Welcome to the latest edition of AlphaStaff's Monthly Compliance Updates!

We are pleased to provide you with national and state legal updates and highlight resources provided by some of AlphaStaff’s trusted legal partners to guide and help keep you in compliance.

 

National Updates

 

Business Groups File Suit to Block DOL's New Overtime Rule

As the compliance deadline for the new federal overtime rule nears, two lawsuits have recently been filed challenging its provisions. In the lawsuit, a coalition of business groups argues that the Department of Labor (DOL) overstepped its authority by setting an excessively high salary threshold and mandating automatic increases every three years. As discussed in the April 2024 edition of the AlphaAdvisor, the new rule raises the "white-collar" exemption salary threshold from $684 per week, $35,568 annualized, to $844 per week, $43,888 annualized, on July 1, 2024. On January 1, 2025, the salary threshold will increase again to $1,128 per week, $58,656 annualized. The "highly compensated employee" (HCE) exemption threshold will also rise significantly.

This lawsuit mirrors a challenge to a similar 2016 rule by the Obama administration, which was blocked by the same Texas federal court. The new lawsuit claims that the Labor Department has again exceeded its authority, particularly regarding the automatic salary threshold increases. Two cases pending before the Supreme Court could also impact the authority of federal agencies and the outcome of this case.

Despite the legal challenges, the rule will take effect as scheduled, absent intervention by the Texas court or the Supreme Court. Employers should continue preparing for the rule's effective date.

Click here for more details from Fisher Phillips.

 

The Impact of Overturning the Chevron Doctrine 

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) provides extensive guidance on the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) through regulations, interpretations, and opinion letters. This framework has long been stable under the Chevron doctrine, which gives deference to agency interpretations. However, the potential overturning of Chevron by the U.S. Supreme Court could significantly alter how wage and hour laws are enforced and interpreted.

Under the Chevron doctrine, courts must follow the clear text of a statute. However, courts defer to the agency’s reasonable interpretation if the statute is ambiguous. Due to this doctrine, the WHD’s interpretations of the FLSA, such as the "white-collar" exemptions, have been heavily relied upon.

Two cases—Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. U.S. Department of Commerce—are pending before the Supreme Court. They argue that the Chevron doctrine grants too much deference to administrative agencies and should be overturned. If this happens, we might see a return to the pre-Chevron standard from Skidmore v. Swift & Co., where deference depends on the agency’s reasoning and consistency. Consequently, there will be less predictability and more varied interpretations of the FLSA. Additionally, state laws often rely on FLSA interpretations, so changes at the federal level have the potential to impact state wage and hour compliance.

AlphaStaff will continue to monitor developments on this case and keep you informed with the most updated information.

Click here to read more from Fisher Phillips.

 

Navigating Pronoun Use Complaints: Balancing Federal and State Mandates

Employers must carefully navigate pronoun use complaints where federal and state mandates conflict. The EEOC's guidance states that intentional misgendering can violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, while Florida law restricts public school teachers from using pronouns that do not align with a student's biological sex.

Florida’s “Let Kids Be Kids” law, effective July 1, 2023, mandates strict adherence to biological sex in pronoun usage in public K-12 schools. This led to legal challenges from teachers Katie Wood, a transgender woman, and AV Schwandes, non-binary, who faced employment consequences for non-compliance. They argued the statute violated Title VII and the First Amendment. The court denied blocking the law on Title VII grounds, stating they hadn't shown a likelihood of success. However, the court suggested Wood might succeed under a hostile work environment claim with more evidence. On First Amendment grounds, the court granted a preliminary injunction for Wood but denied Schwandes' claims.

The court’s stance aligns with EEOC guidance that intentional misgendering can violate Title VII. The EEOC's decision in Lusardi v. Department of the Army supports this, ruling that denying a federal employee restroom access based on gender identity violated Title VII. Some state and local laws, like those in New York, also prohibit intentional misgendering.

Employers should tread carefully with pronoun use complaints. Cases involving objections, including faith-based ones, are ongoing, and courts have sometimes enjoined the EEOC from enforcing its guidance due to religious objections. Navigating the complexities of pronoun use requires balancing federal protections against state laws. Employers must ensure compliance while fostering a respectful and inclusive work environment, considering legal guidance, and engaging in open dialogues with employees on these sensitive issues.

Click here to read more from Jackson Lewis.

 

Determining Tip Pool Eligibility for Restaurant Hosts 

Tip pooling is a common practice in the restaurant industry. However, in the ever-evolving world of restaurant management, understanding who can participate in the tip pool is crucial for compliance and fairness. As highlighted in the April 2023 AlphaAdvisor, the rules established by the Department of Labor (DOL) surrounding this practice further complicate wage and hours compliance.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) allows employers to pay tipped employees less than the federal minimum wage ($7.25) if their tips make up the difference. The federal minimum wage for tipped employees stands at $2.13 per hour, although many states have higher minimum wages, and some do not permit tip credits at all. Restaurant employers must ensure that tipped employees do not spend excessive time on non-tipped “side work.”

Servers, bartenders, and bussers typically qualify as tipped employees and can join a tip pool, whereas, chefs and dishwashers usually do not qualify if a tip credit is implemented. The analysis of a host’s eligibility as a tipped employee is not always clear-cut.
Key Considerations for Hosts:

    1. Customer Interaction: Hosts who frequently engage with customers and perform duties that generate tips may qualify as tipped employees.
    2. Industry Norms: Tipping practices vary by region and restaurant type. Hosts in fine dining or busy establishments are more likely to receive tips.
    3. Legal Precedents: Court rulings on whether hosts are considered tipped employees differ by jurisdiction. Historically, the DOL has allowed hosts to participate when similar roles in the area receive tips.

Employers who are uncertain about including hosts in a traditional tip pool can consider a nontraditional approach. Specifically, paying all participants, including hosts, at least the full minimum wage rate. This allows more employees, including back-of-the-house staff, to participate in the tip pool.

It is important for restaurant employers to stay informed about federal and state legislative developments in this area to maintain a fair and compliant distribution system for their entire workforce.

Click here to read more from Fisher Phillips.

 

Considerations for Manufacturers Scheduling Sunday Work 

For some manufacturers, Sunday work is essential, given the nature of their production process. Other manufacturers may require Sunday work as an occasional necessity to meet production goals. There are several states that have enacted legislation that impacts employrs' ability to schedule work on Sundays or the wage rates that must be paid on those days.

State Wage and Hour Laws

  • Illinois: One Day of Rest in Seven law mandates one rest day for every seven days worked, with specific exemptions.
  • Rhode Island: Holiday and Sunday Pay Law requires time-and-a-half pay for Sunday and holiday work, with certain exceptions.
  • Overtime Pay: Understand your obligations regarding overtime, especially in states like Alaska, California, and Nevada, where overtime is due after 8 hours in a day rather than 40 hours in a week.

Worker Safety and Fatigue

  • Rest Breaks: Mitigate fatigue by allowing more or longer rest breaks or implementing rotating shifts.
  • Voluntary Work: Consider making Sunday work voluntary, allowing tired workers to opt-out.
  • Safety Standards: Ensure compliance with federal and state occupational safety and health requirements related to worker fatigue.

By understanding the legal landscape and proactively addressing potential issues, manufacturers can effectively manage Sunday work schedules to meet production goals while ensuring compliance and worker safety.

Click here to read more from Jackson Lewis.

 

ACLU Challenges AI Hiring Tools

The ACLU has issued a strong warning to employers by filing a complaint with the FTC against Aon Consulting's AI-powered hiring tools, alleging discrimination. This lawsuit follows the ACLU filing a charge with the EEOC claiming these tools unfairly screen out applicants with disabilities and those from certain racial backgrounds.

The hiring tools at the center of this action include:

  • Personality Assessment Test – ADEPT-15 assesses work styles and adaptability but the ACLU claims it unfairly targets individuals with depression, anxiety, autism, and other disabilities.
  • Video Interviewing Platform vidAssess-AI conducts asynchronous video interviews, identifying positive and negative indicators from responses. The ACLU argues that, due to biased AI data, it discriminates based on disability, race, and other protected characteristics.
  • Cognitive Ability Test – gridChallenge uses a gamified assessment to evaluate working memory under stress. The ACLU cites data showing racial disparities in test scores and claims it discriminates against those with cognitive impairments and mental health disabilities.

The ACLU’s complaint with the FTC focuses on the developer’s claims that these tools are "fair" and "bias-free," which the ACLU alleges are deceptive marketing tactics. The organization is seeking an investigation into Aon’s practices and an order to halt the use of these tools until the issues are resolved.

While the FTC complaint targets the developer, employers using these tools are also under scrutiny. Consequently, it is best practice for employers to ensure AI hiring tools do not discriminate and align with their legal obligations under the ADA and Title VII. By establishing robust AI governance, vetting vendors, maintaining transparency, offering accommodations, and aligning assessment questions with job requirements, employers can navigate the evolving legal landscape and minimize risks of discrimination.

Click here to read more from Fisher Phillips.

 

 

State Updates

 

Importance of Timely Payment of Arbitration Fee in California

Arbitration agreement enforcement remains critical in California courts, especially for restaurant and food service employers. Recent cases highlight the severe consequences of failing to pay arbitrator and arbitration fees on time. California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98 mandates strict adherence to fee payment deadlines, emphasizing the importance of timely payments to avoid forfeiting the right to arbitrate.

Under California law, employers are generally required to pay most, if not all, arbitration fees. Section 1281.98 stipulates that these fees must be paid within 30 days of the due date specified by the arbitration provider. Failure to comply with this deadline results in a material breach of the arbitration agreement, leading to a waiver of the right to proceed with arbitration.

Recent Court of Appeal decisions have reinforced the strict nature of these requirements, ruling that even a one-day delay in payment constitutes a breach. Essentially, there is no grace period, and nonpayment, even if unintentional, results in significant penalties for the employer. Further consequences of non-compliance can be harsh including mandatory sanctions to pay the employee’s costs and attorneys’ fees incurred to move the case back to court. Additionally, the court can impose evidentiary sanctions, prevent the employer from conducting discovery, or issue terminating sanctions like striking the employer’s answer or granting a default judgment. Finally, an employer may also be held in contempt of court.

California employers must diligently pay arbitration fees on time to avoid forfeiting their right to arbitrate and facing severe penalties. Understanding and adhering to the strict requirements of California’s arbitration laws is crucial for maintaining the benefits of arbitration and avoiding costly legal consequences.

Please follow this link to learn more from our partner, Jackson Lewis.

 

 

Colorado Amends Privacy Act to Expand Biometric Data Protections

Colorado recently amended its Colorado Privacy Act (CPA) to expand protections for biometric data. Governor Jared Polis signed HB-1130 into law, significantly altering the scope of the CPA’s application, particularly impacting employers and businesses handling biometric data.
Effective July 1, 2025, the amendment expands the scope of application for the CPA, adding language that applies to employers and expanding the definition of biometric data and biometric identifiers.

Under HB-1130, any entity processing biometric identifiers must adhere to several requirements:

  • Obtain explicit consent from consumers, including employees, before collecting biometric data.
  • Develop a publicly accessible policy detailing retention schedules, data security incident responses, and deletion guidelines.
  • Provide a clear, accessible privacy notice outlining data processing purposes.
  • Use a reasonable standard of care for storing, transmitting, and protecting biometric data.

Controllers are prohibited from selling, leasing, or trading biometric data, disclosing biometric data without consent in most circumstances, and denying goods or services based on a consumer's refusal to consent to biometric data collection unless necessary for the service.
Employers are permitted, however,  to require biometric data collection to access secure locations, record work hours, monitor workplace safety, and ensure public safety during emergencies. Collecting biometric data for other purposes requires explicit consent as required by the CPA.

Colorado employers should consider thoroughly analyzing their privacy and cybersecurity practices concerning biometric data. Compliance with HB-1130 involves implementing robust policies and procedures to handle biometric data securely and transparently.

Please follow this link to learn more from our partner, Jackson Lewis.

 

 

Chicago’s New Labor Rules and Requirements Effective July 1, 2024

The Chicago Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection (BACP) Office of Labor Standards (COLS) has announced updates regarding minimum wage obligations, paid leave, and other employment regulations, with a compliance deadline of July 1, 2024. Employers must review these new rules and ensure compliance to avoid penalties.

  • Minimum Wage Updates:
    • Effective July 1, 2024, employers with 4 or more employees must pay a minimum hourly wage of $16.20, hourly youth workers must receive $15.00 per hour, tipped employees must be paid a minimum hourly wage of $11.02, and youth tipped workers must receive $10.20 per hour.
  • Notice and Posting Requirements:
    • Employers must issue a notice of the current minimum wage with each covered employee’s first paycheck and annually with a paycheck issued within 30 days of July 1st. This notice is required regardless of whether the employer maintains a physical business facility within Chicago. Employers with facilities in Chicago must display the updated notice in a conspicuous place at each location. If no physical facility exists, dissemination through internal communication channels is required.
  • Fair Work Week Thresholds:
    • Under the Fair Work Week ordinance, employers must post work schedules 14 days in advance. Effective July 1, 2024, this ordinance applies to employees earning no more than $61,149.35 annually or $31.85 per hour. Employers should review their payroll and scheduling policies to ensure compliance with these thresholds.
  • Updated Fair Work Week Notice:
    • The updated notice must be issued to covered employees with their first paycheck and annually on or following July 1st. Notices should be posted through an employer’s usual communication methods, either by paper or electronically. They must be in English and any other languages spoken by employees at the facility.
  • Wage Theft Notice:
    • Employers must display updated Wage Theft notices conspicuously at each facility. If no physical facility exists, notices must be sent via email or intranet.

The BACP also updated notices regarding the prohibition on human trafficking, listing resources for employees and locations where complaints can be filed. These notices must also be displayed conspicuously or disseminated electronically if no physical facility exists.
Employers should review and understand the new wage and scheduling regulations. By taking these steps, employers can ensure they meet the updated labor standards set by the BACP and avoid potential legal and financial consequences.

Updated labor posters will automatically be distributed to any client subscribed to our poster services through our vendor partner, Poster Guard. If you do not receive posters through Poster Guard, please contact your HR Account Manager for more information.

To read more on this topic, click here.

 

 

BIPA Amendments Passed by Illinois Legislature

SB 2979 marks a significant shift for companies using biometric technologies by altering the calculation method for BIPA statutory damages. The bill changes the accrual of damages from a per-scan to a per-person method, reducing liability exposure for technical or procedural non-compliance. It also clarifies that BIPA-valid consent can be obtained electronically. SB 2979 is currently awaiting Governor Pritzer’s signature and will become law immediately upon enactment.

The Illinois Supreme Court's 2019 decision in Rosenbach v. Six Flags established that actual harm is not required for BIPA recovery; mere technical violations can trigger statutory damages. This led to a surge in BIPA class actions. In 2023, the court's decision in Cothron v. White Castle expanded potential liability by allowing separate claims for each instance of biometric data collection or disclosure.

SB 2979 mitigates runaway BIPA damages by capping recoverable statutory damages to a single recovery per person, significantly reducing potential liability. It permits electronic means to obtain BIPA-compliant consent, defining "electronic signature" to include sounds, symbols, or processes logically associated with a record and executed with intent to sign. By allowing electronic consent, SB 2979 provides clarity for companies, particularly those using voice biometric systems where traditional written consent is challenging. While SB 2979 does not explicitly require retroactive application, strong arguments support its application to ongoing BIPA class actions.

Employers should reassess their biometric data collection and consent practices to ensure alignment with BIPA and SB 2979 requirements. Despite SB 2979, BIPA remains a significant legal risk. Companies must remain vigilant and proactive in their compliance efforts to effectively navigate the evolving landscape of biometric data regulations.

Click here to read more from Baker Donnelson

 

Maine Department of Labor’s Proposed Rulemaking for Paid Family and Medical Leave Program

On May 20, 2024, the Maine Department of Labor (DOL) announced proposed rulemaking to implement the Maine Paid Family and Medical Leave Program. Employees can start receiving paid leave benefits on May 1, 2026, with employer contributions beginning January 1, 2025.

Program Overview:
The proposed rules allow Maine employees up to 12 weeks of family and medical leave benefits annually.

Covered Employees:
Eligible employees include those earning wages in Maine of at least six times the state average weekly wage in the specified quarters or individuals who voluntarily elect coverage. Leave can be continuous, intermittent, or on a reduced schedule, with increments of less than a workday requiring employer agreement.

Applications for Benefits:
Employees must apply for benefits no more than 60 days before or 90 days after the leave start date. Generally, 30 days' notice is required, except in emergencies. Notices must include the reason for leave, type, timing, duration, and other relevant details.

Undue Hardship:
Employers must prove undue hardship, defined as significant operational impact or expenses, to justifiably deny requested leave. Employers must provide a written explanation, attempt to work out a reasonable leave schedule and secure the approval of the employee’s health care provider. Appeals can be made to a DOL hearing officer and subsequently to the Superior Court.

Job Restoration:
Employees employed for at least 120 consecutive days are entitled to job restoration upon return from leave, either to their previous position or an equivalent one with the same benefits, pay, and conditions.

Employer Premiums:
Benefits are financed by a mandatory premium based on employee wages up to 1%, split between employees and employers. Employers with fewer than 15 employees are exempt from the employer portion but must collect and remit the employee portion. Premiums begin January 1, 2025, with payments due quarterly.

Private Plans:
Employers can substitute fully insured or self-insured plans for the public program, with approvals valid for three years. Applications for private plan substitution will be accepted starting January 1, 2026, and must offer equivalent benefits to the public plan.
The proposed rules aim to clarify the Maine Paid Family and Medical Leave Program and ensure that employees and employers understand their rights and obligations. The proposed rules are not final and public comment will be open through July 8, 2024.

To read more on this topic, click here.

 

Minnesota’s Paid Leave Law (PLL) Takes Effect January 2026

Minnesota’s Paid Leave Law (PLL) will go into effect in January 2026, providing covered employees up to 20 weeks of leave to care for themselves and their family members. The Minnesota Paid Leave Program will offer paid leave benefits, and the recent amendments to the law include new guidance, changes to payroll taxes, and a comprehensive appeals framework.

On May 15, 2024, the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (MN DEED) published guides for employees and employers explaining the PLL. Employees will have access to state-funded family and medical leave for up to 12 weeks per benefit year, with a maximum of 20 weeks of paid leave per year.

The PLL will be funded by payroll taxes and employer premium payments. Initially, a 0.7% payroll tax was set, but amendments now allow the commissioner to adjust annual premium rates, with a projected increase to 0.88%. Small employers may be eligible for reduced rates and assistance grants. Employers and employees will share the contribution costs, with employees contributing up to 0.44% of their wages. Payroll deductions to collect PLL premiums begin on January 1, 2026.

Employers should review the new guidance and amendments to the PLL to ensure compliance.

Click here to read more from Jackson Lewis.

 

Minnesota's New Employment Rules and Obligations

Minnesota’s legislature has enacted significant changes impacting employers, including amendments to the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Earned Sick and Safe Time (ESST), Paid Family and Medical Leave, pay transparency laws, and several other areas. Below is a summary of key updates employers must understand:

  • Amendments to Pregnancy Accommodation and Pregnancy and Parental Leave Laws
    Effective August 1, 2024, employers must maintain group insurance coverage for employees and their dependents during pregnancy-related leave. Additionally, prenatal care appointments cannot be counted against the 12-week leave entitlement under the pregnancy and parental leave law.
  • Restrictive Covenant Law
    Effective July 1, 2024, Minnesota has voided non-compete and non-solicitation provisions in contracts between companies and their customers. Companies cannot prohibit customers from hiring or soliciting their employees. Employers must notify employees of any existing agreements that violate this law.
  • Gratuities Law
    Starting August 1, 2024, amendments to Minnesota Statutes section 177.24 require that tips or gratuities received by credit card or electronic payment be credited to employees during the same pay period and distributed no later than the next scheduled pay period.
  • Alternative Drug, Alcohol, and Cannabis Testing
    Effective August 1, 2024, employers in Minnesota can use “oral fluid testing” for detecting drugs, alcohol, and cannabis. This method does not require a testing laboratory and must meet Minnesota’s statutory threshold detection levels. Individuals tested must be informed of results immediately, and if the test is positive, inconclusive, or invalid, they have 48 hours to request a secondary test at a laboratory, with costs covered by the employer. Positive test results can lead to confirmatory retests at the individual’s expense.
  • New Rules on Employee Misclassification

Minnesota has strengthened laws against employee misclassification, effective July 1, 2024. Employers found misclassifying workers as independent contractors face compensatory damages, penalties up to $10,000 per misclassified individual, and additional penalties for non-cooperation during investigations.

Minnesota employers should act promptly to align their policies and practices with these new regulations to ensure compliance and avoid potential penalties.

For more information on this topic, please click here.

 

Nevada’s Minimum Wage Increase and Elimination of Two-Tier Structure 

As Nevada heads into summer, significant changes to the state’s minimum wage laws will impact employers. Effective July 1, 2024, Nevada employers must pay a minimum wage of $12.00 per hour. The two-tiered minimum wage structure, which allowed a $1.00 per hour lower wage for employers providing health benefits, will be abolished.

Nevada’s overtime laws require 1.5 times an employee’s regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. If an employee’s regular rate is below $18.00 per hour, employers must also pay overtime for worked hours over eight in a workday. Daily overtime may not be required with a compliant alternate work schedule of four 10-hour days.

Employers may want to evaluate their current shift scheduling practices. Violations of this law can lead to civil actions for back wages, damages, and penalties.

Click here to read more from Fisher Phillips.

 

Oregon Expands Anti-Stalking Protections and Safe Leave Benefits

On April 4, 2024, Governor Tina Kotek signed HB 4156, modernizing Oregon’s anti-stalking laws and expanding safe leave benefits for employees. The law addresses technological advancements, introduces new offenses, and expands employer obligations.

Previously, Oregon’s anti-stalking laws criminalized causing reasonable apprehension through repeated unwanted contact, including physical presence and communications. HB 4156 expands the definition of "repeated and unwanted contact" to include:

  • Misappropriating personal identification.
  • Disclosing intimate images without consent.
  • Using electronic means to monitor or interfere with communications or activities.
  • Doxxing (disclosing personal information to harass or harm).

Under ORS 659A.272, employers with six or more employees must provide reasonable leave for employees to:

  • Seek legal or law enforcement assistance for safety from stalkers.
  • Obtain medical treatment or recover from stalking-related injuries.
  • Receive counseling from a licensed mental health professional.

Oregon employers must take proactive steps to comply with these changes and ensure a supportive workplace for employees affected by stalking.

Click here to read more from Jackson Lewis

 

Compliance Requirements for Employing Minors in Pennsylvania

As summer approaches, Pennsylvania businesses increasingly rely on minors to fill workforce vacancies. However, employers face significant compliance obligations under Pennsylvania’s Child Labor Act, including:

  • Prohibition of Minors’ Employment in Certain Establishments or Occupations: Minors are prohibited from being employed in certain occupations and/or establishments based on their age
  • Work Hour Restrictions: Minors’ working hours are restricted based on age and whether school is in session
  • Employment Certificates: Employers must obtain and keep on file an employment certificate or transferable work permit issued by the school district prior to employing a minor.
  • Notice Requirements: Employers must post an abstract of Pennsylvania’s child labor law (Form LLC-5) and a schedule of hours for minors (Form LLC-17) in a conspicuous place.

Employers can face administrative penalties of up to $5,000 per violation for non-compliance and corrective actions as deemed necessary by the DL&I. Navigating the complexities of hiring minors in Pennsylvania requires careful attention to compliance with the Child Labor Act. Employers considering hiring minors should review their hiring practices to ensure adherence to all requirements and avoid potential penalties.

Click here to read more from Littler.

 

Vermont Mandates Pay Transparency in Job Postings

On June 4, 2024, Vermont Governor Phil Scott signed H.704 into law, mandating pay transparency in job postings. Effective July 1, 2025, employers with at least five employees must include compensation or a range of compensation in any “Vermont job opening” advertisement.
The law applies to positions physically located in Vermont and remote positions primarily serving a Vermont office. It covers roles open to internal and external candidates, including positions available for transfer or promotion.

Job advertisements must state the minimum and maximum annual salary or hourly wage that the employer expects to pay at the time of the advertisement. Advertisements must also disclose whether the position is commission-based or base wage/range of base wages for tipped positions. Employers can hire outside the advertised range based on qualifications or labor market forces.

Employers should proactively prepare to ensure compliance with Vermont’s new pay transparency requirements by the July 1, 2025 deadline.

Click here to read more from our partner, Jackson Lewis.

 

Employment Legislation from Virginia’s 2024 General Assembly Session

The 2024 session of the Virginia General Assembly concluded with only a few employment-related laws enacted, as Governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed a record 201 bills, including several employment laws.

  • Amendments to the Virginia Human Rights Act (VHRA)
    • House Bill 782: This bill extends the dual-filing period for discrimination charges with the EEOC and the Virginia Office of Civil Rights (VOCR) to 300 days.
    • Senate Bill 350: This bill allows individuals to file VHRA claims in court after 180 days if the VOCR has not issued a right-to-sue notice.
  • Expanded Protections for Medicinal Cannabis Oil Use:
    • Senate Bill 391 expands protections for lawful medical cannabis oil use to most state and local public employees, excluding law enforcement officers. Employers can still prohibit cannabis possession during work hours and take action against impairment.
  • Workplace Poster for Veterans Benefits and Services:
    • House Bill 160 mandates the Department of Labor and Industry to create a poster detailing benefits and services available to veterans. Employers are not required to display the poster but it is recommended to support veteran employees and potentially defend against discrimination claims.

By proactively addressing these changes, Virginia employers can ensure compliance and mitigate potential risks associated with the new laws.

Click here to read more from Littler.