NYC prohibits employers from entering into any type of agreement that shortens the statutory period by which an employee may file an administrative claim or complaint, or civil action, relating to unlawful discriminatory practices, harassment or violence.
The California Supreme Court determined that an employer that reasonably and in good faith believed it was providing a complete and accurate wage statement has a viable defense to a claim for penalties under the state’s wage statement statute.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court rejected an employer’s argument that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario lacked jurisdiction to hear its case.
At the end of January 2024, the UK Government set out a surprise proposal to introduce a £55 fee for individuals to bring proceedings in the Employment Tribunals (ET) and Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court held that trial courts lack inherent authority to strike (dismiss with prejudice) claims under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) on manageability grounds.
On December 20, 2023, the New York City Council passed a bill (Proposed Int. No. 563-A) that would create a private right of action to seek damages and other relief for violations of New York City’s Earned Safe and Sick Time Act (ESSTA).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has spoken, and employers that once relied exclusively on McDonnell Douglas might need to rethink their litigation strategy in employment-discrimination cases.
On November 30, 2023, the Colorado Court of Appeals in Tender Care v. Barnett tested the limits of Colorado’s anti-SLAPP law in considering whether an individual’s online review of a company could invoke the protections of the anti-SLAPP law.
