Last week, the Office of Management and Budget in the White House informed the EEOC that it was delaying implementation of a rule the EEOC finalized last year, which would require significant additional information be included in annual EEO-1 reports. The EEOC’s new rule required employers to provide information on W-2 wage data and hours worked for employees within 12 specified pay bands. The first EEO-1 reports with such data were set to be due March 31, 2018. Continue reading “All (Employers) Hail the OMB as It Stays Implementation of New EEO-1 Wage Reporting”
First in a Series of Blogs
Over half of the states in the country allow for the limited possession of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Several states, including New York, Connecticut, and Illinois, even provide explicit workplace protections to prevent adverse employment actions against medical marijuana patients. However, the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) makes it a federal crime to use, possess, or distribute marijuana. Under federal law, marijuana remains classified as a Schedule I controlled substance, regardless of whether it has any acceptable medical uses. So what should an employer do when an applicant or employee fails a drug test due to marijuana use, or after being informed that an applicant or employee needs to use marijuana as part of his or her medical treatment? These questions are slowly making their way into courthouses across the country, and two recent cases may prove to be instructive. Continue reading “Conflicting Marijuana Laws Leave Employers High on Confusion”
California Employers May Restrict Their Employee’s Ability to Compete During the Term of Employment
Overview of California Noncompete Law
California employers know well that they cannot restrict their former employees from competing after the employment relationship ends. With limited exceptions, California law invalidates every contract under which a person is prevented from engaging in his or her profession, trade, or business.
California Business and Professions Code section 16600 codifies California’s longstanding public policy favoring open and uninhibited competition in the employment context. California’s public policy declaration can be summed up as follows: “The interests of the employee in his own mobility and betterment are deemed paramount to the competitive business interests of the employers….” Diodes, Inc. v. Franzen, 260 Cal. App. 2d 244, 255 (1968). Continue reading ““In Term” Covenants Not to Compete Void or Valid?”