EEOC Pushes Deadline for 2019 Form EEO-1 Filing to 2021 (US)

Employers with 100 or more employees and employers that are federal contractors with 50 or more employees and federal contracts valued at $50,000 or greater are familiar with the annual requirement that by each May 31st, they file a Form EEO-1 with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This form reports what is referred to as “Component 1” data, consisting of the race, ethnicity, and gender of the employer’s workforce.

On May 8, 2020, the EEOC placed a notice in the Federal Register that, due to the ongoing COVID-19 public health emergency and consistent with delays in other federal reporting requirements, no Component 1 data collection will take place until 2021. The notice indicates that the EEOC anticipates that it will collect 2019 Component 1 data along with 2020 Component 1 data, each in March 2021. Accordingly, employers who ordinarily would be required to file their Form EEO-1 for 2019 by May 31, 2020 will not have to do so until they file that form for 2020 beginning sometime in the first quarter of next year. The EEOC stated that it will issue a notice as well as inform eligible Form EEO-1 filers when the 2019 and 2020 collection period begins, as well as advise of the new deadline for filing of 2019 and 2020 Form EEO-1s. Employers who file that form therefore should monitor this issue in order to comply with the deferred deadline when announced.

New Acas guidance on holding disciplinary and grievance meetings without meetings (UK)

By David Whincup on May 7, 2020 Posted in Dismissal, Unfair dismissal

Neatly timed to coincide with the beginning of the end of lockdown, ACAS has this week has issued some new thoughts on the conduct of disciplinary and grievance proceedings during the pandemic. Can or should you really run these things without the physical meetings referred to in generations of prior ACAS guidance?

In these respects, this new advice unfortunately asks many more questions than it answers. “The employer needs to decide…“, it says repeatedly, or “The employer must consider…“. I am not sure either that much is really added to the sum of human wisdom by the cautionary note that “In cases that might result in dismissal, the employer must always act fairly to avoid unfair dismissal”.

EEOC Provides Updated Guidance on Return-to-Work Issues Addressing Accommodations For Employees With COVID-19 Vulnerabilities (US)

By Daniel Pasternak on May 5, 2020 Posted in Accommodation, Agency, Americans with Disability Act, Coronavirus, COVID-19, Disability, Disability Discrimination, EEOC, Employee Health/Welfare, Employment Law, Employment Policies, Health & Safety, News, Reasonable Adjustments, Regulation

eeoc

Update (5/7/20): On May 7, 2020, the EEOC re-issued guidance concerning what actions an employer may take if it knows that an employee has a medical condition placing him/her at a higher risk for severe illness if he/she gets COVID-19, and thus is concerned about the employee’s return to the workplace, but the employee has not requested any accommodation. (This is the second item discussed in our original post below.) The agency re-issued its guidance on this topic after it indicated that its earlier guidance, released on May 5, had been misinterpreted. Continue Reading

CDC/OSHA COVID-19 Guidance for Meat and Poultry Industry Also Useful for Other Employers (US)

By Squire Patton Boggs on May 4, 2020 Posted in Coronavirus, COVID-19, Health & Safety, Workplace Safety & Health

Virus On April 26, 2020, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued interim guidance for the US meat and poultry industry. The guidance contains a number of recommendations aimed at stemming transmission among workers in this particularly vulnerable industry, which continues to face plant shutdowns over COVID-19 outbreaks. Although aimed at this critical industry specifically, the structured guidance also contains useful direction to other industries working under parallel conditions—namely close contact between workers and/or workers and the public.
Continue Reading

Wardrobe Malfunctions, Zoombombing, and Other Torrid Tales from the Home Front (US)

By Melissa Legault and Laura Lawless on May 1, 2020 Posted in Coronavirus, COVID-19, Disciplinary Investigation, Employment Law, Employment Policies, Harassment, Health & Wellbeing, News, Performance, Rest breaks, Sexual Harassment, Wellbeing, Working Time, Workplace Investigations, Workplace Safety & Health

With more of us working from home than ever during the COVID-19 public health crisis, employers and employees face unique challenges. Videoconferences have replaced in-person meetings, and our pets, kids, and partners are now our temporary “coworkers.” From the occasional mild annoyances, like barking dogs and ringing doorbells, to the truly humiliating examples trending on social media (be sure to turn off the camera on your videoconference before using the restroom!), employers must take added steps to ensure a safe, respectful, harassment-free, fully clothed workplace.

No Shirt, No Shoes, No Employment

Virtual meetings and videoconferences have replaced in-person meetings and working in the office, resulting in countless viral examples over the past several months of employees engaging in regrettable behavior they (hopefully) wouldn’t dream of partaking in at the office. From attending videoconferences sans pants to brazenly consuming alcohol during working hours (beer being the drink of choice when quarantine-working) to abusing household pets, employees have been caught in highly compromising positions while working from home. These viral mishaps not only risk embarrassment to employees involved and possible need for HR intervention, but can pose serious PR nightmares for their employers. Continue Reading

Belgium comes out of lockdown … in 12,376 simple steps

By Marga Caproni on May 1, 2020 Posted in Employee Welfare, Health & Safety

As from 4 May, Belgium will gradually start the long haul out of lockdown. And when we say “gradually”, that may still be an understatement: in a PowerPoint presentation longer than the Harry Potter series and containing much less magic, the country’s Prime Minister has explained to the media each of the seemingly endless phases to a return to whatever is our new normality.

Employer’s Guide to Return-to-Work Issues: COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (US)

By Daniel Pasternak and Laura Lawless on April 30, 2020 Posted in Accommodation, Americans with Disability Act, Annual Leave, Arizona, Benefits, California, Colorado, Compensation, Compliance, Contract of Employment, Coronavirus, COVID-19, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Employee Health/Welfare, Employment Contracts, Employment Law, Employment Policies, Fair Labor Standards Act, FMLA, GINA, Grievance, Harassment, Health, Health & Safety, Health & Welfare, Health & Wellbeing, Hours, Illinois, Leave, Legislation, Monitoring, News, NLRB, Ohio, OSHA, Paid Sick Leave, Pay, Policies, Policies, Privacy, Regulation, Religious Discrimination, Restrictive Covenants, Sex Discrimination, Sick Leave, State Law Updates, Terms of Employment, Texas, Unions, Vacation, Wage and Hour, Wages, Wages, WARN Act, Wellbeing, Workplace Safety & Health

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency has changed life as we know it, including by severely disrupting business on a nationwide scale. In some cases, employers have been forced to temporarily close their doors and cease operations, while others have had to make radical changes to the workplace in order to maintain operations. For nearly two months, employers have had to make these adjustments in response to the unprecedented circumstances the pandemic has caused, and employers now face many more months of uncertainty ahead, as the economic consequences continue to be felt by businesses of all sizes.

Now, as our collective attention turns to the next phase in the pandemic, with relaxing of stay-at-home orders and efforts to reopen the economy, employers must assess and evaluate dozens of employment-related issues as they plan for a post-COVID-19 work environment that may look quite different than any we have worked in before. To help employers identify those issues, we have prepared an “Employer’s Guide to Return-to-Work Issues: COVID-19 Public Health Emergency.” This Guide identifies health and safety, wage and hour, leave of absence, payroll, compliance, and other issues to be considered before partially or fully resuming operations. We are available to help you navigate these and other employment-related issues as we transition into a new “normal” in the workplace.

US DOL Provides More Guidance On Pandemic Unemployment Assistance: Restrictions on Eligibility, Summer Break Limitations, Gig Worker Benefits, and More (US)

By Daniel Pasternak and Kristine Woliver on April 29, 2020 Posted in Agency, Compensation, Coronavirus, COVID-19, Department of Labor, Employment Law, Legislation, News, Regulation, Unemployment

As most everyone now knows, among other things, the massive $2 trillion-plus CARES Act created multiple federal unemployment compensation programs for individuals impacted by the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). These programs provide federal funding to the states to administer and provide unemployment compensation assistance to a broad range of COVID-19-impacted employees including, notably, those who would not otherwise qualify for assistance under state unemployment compensation laws for a variety of reasons, including, for example, due to insufficient work history or earnings. What has remained murky, however, is precisely how the states are to implement and administer the programs, in particular, those aspects that create entitlements where previously an applicant would be deemed ineligible for benefits. To address these and related issues, the US Department of Labor (DOL) has been issuing “Program Letters” to the states answering many of the questions raised concerning the CARES Act-created unemployment programs.

On April 27, 2020, the DOL issued additional guidance, updating a previously-issued Program Letter. Although addressed to state agencies, “Change 1” to the Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 16-20 provides helpful Q&A-format guidance for employers regarding the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) program under the CARES Act. As we previously discussed here, the PUA creates a temporary federal program that provides up to 39 weeks of unemployment compensation benefits, and provides funding to states for administration of the program. Individuals receiving PUA benefits also may receive a $600 weekly benefit amount (WBA) under the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation program (FPUC). Summarized below are several highlights from the DOL’s updated Program Letter.

California Provides COVID-19 Paid Sick Leave for Food Sector Workers (US)

By Squire Patton Boggs on April 29, 2020 Posted in California, Coronavirus, COVID-19, Employment Law, Employment Policies, Executive Order, Health & Safety, Leave, News, Paid Sick Leave, Regulation, Sick Leave

Sunset Coronado Beach In a move that mirrors the efforts of several local California communities to fill gaps not otherwise addressed by the federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), California Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-51-20 on April 16, 2020 (“Order”). Specifically, the Order provides COVID-19 related paid sick leave for “food sector workers” throughout the state who work for larger employers.

Covered “Food Sector Workers”

The Order applies to employers with 500 or more employees located anywhere in the United States pursuant to the FFCRA regulations. This includes any Delivery Network Company (as defined by the Revenue and Taxation Code) and any Transportation Network Company (as defined by the Public Utilities Code) with 500 or more employees anywhere – not just within California. Continue Reading

Extension of IR35 to the private sector, Part 17 – the House of Lords takes revenge, eventually (UK)

By David Whincup on April 28, 2020 Posted in Contractors, Employment Status, Legislation, Tax

Trying to find the most depressing part of the new House of Lords’ Economic Affairs Committee report on IR35 is not easy. There are so many possible candidates, for one thing, and as an insight into the legislative process it is little short of terrifying. Not even law by twitter like the Job Retention Scheme, but by the rank subordination to tax-raising of all other established principles of good regulation, such as that it be researched, fair, consulted upon and generally thought about to some extent before the off.