Employment Law

Navigating Oregon’s Leave Updates: SB 1515 Explained

by

It is no secret that the implementation of Paid Leave Oregon (PLO) over the last year has created many questions for employers and employees alike. To clear up some of these questions, the Oregon State Legislature passed SB 1515. Here’s what you need to know about the changes SB 1515 brings to PLO and other leave policies.

First, SB 1515 caps the amount of leave an employee can take under PLO in a benefit year to 14 weeks. These 14 weeks can include 12 weeks of leave for family leave, medical leave, or safe leave and an additional two weeks of leave for pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition. This cap is lowered from the 18-week cap previously issued under PLO.

Second, SB 1515 provides clarity on how PLO may be used in conjunction with other leave policies starting July 1, 2024. Employers may create an internal policy, or establish a policy via collective bargaining, that specifies the order in which employees may take different types of available leave. Under any policy, Oregon Family Leave Act (OFLA) leave must be provided in addition to PLO, meaning that the two cannot be taken concurrently. However, SB 1515 does not allow recipients of worker’s compensation time loss benefits or unemployment benefits to also receive PLO benefits at the same time.

Third, SB 1515 expands the amount of wage replacement an employee can receive while on paid leave. At a minimum, employers must allow employees to receive benefits under PLO and any accrued but unused paid time off at the same time so employees can receive up to full wage replacement while taking leave under PLO. Alternatively, employers may choose to allow employees to receive PLO and employer provided benefits that exceed 100% of the employees’ regular wage.

Fourth, SB 1515 revises the protected reasons for taking leave under the OFLA. OFLA will no longer cover leave for a worker’s own serious health condition, leave to care for a family member, excluding a sick child, with a serious health condition, or leave to bond with a new child. Instead, each of these protected reasons for leave will be covered exclusively by PLO starting on July 1, 2024. If you have an employee who is already approved to take leave for one of these reasons under OFLA, or who has requested leave for one of these reasons, Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) requires employers to provide that employee with notice that their leave will not be protected by OFLA as of July 1, 2024. In addition, the employer must inform the employee that their leave may be covered by PLO and provide applicable contact information to the employee. OFLA will continue to cover leave related to a child’s illness, bereavement leave, and leave for any pregnancy-related disability.

Fifth, SB 1515 adjusts time off allowed under OFLA. An additional two weeks of leave will be temporarily provided to employees engaging in the fostering or adoption process. These additional two weeks are only available to employees until December 31, 2024. Starting January 1, 2025, leave associated with the foster and adoption process will be considered as a protected reason for leave under PLO. SB 1515 also caps the amount of time employees can take off for bereavement leave under OFLA. Bereavement leave will be capped at two weeks per family member and four weeks total per year. Thus, if an employee has more than one family member pass in a 12-month period, they will be allowed to take two weeks of protected, unpaid leave per family member with up to four weeks in that 12-month period.

Looking forward, employers will want to review their current leave policies and HR practices to ensure they are compliant with the changes of SB 1515. Employers and employees can also anticipate updated regulations from BOLI that may provide further clarification to the changes outlined above. Should you have any questions about the changes of SB 1515 contact your employment attorney.

FTC Votes to Ban Noncompete Agreements

by
Non-Compete Agreement

On April 23, 2024, the United States Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 to issue a Rule banning all new noncompete clauses after the effective date of the Rule.  The Rule – if it goes into effect – would prohibit companies from entering into new noncompete agreements with all employees.  There is a carve out in the Rule for some existing noncompete agreements with “senior executives” (defined as employees in a “policy-making position” who earn more than $151,164 per year).  The Rule also has an exemption for business owners who sell their company.

Under the Rule, companies with existing noncompete agreements are required to provide a notice to employees who have noncompete agreements that the agreements are no longer enforceable and will not be enforced by the company.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce issued a statement shortly after the FTC vote, criticizing the Rule as “not only unlawful but also a blatant power grab that will undermine American businesses’ ability to remain competitive.”  The Chamber of Commerce statement indicates that it will be filing a lawsuit to block the Rule.

If not blocked by litigation, the Rule will go into effect 120 days after it is published in the Federal Register, likely meaning early September 2024.

Currently, noncompete agreements are mainly subject to applicable state law in most jurisdictions.  Some states (like Oregon) have specific statutes with restrictions on which employees can be subject to noncompete agreements.  Companies should consult with their employment attorney to determine how best to proceed in light of the new FTC Rule.

Your Employees’ Workday May Begin Sooner Than You Think

by

When a workday begins can depend on the type of work performed and necessary steps to start the work each day. But with the ever-growing presence of computer software use in the workforce, can starting up and shutting down a work computer add some extra time to a paycheck? The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals says that it is possible.

While many may be quick to compare starting up computers to waiting in line to punch a timecard, the Ninth Circuit ruled that for the call service employees at Connexx, the two are entirely different. In Cadena v. Customer Connexx LLC., decided October 24, 2022, call service employees claimed they should be compensated under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) for the additional 18.9 minutes it takes for their computers to turn on and off each day. Relying on the FLSA and the Portal-to-Portal Act, the Ninth Circuit found that booting up work computers could be compensable time, but shutting the computers down should not.

In specific situations, turning on computers each day can now be likened to the donning and doffing of protective gear. Without the use of functioning computers, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Connexx employees could not access any of the programs necessary to answer customer calls and perform scheduling tasks, the employees’ principal duties. Thus, the time spent starting up their work computers is integral and indispensable to the employees’ principal duties and should be compensated.

This case is a good reminder to all employers that under the FLSA, you are required to pay employees starting at the time of the first principal activity of the day. However, time that passes while the employee is waiting to begin their first activity of the day is not always compensable. For activities to be principal, and thus compensable, they must be integral and indispensable to the employee’s work. In today’s world, it isn’t as easy to determine when compensable time begins as it once used to be. With the days of punching in a timecard and walking straight to a workstation mostly behind us, employers should be aware of what tasks are integral and indispensable to their employees’ job performance and ensure they are compensating them appropriately.

Workplace Vaccination Requirements

by
Workplace Vaccination Requirements

What You Need to Know About Workplace Vaccination Requirements

Workplace Vaccination RequirementsNow that the first round of COVID-19 vaccines is being distributed, many of people are wondering how to ensure that their employees are vaccinated as soon as possible. Below are answers to some of the most common questions employers have about workplace vaccine requirements. If you would like specific advice about instituting a vaccine requirement for your employees, please contact an employment lawyer.

Can I require that my employees take the vaccine when it becomes available?

Yes. In general, you can have a requirement that your employees take a publicly available vaccine. However, employers with 15 or more employees are subject to federal laws prohibiting certain employment practices, including requirements that screen out individuals with disabilities and denying requests for reasonable accommodations based on religious beliefs. Many states have equivalent laws that cover smaller employers. Most employers must try to make reasonable accommodations for employees whose disability or religious beliefs prevent them from meeting workplace requirements.

How can I respond if an employee claims to be unable to take the vaccine because of a disability or sincerely held religious belief?

You must determine whether you are required to make a reasonable accommodation for the employee. Unless an employer can demonstrate that a reasonable accommodation is not possible without undue hardship and that an unvaccinated employee poses a direct threat to the health of others, the employer must make a reasonable accommodation for an employee’s disability. An employer also must make a reasonable accommodation for an employee’s religious belief if the accommodation is possible without undue hardship.

In either case, an employer may exclude from the workplace an unvaccinated employee for whom the employer is not required to make reasonable accommodation. 

What does reasonable accommodation mean for workplace vaccination requirements?

Whether you can make a reasonable accommodation without undue hardship will depend on the nature of the workforce and the employee’s position. In determining whether an exemption causes undue hardship, you should consider whether the employee’s duties require frequent contact with the public or other individuals whose vaccination rates are unknown and the cost to the business of reducing such contact. Employers may also rely on CDC and OSHA guidance to determine whether an accommodation is possible without undue hardship.

Federal regulations direct employers to determine whether a direct threat exists based on the likelihood and extent of the risk. Like undue hardship, whether your employee constitutes a “direct threat” will depend on the employee’s duties and the progress of the pandemic. As infection rates fall, the likelihood that an unvaccinated employee will constitute a direct threat to others in the workplace may fall.

Employment protections based on religious belief are narrower than protections based on disability. An employer still must provide a reasonable accommodation upon request. However, undue hardship in the religious belief context means that the accommodation would have a more than trivial burden on the employer, such as forcing the employer to treat employees unequally. Employers may not be required to make an accommodation for religious belief if the accommodation is unfair to other employees or forces you to incur significant costs.

As the COVID-19 vaccines become more available, employers will certainly face more pressing questions about requiring employees get the vaccine. 

Naturally, many of these questions are novel, and there are complex legal issues employers need to consider.  There are also practical considerations – what will the impact be on morale of requiring (or not requiring) employees to provide proof of vaccination.  Employers with specific questions should seek guidance from an attorney with experience in employment matters.

Accessibility