Meet the Co-chairs - TAGLAW
Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP
Ryan, Swanson & Cleveland, PLLC
LK Shields Solicitors
Employment and Labor Law
In his final bill-signing period as governor, California Governor Edmund G. Brown signed into law numerous employment-related bills and vetoed others. One bill that passed significantly expands the scope of required sexual harassment training for employees in California.
Currently, the relevant provisions of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), sections 12950 and 12950.1 of the California Government Code, require employers with 50 or more employees to provide sexual harassment training for all supervisory employees. SB 1343 amends these provisions, instead requiring employers of five or more employees—including seasonal and temporary employees—to provide sexual harassment training for both supervisory and non-supervisory employees by January 1, 2020.
Author: Erica Parks
September 30, 2018, was the cut-off for Governor Brown to sign or veto bills passed by the California legislature this year. So it’s not surprising that that the summer months saw a flurry of employment legislation across Governor Brown’s desk.
Most significantly, the Governor vetoed AB 3080, which, as we alerted you last month, would have effectively banned non-disclosure agreements and arbitration agreements with respect to certain harassment and discrimination claims.
Nevertheless, the Governor signed into law this summer a record number of bills, many of which further regulate the workplace. Rounded up below are the most notable new employment bills signed into law, which will take effect on January 1, 2019, unless otherwise specified below:
California Legislature Amends FEHA and Expressly Affirms and Rejects Harassment Case Law
Author: Yesim Tokgoz
In Turkey, although labor law is known as the law that protects employees, all it requests from the employers is to keep their records in line with legislation and jurisprudence, adhere to their legal obligations, and demonstrate such actions through documentation. However, it is true that some actions are difficult to prove. Within this scope, maybe one of the hardest responsibilities to prove is employers' protection obligations towards their employees, arising from occupational health and safety matters. In this article, we will shed light on the provision of occupational health and safety obligations of employers, and their legal obligations and criminal repercussions in light of the decisions of the Court of Cassation1.
Authors: Emily Haar, Senior Associate & Professor Andrew Stewart, Consultant
The Fair Work Ombudsman has recently commenced proceedings against food delivery application “Foodora” in the Federal Court of Australia alleging that the “gig-economy” platform has engaged in sham contracting. Emily Haar, Senior Associate, and Professor Andrew Stewart, Consultant, consider the implications such a finding could have.
Author: Ben Motro, Special Counsel
The recent decision of the Fair Work Commission in Blagojevic v AGL Macquarie Pty Ltd; Mitchell Seears  FWC 2906 has shed further light on what constitutes “reasonable management action” in the context of performance management under section 789FD of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).