With the State of the Union Likely To Highlight Gender Equality, It is Time to Ask Whether Your Organization is on Track for a Ledbetter-style Equal Pay Claim

It has been almost eight years since the United States Supreme Court decided the Lilly Ledbetter case under Title VII and six years since President Obama invited Ledbetter to attend his State of the Union address.  You may or may not remember that Ledbetter’s attempt to sue under the theory that the statute of limitations on 25+ years of discriminatory wage decisions by Goodyear reset with each paycheck was roundly rejected by the Supreme Court.  Shortly after Obama’s inauguration, he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Pub.L. 111–2, S. 181) into law, amending Title VII to adopt Ledbetter’s statute of limitations argument for Title VII wage claims.  The Equal Pay Act itself has a separate three year statute of limitations.  Continue reading

New Law Requires Certain Vendors to Expand Their Privacy Policies

A recent amendment to the California Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003 (“CalOPPA”) will require certain owners and operators of commercial websites and online service providers to change their posted privacy policies to include additional information.  CalOPPA requires certain owners and operators to conspicuously post their privacy policies related to the collection of personally identifiable information (“PII”) on their websites.  AB 370, signed into law on September 27, 2013 and effective January 1, 2014, now requires these owners and operators to include a discussion of their “do not track” signals in their privacy policies.  “Do not track” signals are mechanisms that provide consumers a choice regarding the collection of PII related to consumers’ online activities over time and across different websites or online services. Continue reading

New Year Opens With Demise Of The NLRB’s “Poster” Rule And Further Delay For The DOL’s “Persuader” Rule

While 2014 is by most accounts predicted to be a robust regulatory year for the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) and the Department of Labor (“DOL”), the initial start has commenced with only a sputter.  Effectively “dead,” after the passing of yesterday’s deadline for the NLRB to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review decisions from the Fourth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeal, is the NLRB’s controversial “poster” regulation.  As previously reported, in August 2011 the NLRB adopted a rule that required most private-sector employers to notify employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act by posting a notice where other employee notices are customarily posted, including on the employer’s website.  An employer’s failure to do so would have been considered an unfair labor practice.  The NLRB has decided not to seek review of that decision with the U.S. Supreme Court and, as a result, the  Circuit Courts’ decisions invalidating the poster rule will stand. Continue reading

What Can You Learn from San Diego’s Recent Sexual Harassment Problems: The DFEH is Serious about AB 1825 Sexual Harassment Prevention Training

If you thought the California Department of Fair Employment (“DFEH”) was not busy monitoring compliance with employers’ sexual harassment prevention training obligations, think again.  The DFEH recently entered into a settlement agreement with the City of San Diego concerning its failure to provide mandatory sexual harassment training to city supervisors, including elected and appointed officials.  The issue came to the fore when former Mayor, Bob Filner, who resigned during the scandal, claimed in defense of sexual harassment charges brought against him by former staffers that the City had failed to provide him with the necessary sexual harassment prevention training.  The DFEH jumped on this allegation, filed a Complaint, and, after investigating, entered into negotiations with San Diego to correct any problems.  While San Diego’s City Attorney, Jan Goldsmith, noted that it is the mayor’s office that is responsible for compliance with the Fair Employment and Housing Act’s training requirements, she explained that in approving the settlement, the San Diego City Council had shown its support for the training protocol. Continue reading