No, You Really Cannot Ask That and Other Implications of New Laws Impacting Employers
Most employers of California employees must change key hiring practices in order to comply with new state laws effective Jan. 1, 2018. These laws impact job applications, interviews, background checks and compensation.
October 30, 2017 at 04:55 PM
6 minute read
Most employers of California employees must change key hiring practices in order to comply with new state laws effective Jan. 1, 2018. These laws impact job applications, interviews, background checks and compensation.
AB 1008—New Ban-the-Box Law
Employers of at least five employees are prohibited from inquiring into criminal record or conducting background checks until after extending a conditional offer of employment. This is a dramatic shift from current law that allows certain such inquiries.
The purpose of this law is to provide convicted felons a “fair chance” to obtain employment. Once a conditional offer has been extended, an employer may withdraw the offer because of a criminal record, but only if the employer can show that there is a direct and adverse relationship between the conviction and specific job duties. The employer must complete an individualized assessment to make that determination and provide to the applicant written notification and an opportunity to challenge the denial of employment. The notification must include a notice of the disqualifying conviction(s), a copy of the conviction history report, if any, and an explanation of the applicant's right to respond. The notification may, but is not required, to contain justification or explanation of the employer's reasoning for preliminarily denying the applicant. After the applicant follows procedures for challenging the rejection, if the employer nonetheless decides to withdraw the offer, the employer must send to the applicant a second written notice describing any existing procedures the employer has for further challenge or reconsideration, and of the right to file a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Each step in the process has stringent deadlines.
The law presents challenges, not only in establishing the requisite connection between the conviction(s), job duties and business necessity, but also in meeting the carefully timed procedural deadlines.
The consequences for violating this law are those available for violation of discrimination laws, including compensatory and punitive damages and attorney's fees.
To do list for employers: Update application forms; advise and train interviewers; set up a process for required notices; update required postings; beware of record keeping requirements; ensure recruiters and background check vendors know the law.
AB 168—Salary Inquiry Ban
As of Jan. 1, employers, regardless of size, who employ California employees are forbidden from inquiring into the salary history, including compensation and benefits, of California applicants. Employers may not directly or indirectly elicit any information regarding an applicant's salary history to determine the amount of salary to be offered to the applicant. The law precludes obtaining this information through third parties, such as recruiters. This law goes hand in hand with the California Fair Pay Act (CFPA), enacted to eliminate pay disparities based on past gender and race discrimination. Under the CFPA, job duties—and not salary history, race or gender—must determine pay. As all employees must be paid equally for substantially similar work, salary history is deemed not to be relevant to the current position.
If an applicant voluntarily, and without prompting, discloses salary, the potential employer may consider the disclosed information to set that applicant's salary, keeping in mind that salary history alone can never be used to justify a pay disparity for “substantially similar work” as defined by the CFPA.
AB 168 also requires disclosure of the salary range for the position applied for if an applicant requests the information.
While AB 168 does not specify available remedies for violating the law in particular, should an employee hired prove a pay disparity, remedies available for discrimination such as compensatory and punitive damages will be recoverable. Inquiring into salary history in violation of the statute may make it easier to state a case of unlawful pay disparities.
To do list for employers: Review application forms to delete inquiries about salary history; revise interview questions and train interviewers; notify recruiters not to provide salary history; update required postings; be aware of record keeping requirements; prepare for questions about salary ranges; do not rely on salary history to set current compensation.
SB 63—New Parent Leave Act
SB 63 expands coverage of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA). Currently, covered employers are those with at least 50 employees employed anywhere, though only employees working in California are eligible for leave. SB 63 extends the definition of covered employer to those with between 20 and 49 employees working in a 75 mile radius in California. As of Jan. 1, these employers also must provide up to 12 weeks of leave for purposes of baby bonding, child adoption or foster placement. Employees must take and complete the leave within one year of the child's arrival though it may be taken intermittently. Employees taking New Parent Leave are guaranteed job protection.
As under CFRA, to be eligible for New Parental Leave, an employee must be employed by the current employer for more than 12 months and have worked for the employer at least 1,250 hours during the previous 12-month period.
The law incorporates the regulations applicable to CFRA where relevant, and consistent with the law. As in the case of CFRA, where both parents work for a single employer, they may take only a combined total of 12 weeks of leave.
Anticipating mistakes by unwitting small employers, AB 63 creates a mediation pilot program, which allows employers to request mediation within 60 days of receiving a right-to-sue notice for alleged violations of this new law, and no lawsuit may be filed until mediation is completed. The pilot program will be in place until Jan. 1, 2020.
Consequences for violating the new parental leave law are compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney fees.
To do list for covered employers: Update leave policies handbooks, and required postings; create processes for tracking leave; anticipate the needs and burdens related to position protection.
Wendy Lazerson is the head of Sidley Austin's Northern California labor and employment group and a partner in the firm's Palo Alto office. Alison Hong is an associate in the firm's Palo Alto office and a member of the firm's labor and employment group.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Nothing Is Good for the Consumer Right Now': Experts Weigh Benefits, Drawbacks of Updated Real Estate Commission Policies
FTC Issues Final Rule Banning Most Noncompetes, but Immediate Legal Challenges Ensue
6 minute readCalif. Employers On Tight Deadline to Comply With New Workplace Violence Prevention Law
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Bucking Industry Trend, Sidley Austin Elects Biggest Class of Partners in Firm History
- 2US Judge Throws Out Sale of Infowars to The Onion. But That's Not the End of the Road for Sandy Hook Families
- 3‘Really Deflating’: Judges React to Biden Threat to Veto New Judgeships Bill
- 43 Incidents Lead to Charges Against the Alexander Brothers; Cousin Remains at Large
- 5Sidley Austin Elects Biggest Combined Class of Partners and Counsel in Firm History
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250