assembly (and derivatively, of association).
California’s PAGA Saga continues with a pair of recently issued appellate decisions impacting these legally created class action-like lawsuits.
Summertime is vacation time. And vacation time means headaches for employers who engage in vacation float. Vacation “float” is the practice of advancing vacation to employees before they actually accrue it under an employer’s vacation policy. So the question becomes, if you allow an employee to take vacation time the employee hasn’t actually earned, how do you get the value of that time back if the employee leaves before “repaying” it?
Blended families may be more common than organic ones these days and perhaps the same can be said about employees in corporate America.
The trend may emanate in part from the “acqui-hire” approach to building a business. An “acqui-hire” happens when one business acquires another for its workforce, not for its products or services. This is a particularly popular approach in the technology sector where buying a team of tech-savvy individuals who have a track record of creating value is a better business bet than money spent on beta testing a product or service that may or may not succeed in the marketplace. In other words, don’t buy the product — buy the brains that make the product.
The trend toward local regulation of employment laws continues in California with three new local wage and hour enactments.
On June 7, 2016, San Diego voters passed a ballot initiative containing two provisions for hourly workers. First, San Diego’s new minimum wage will be $10.50 per hour once the ballot results are confirmed, which is expected to be in mid-July. Second, San Diego will have its own paid sick leave policy of five days (40 hours) – which is in excess of the state law that allows employers to limit use of accrued paid sick leave to three days (24 hours).
Like the state law, San Diego’s paid sick leave will accrue at one hour for every 30 hours worked and cannot be used until after 90 days of employment. Also like the state law, San Diego’s sick leave initiative allows accrued leave to be front loaded or accrued, and it must be carried over year to year.
If you follow my corporate divorce series, you are familiar with my affinity for the employment-as-marriage metaphor. I’ve already examined how employment relationships end or should end. But I have yet to address an employment metaphor relevant to annulments.
Unlike divorce, which is the judicial dissolution of a legal marriage, an annulment is actually a judicial (and sometimes also religious) decree that the marriage was never valid in the first place. Typically an annulment is based on a fundamental legal flaw, such as fraud or marrying close kin or some other core defect that goes to the heart of the marriage contract. An annulment declares that the “marriage” is treated as if it never existed, provided a core reason exists to nullify it.
So what, if anything, annuls an employment contract?
Being a headliner is great but nothing beats being tapped as the opening act. Join me and my panel of corporate counsel and human resources professionals as we warm up the audience at Mintz Levin’s Second Annual Employment Law Summit.
The warm up for our headliner, Carmelyn P. Malalis, Commissioner and Chair of the New York City Commission on Human Rights (who will be addressing new protections and new initiatives in the New York City Human Rights Law), may have a swanky title (“Managing Workplace Policies in a Rapidly Changing Regulatory Environment”) but it will be grounded in practicality.
Today’s workforce is mobile, virtual, transient and litigious. What is a reasonable employer to do? Should multi-jurisdictional employers practice “most-favored” diplomacy? Or should they continue to stitch together a patchwork of employment policies?
Join us in New York on January 28 as our panel tackles these and other challenging issues. You can read more about these issues in advance of the seminar here.
If you’ve been following my corporate divorce series, you are familiar with my view about who owns what at the end of the employment relationship, who pays what to whom, and even how to end the relationship. But I have yet to address the notion of custody and whether my employment-as-marriage metaphor withstands an analogy to the post-employment solicitation of employees.
It is the employee’s relationship with fellow employees – and the employer’s attempt to insert itself into this relationship – that drives this discussion.