![[Valid RSS]](images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Valid RSS")
This is a valid RSS feed.
This feed is valid, but interoperability with the widest range of feed readers could be improved by implementing the following recommendations.
line 39, column 0: (10 occurrences) [help]
<description><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="640" ...
<description><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="640" ...
line 39, column 0: (9 occurrences) [help]
<description><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="640" ...
line 40, column 0: (10 occurrences) [help]
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img wi ...
line 40, column 0: (9 occurrences) [help]
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img wi ...
line 72, column 0: (9 occurrences) [help]
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img wi ...
line 97, column 0: (8 occurrences) [help]
<description><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="483" ...
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" > <channel> <title>EMPLOYMENT LAW</title> <atom:link href="https://employment-law.review/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /> <link>https://employment-law.review</link> <description>EMPLOYMENT LAW DAILY NEWS</description> <lastBuildDate>Sun, 17 Dec 2023 21:09:34 +0000</lastBuildDate> <language>en-US</language> <sy:updatePeriod> hourly </sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency> 1 </sy:updateFrequency>  <item> <title>Securing Truthful Compensation for Staff</title> <link>https://employment-law.review/securing-truthful-compensation-for-staff/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Jason Wilson]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 17 Dec 2023 21:09:34 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Workers' Compensation]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://employment-law.review/securing-fair-compensation-for-employees/</guid> <description><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="640" height="427" src="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/3093955.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" fetchpriority="high" srcset="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/3093955.jpg 640w, https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/3093955-300x200.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" /></div>Securing fair compensation for employees is an important issue in the workplace. Employees should be paid fairly for the work they do, and employers should ensure that their employees are compensated in a way that is fair and equitable. This article will discuss some of the ways employers can ensure that their employees are receiving […]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="640" height="427" src="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/3093955.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" srcset="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/3093955.jpg 640w, https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/3093955-300x200.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" /></div><p>Securing fair compensation for employees is an important issue in the workplace. Employees should be paid fairly for the work they do, and employers should ensure that their employees are compensated in a way that is fair and equitable. This article will discuss some of the ways employers can ensure that their employees are receiving fair compensation for their work.</p><p>One way employers can ensure that employees are receiving fair compensation is by conducting regular salary surveys. Salary surveys can provide employers with a better understanding of the going rate for different positions in the industry, which can help them ensure they are paying their employees accordingly. Employers should also review their existing salary structure to make sure it is competitive and fair.</p><p>Another way employers can ensure fair compensation for their employees is by implementing a performance-based compensation system. This system rewards employees based on their performance, rather than a fixed salary. This can help employers ensure that their employees are being rewarded for their hard work and dedication to the job.</p><p>Employers should also consider offering additional benefits to their employees. This can include things like health insurance, retirement plans, and other forms of compensation. Offering these types of benefits can help employers ensure that their employees are being compensated fairly for their work.</p><p>Finally, employers should ensure that their employees are aware of their rights and responsibilities when it comes to their compensation. Employers should provide their employees with information about their rights and responsibilities, as well as any applicable laws or regulations that may affect their compensation. This can help employees understand their rights and ensure that they are receiving fair compensation for their work.</p><p>Securing fair compensation for employees is an important issue in the workplace. Employers should take steps to ensure that their employees are receiving fair and equitable compensation for their work. This can include conducting regular salary surveys, implementing a performance-based compensation system, offering additional benefits, and ensuring that employees are aware of their rights and responsibilities. By following these steps, employers can help ensure that their employees are receiving fair compensation for their work.</p>]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>Defending Your Rights with Employees Compensation Navigating the Employees Compensation System Securing Sufficient Employees Compensation Guaranteeing Honest Employees Compensation Reaching Honest Remedy with Employees Compensation Getting the Most from Your Employees CompensationHonest Remedy for Employees Via Compensation</title> <link>https://employment-law.review/defending-your-rights-with-employees-compensationnavigating-the-employees-compensation-systemsecuring-sufficient-employees-compensationguaranteeing-honest-employees-compensationreaching-honest/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Jason Wilson]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 17 Nov 2023 20:09:33 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Workers' Compensation]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://employment-law.review/protecting-your-rights-with-workers-compensationnavigating-the-workers-compensation-systemsecuring-adequate-workers-compensationensuring-fair-workers-compensationachieving-fair-treatment-with/</guid> <description><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="483" height="640" src="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/dall-e-202311271011339702.png" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" srcset="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/dall-e-202311271011339702.png 483w, https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/dall-e-202311271011339702-226x300.png 226w" sizes="(max-width: 483px) 100vw, 483px" /></div>Workers compensation is a vital safety net for employees who have been injured or become ill on the job. It is also an important way to ensure that employees are treated fairly and with respect when it comes to issues of wages, benefits, and other rights. Unfortunately, the workers compensation system can be complicated and […]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="483" height="640" src="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/dall-e-202311271011339702.png" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/dall-e-202311271011339702.png 483w, https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/dall-e-202311271011339702-226x300.png 226w" sizes="(max-width: 483px) 100vw, 483px" /></div><p>Workers compensation is a vital safety net for employees who have been injured or become ill on the job. It is also an important way to ensure that employees are treated fairly and with respect when it comes to issues of wages, benefits, and other rights. Unfortunately, the workers compensation system can be complicated and intimidating. This article will provide an overview of the system and offer tips on how to protect your rights and get the most out of your workers compensation.</p><p>Navigating the Workers Compensation System</p><p>The workers compensation system is a complicated web of laws, regulations, and procedures. It is important to understand the basics of the system and how it works. Generally, workers compensation is a type of insurance that pays for medical expenses and lost wages when an employee is injured or becomes ill on the job. In most cases, the employer pays for the insurance, but in some cases, the employee may be responsible for a portion of the cost.</p><p>Securing Adequate Workers Compensation</p><p>The amount of workers compensation an employee is entitled to depends on a variety of factors, including the severity of the injury or illness and the laws of the state. It is important to make sure that you are receiving the full amount of benefits that you are entitled to. If you feel that you are not receiving adequate compensation, you should contact an experienced workers compensation attorney to discuss your case.</p><p>Ensuring Fair Workers Compensation</p><p>Another important aspect of the workers compensation system is making sure that you are treated fairly. This means that the employer should not retaliate against you for filing a claim or trying to secure the full amount of benefits that you are entitled to. It is also important to make sure that the employer is following the laws and regulations that govern the workers compensation system.</p><p>Achieving Fair Treatment with Workers Compensation</p><p>If you feel that you are not being treated fairly, it is important to take action. You should contact an experienced workers compensation attorney to discuss your case. An attorney can help you understand your rights and make sure that you are receiving the full amount of benefits that you are entitled to.</p><p>Getting the Most from Your Workers Compensation</p><p>The workers compensation system is an important safety net for employees who have been injured or become ill on the job. It is important to make sure that you are getting the full amount of benefits that you are entitled to and that you are being treated fairly. By understanding the system and taking the necessary steps to protect your rights, you can ensure that you are getting the most from your workers compensation.</p>]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>Maximizing Advantages for Employees Compensation</title> <link>https://employment-law.review/maximizing-advantages-for-employees-compensation/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Jason Wilson]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 19:09:35 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Workers' Compensation]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://employment-law.review/maximizing-benefits-for-workers-compensation/</guid> <description><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="483" height="640" src="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/dall-e-202311271011357932.png" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/dall-e-202311271011357932.png 483w, https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/dall-e-202311271011357932-226x300.png 226w" sizes="(max-width: 483px) 100vw, 483px" /></div>Workers’ compensation insurance is an important part of any business, providing financial protection for employees who are injured or become ill due to their work. It is important for employers to maximize the benefits of their workers’ compensation policies to ensure that their employees are receiving the best possible coverage. Here are some tips for […]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="483" height="640" src="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/dall-e-202311271011357932.png" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/dall-e-202311271011357932.png 483w, https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/dall-e-202311271011357932-226x300.png 226w" sizes="(max-width: 483px) 100vw, 483px" /></div><p>Workers’ compensation insurance is an important part of any business, providing financial protection for employees who are injured or become ill due to their work. It is important for employers to maximize the benefits of their workers’ compensation policies to ensure that their employees are receiving the best possible coverage. Here are some tips for maximizing the benefits of workers’ compensation.</p><p>First, employers should review their policy regularly to ensure that they are up to date with the latest regulations and requirements. This can help avoid costly mistakes and ensure that the policy is providing the best possible coverage for employees. Employers should also review the policy with their insurance provider to make sure that all of the necessary coverage is included.</p><p>Second, employers should consider providing additional benefits to employees who are injured or become ill due to their work. These can include medical and rehabilitation costs, lost wages, and even job retraining or relocation assistance. These extra benefits can help to ensure that employees are receiving the best possible care and support in the event of an accident or illness.</p><p>Third, employers should ensure that they are providing a safe and healthy work environment for their employees. This includes making sure that safety protocols and procedures are in place, and that employees are aware of them. Employers should also ensure that the workplace is free from hazards, and that employees are provided with the necessary protective equipment and clothing.</p><p>Finally, employers should ensure that they are providing employees with the proper training and education on workers’ compensation benefits. This can include providing employees with information on filing a claim, understanding their rights and responsibilities, and knowing the steps they need to take if they become injured or ill due to their work.</p><p>By following these tips, employers can ensure that they are maximizing the benefits of their workers’ compensation policies. This can help to ensure that employees are receiving the best possible coverage and support in the event of an accident or illness.</p>]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>Purdue wins judgment on wage discrimination claims however allegations of FMLA, FSLA violations can proceed</title> <link>https://employment-law.review/purdue-wins-judgment-on-wage-discrimination-claims-however-allegations-of-fmla-fsla-violations-can-proceed/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Jason Wilson]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2021 17:43:31 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Family And Medical Leave]]></category> <category><![CDATA[allegations]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Claims]]></category> <category><![CDATA[discrimination]]></category> <category><![CDATA[FMLA]]></category> <category><![CDATA[FSLA]]></category> <category><![CDATA[judgment]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Proceed]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Purdue]]></category> <category><![CDATA[violations]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Wage]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Wins]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://employment-law.review/?p=23114</guid> <description><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="600" height="315" src="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/7th-Circuit-Injured-worker-not-qualified-individual-under-ADA.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="7th Circuit: Injured worker not qualified individual under ADA" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/7th-Circuit-Injured-worker-not-qualified-individual-under-ADA.jpg 600w, https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/7th-Circuit-Injured-worker-not-qualified-individual-under-ADA-300x158.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 600px) 100vw, 600px" /></div>Purdue University and a group of its employees have secured victory over a dismissed employee’s wage discrimination lawsuit. However, the former employee’s claims for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Family and Medical Leave Act by her Purdue supervisor can continue. Presiding Judge Jon DeGuilio of the U.S. District Court for the […]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="600" height="315" src="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/7th-Circuit-Injured-worker-not-qualified-individual-under-ADA.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="7th Circuit: Injured worker not qualified individual under ADA" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/7th-Circuit-Injured-worker-not-qualified-individual-under-ADA.jpg 600w, https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/7th-Circuit-Injured-worker-not-qualified-individual-under-ADA-300x158.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 600px) 100vw, 600px" /></div><p></p><p>Purdue University and a group of its employees have secured victory over a dismissed employee’s wage discrimination lawsuit. However, the former employee’s claims for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Family and Medical Leave Act by her Purdue supervisor can continue.</p><p>Presiding Judge Jon DeGuilio of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana on Wednesday in Belinda McCarty against The Trustees of Purdue University delivered a partial summary judgment for the university and its staff, as well as a partial summary judgment for plaintiff former employee Mary Kathryn Green -Smith, Rick Rodriguez, Julie Kercher-Updike, Gerry McCartney, Gary Desai and Dan Rhine, 4:19-cv-43.</p><p>Plaintiff Belinda McCarty filed the complaint in April 2019, approximately three months after she was fired from her position as software licensing administrator for West Lafayette School. McCarty had worked for Purdue since 2006 and had received two performance enhancement plans during that time prior to being fired.</p><p>From 2012 to 2019, the disputed years, McCarty only received a performance-based raise. In each of the other years she was ranked in the bottom 10% of IT customer service reps – a ranking that, according to the university, did not result in a performance-related pay rise.</p><p>McCarty claimed, however, that she was paid less than a male counterpart, Jim Myers, for sex discrimination in violation of the Equal Pay Act, Indiana Minimum Wage Act, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. She also argued that in violation of the FLSA, she was not granted overtime pay and that she received retaliation for taking the FMLA vacation.</p><p>DeGuilio stated that Purdue had immunity from McCarty’s 11th Amendment immunity from all claims except her right to retaliation for taking family care leave under the FMLA. However, the individual defendants are not entitled to immunity.</p><p>Regarding McCarty’s FMLA claims, the chief judge ruled that a summary judgment was inadequate for the defendants because “a reasonable jury could determine that their superiors’ comments on their various FMLA vacations may constitute evidence of retaliation.”</p><p>McCarty accepted FMLA several times during her tenure at Purdue, including after the birth of her children and to care for her sick and dying father. During that time, the court wrote, she was forced to work while she was still applying for FMLA leave.</p><p>In addition, her superiors made comments like “Wow, are you going to go another day?” or: “Did you really have to?” In addition, she was given notice on the day she returned from her FMLA vacation.</p><p>“A jury could certainly determine on this record that Ms. McCarty failed to improve her performance after several warnings and that failure would have resulted in her dismissal regardless of other inappropriate reasons,” wrote DeGuilio. “However, the Court cannot conclude that a jury should make these conclusions in a way that would warrant a summary judgment, particularly because retaliation need only be a motivating factor in a negative action, not the only factor or even the main factor in obtaining a right to retribution support.”</p><p>As with the FLSA claims against the individual defendants, the presiding judge declined the summary judgment for both parties based on “multiple factual disputes” over whether McCarty was a released employee.</p><p>“For example, the parties argue whether decisions about software packages and distributions were standardized and required the approval of a manager or whether Ms. McCarty made independent decisions about contracts with customers or instead followed the instructions of the manager,” he wrote. “It is also controversial whether Ms. McCarty decided whether a particular customer is entitled to access to a product or software.</p><p>“In interpreting all reasonable conclusions in favor of both parties,” wrote DeGuilio, “the file before the court contains differing statements about Ms. McCarty’s relative freedom from oversight, whether she exercised discretion, and if so, the importance of those decisions and hence, “there is a real problem of material facts …”</p><p>But all of McCarty’s wage gap-related claims – alleged violations of the Equal Pay Act, Indiana Minimum Wage Act, and Title VII – have been settled in favor of the defendants. Among other things, the court found that Myers started working at Purdue nine years before McCarty.</p><p>“Whether or not Purdue has formal seniority, it is clear that Mr. Myers’ salary was influenced by his successful experience in the nine years prior to Ms. McCarty’s appointment. The court finds that this is a reasonable difference, not based on gender, and does not believe that a reasonable jury could conclude otherwise. “</p><p>McCarty will be represented by Indianapolis attorney Jason Ramsland, while the defendants were represented by attorneys at Stuart & Branigin LLP in Lafayette. Indiana Lawyer has requested comments from both parties.</p>]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>DAN WALTERS: ‘Grand cut price’ of employees’ compensation underneath siege | Opinion</title> <link>https://employment-law.review/dan-walters-grand-cut-price-of-employees-compensation-underneath-siege-opinion/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Jason Wilson]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2021 11:25:45 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Workers' Compensation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Bargain]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Compensation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Dan]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Grand]]></category> <category><![CDATA[OPINION]]></category> <category><![CDATA[siege]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Walters]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Workers]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://employment-law.review/?p=23110</guid> <description><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="483" height="640" src="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/dall-e-20231127101147093.png" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/dall-e-20231127101147093.png 483w, https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/dall-e-20231127101147093-226x300.png 226w" sizes="(max-width: 483px) 100vw, 483px" /></div>The COVID-19 pandemic, we have been told, is changing everything, and that includes possibly one of California’s oldest social support systems, employee compensation. Legal tinkering and a potentially disruptive lawsuit threatens to undo a so-called “big deal” in workers’ compensation that closed more than a century ago. Employers agreed to indemnify workers suffering work-related illnesses […]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="483" height="640" src="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/dall-e-20231127101147093.png" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/dall-e-20231127101147093.png 483w, https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/dall-e-20231127101147093-226x300.png 226w" sizes="(max-width: 483px) 100vw, 483px" /></div><p></p><p>The COVID-19 pandemic, we have been told, is changing everything, and that includes possibly one of California’s oldest social support systems, employee compensation.</p><p>Legal tinkering and a potentially disruptive lawsuit threatens to undo a so-called “big deal” in workers’ compensation that closed more than a century ago.</p><p>Employers agreed to indemnify workers suffering work-related illnesses and injuries through medical care and cash payments as an “exclusive remedy” to protect employers from individual disability lawsuits.</p><p>Employers either take out insurance to cover their potential liabilities or insure themselves like most larger corporations and government agencies do.</p><p>From time to time lawmakers have changed the system for certain professions, particularly police officers and firefighters, creating the assumption that if they were affected by certain disabling conditions, including cancer and post-traumatic stress disorder, they would be entitled to workers’ severance pay, without this having to be proven professionally.</p><p>However, the big deal stayed with the vast majority of workers and their employers, at least until the pandemic broke out.</p><p>Last year the legislature passed and Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill creating a “rebuttable presumption” that health workers and public safety workers infected with COVID-19 are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits, and that presumption applies to all employees expands whose workplace has experienced an “outbreak” of the disease.</p><p>The law deviates significantly from the long-standing procedural rule that an employee who uses benefits must prove that the disability is work-related. It was backed by a coalition of trade unions and rejected by employer groups who viewed it as a potentially costly loophole.</p><p>Meanwhile, a lawsuit against See’s Candies, a centuries-old California institution, could make an even more fundamental change to the employee compensation system and its “exclusive remedies” provisions.</p><p>Matilde Ek, a worker at the See distribution center in Southern California, contracted COVID-19 and apparently infected her 72-year-old husband Arturo, who died. Ek said she was working on the lake’s packaging line without proper social distancing or other protective measures, although some workers were coughing, sneezing and other showing signs of COVID-19 infection.</p><p>She and her daughters sued See’s, claiming the company was liable for his death because their workplace was not adequately protected against infection.</p><p>See’s, now owned by Berkshire Hathaway Corp. of billionaire Warren Buffet, admitted that Ek’s illness was work-related, but argued that the company has since been protected from liability for her husband’s death under the “only cures” doctrine.</p><p>However, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Daniel M. Crowley refused to dismiss Ek’s lawsuit and agreed that Ek’s attorney agreed that her husband’s death was a separate event from her workplace infection.</p><p>Crowley’s ruling has brought the matter to appeals courts and has drawn the attention of large California and national corporate groups who see it as potentially undermining a fundamental principle of the employee compensation system.</p><p>“The judgment of the court of first instance, if upheld, could potentially expose employers across the state to unlimited criminal liability for alleged workplace injuries that lawmakers sought to address under the employee compensation system,” a coalition of corporate groups explained briefly on their appeal to the court. “Given this prospect, the potential impact … can hardly be overestimated.”</p><p>The money invested in workers’ compensation, about $ 20 billion a year, creates constant political competition between affected interests such as employers, unions, insurers, medical providers, and lawyers.</p><p>Their quarrels over the division of the cake have never fundamentally changed the 108-year-old system. However, the legislature and the courts can go in that direction, for better or for worse.</p><p>Email Dan Walters of CalMatters at dan@calmatters.org. CalMatters is a non-partisan, nonprofit journalism company dedicated to explaining California politics and politics. Additional columns from Walters can be found at Calmatters.org/commentary.</p>]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>Responding to fraud in Queensland employees’ compensation scheme</title> <link>https://employment-law.review/responding-to-fraud-in-queensland-employees-compensation-scheme/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Jason Wilson]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2021 04:24:07 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Workers' Compensation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Compensation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Fraud]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Queensland]]></category> <category><![CDATA[responding]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Scheme]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Workers]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://employment-law.review/?p=23106</guid> <description><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="700" height="417" src="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Responding-to-fraud-in-Queensland-workers-compensation-scheme.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Responding to fraud in Queensland workers' compensation scheme" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Responding-to-fraud-in-Queensland-workers-compensation-scheme.jpg 700w, https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Responding-to-fraud-in-Queensland-workers-compensation-scheme-300x179.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px" /></div>Fraud can and will occur in the world of workers’ compensation insurance. Three of the most recent charges show the seriousness of Queensland’s compensation policy fraud. Fraud can and will occur in the world of workers’ compensation as it does in other areas of life. Three of the most recent charges show the seriousness of […]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="700" height="417" src="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Responding-to-fraud-in-Queensland-workers-compensation-scheme.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Responding to fraud in Queensland workers' compensation scheme" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Responding-to-fraud-in-Queensland-workers-compensation-scheme.jpg 700w, https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Responding-to-fraud-in-Queensland-workers-compensation-scheme-300x179.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px" /></div><p></p><p>Fraud can and will occur in the world of workers’ compensation insurance. Three of the most recent charges show the seriousness of Queensland’s compensation policy fraud.</p><p>Fraud can and will occur in the world of workers’ compensation as it does in other areas of life.</p><p>Three of the most recent charges show the seriousness of Queensland’s compensation policy fraud.</p><p>Recent lawsuits against incapacity pension</p><p>Case 1:</p><p>On July 14, 2021, a 23-year-old worker was found guilty of 29 fraud allegations related to false claims for reimbursement of travel expenses for medical appointments.</p><p>The worker was sentenced to five months in prison (fully suspended), sentenced to repay $ 5,863.13 to WorkCover, and to pay prosecutor’s expenses of $ 23,908. A conviction was recorded for each charge.</p><p>Case 2:</p><p>On July 22, 2021, a 33-year-old worker was found guilty of fraud. The worker was charged with attempted fraud after filing a common law damages lawsuit alleging that he suffered persistent symptoms as a result of a back injury.</p><p>The monitoring of the worker clearly showed that the worker was exaggerating his symptoms and functional skills in the damage report.</p><p>The worker was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment (fully suspended) and lost his entitlement to continue his common law damage claim of $ 750,000. A conviction was recorded and the worker was sentenced to pay prosecution charges of US $ 28,330.17.</p><p>Case 3:</p><p>On August 12, 2021, a 47-year-old worker filed a plea of fraud, one failure to report an appeal, and five charges of false or misleading information. The worker was charged with these offenses after resuming work while receiving compensation.</p><p>The worker was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, suspended after six months of actual detention. They were also sentenced to $ 228,774.43 in reparation and sentenced.</p><p>What does the law say</p><p>The Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (the Act) contains provisions on fraudulent offenses. These apply to everyone involved with WorkCover, including employees / applicants, employers, service providers and others.</p><p>Fraud or attempting to defraud WorkCover is punishable by a maximum penalty of five years in prison or 500 units of punishment (currently equivalent to US $ 68,925).</p><p>The main fraud provision is contained in Section 533 (1) of the Act, which states that “no person may in any way defraud or attempt to defraud an insurer”. It is important to note that this provision applies to both attempted and fraudulent acts against WorkCover.</p><p>Recognize fraud</p><p>Suspected fraudulent activity (including attempts) will be alerted to WorkCover in a number of ways including, but not limited to:</p><p>– Fraud reports submitted online through the WorkSafe website;</p><p>– Telephone calls to WorkCover (from both anonymous and non-anonymous callers);</p><p>– Notification of a person or entity involved in or related to a claim, or</p><p>– An anomaly or anomaly discovered by WorkCover in the normal course of business.</p><p>WorkCover’s duty to report to the Employee Compensation Regulatory Authority</p><p>WorkCover is required by law to immediately notify WorkCover Regulatory Services (WCRS) of a reasonable assumption regarding a natural or legal person who is defrauding or attempting to defraud WorkCover</p><p>WorkCover has its own internal investigation process when we are made aware of suspected fraudulent activity to ensure that only genuine fraud reports or attempts at fraud are forwarded to WCRS.</p><p>Actions taken by workers’ compensation regulators</p><p>If further investigation by the WCRS shows that there is sufficient evidence of fraud or attempted fraud, it may support a recommendation to the compensation regulator for criminal prosecution.</p><p>In the 2019/20 financial year, the workers’ compensation agency received 66 referrals for investigations, initiated 25 proceedings and successfully closed 12 cases.</p><p>It is important to note that even when fraudulent referrals are investigated but not prosecuted, action is still being taken to combat dishonest behavior (e.g.</p><p>This may result in WorkCover reviewing the employee’s current compensation entitlements and deciding to terminate, suspend, or reduce the entitlement.</p><p> / Public release. This material is from the original organization and can be punctiform, edited for clarity, style and length. View in full here. </p>]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>New Texas Legislation Expands Employee Rights and Employer Legal responsibility for Sexual Harassment Claims</title> <link>https://employment-law.review/new-texas-legislation-expands-employee-rights-and-employer-legal-responsibility-for-sexual-harassment-claims/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Jason Wilson]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2021 00:04:59 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Labor Relations Law]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Claims]]></category> <category><![CDATA[employee]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Employer]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Expands]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Harassment]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Law]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Liability]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Rights]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Sexual]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Texas]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://employment-law.review/?p=23103</guid> <description><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="1000" height="500" src="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Decrees-guiding-the-implementation-of-the-Labor-Code-2019.png" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Decrees guiding the implementation of the Labor Code 2019" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Decrees-guiding-the-implementation-of-the-Labor-Code-2019.png 1000w, https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Decrees-guiding-the-implementation-of-the-Labor-Code-2019-300x150.png 300w, https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Decrees-guiding-the-implementation-of-the-Labor-Code-2019-768x384.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 1000px) 100vw, 1000px" /></div>Complete planetary alignment. Halley’s Comet. A complete solar eclipse. Texas is enacting increased worker protection beyond federal law. What are “things that rarely happen in your life”? The general rule in Texas is that legal protection for workers overlaps with its state counterparts and goes no further. But newly enacted state legislation on sexual harassment […]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="1000" height="500" src="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Decrees-guiding-the-implementation-of-the-Labor-Code-2019.png" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Decrees guiding the implementation of the Labor Code 2019" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Decrees-guiding-the-implementation-of-the-Labor-Code-2019.png 1000w, https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Decrees-guiding-the-implementation-of-the-Labor-Code-2019-300x150.png 300w, https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Decrees-guiding-the-implementation-of-the-Labor-Code-2019-768x384.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 1000px) 100vw, 1000px" /></div><p></p><p>Complete planetary alignment. Halley’s Comet. A complete solar eclipse. Texas is enacting increased worker protection beyond federal law.</p><p>What are “things that rarely happen in your life”?</p><p>The general rule in Texas is that legal protection for workers overlaps with its state counterparts and goes no further. But newly enacted state legislation on sexual harassment in the workplace has bucked this trend.</p><p>On September 1, 2021, new laws came into force that expand employee rights, as well as employer and individual liability for claims of sexual harassment in the workplace. In particular, SB 45 (codified as Section 21.141 of the Texas Labor Code) has made three major revisions to the pre-existing State Sexual Harassment Act.</p><p>First, the new law changed the meaning of a qualified “employer”. According to the old law, liability for sexual harassment in the workplace only applied to employers who had 15 or more employees for at least 20 weeks in the previous calendar year. But the updated law now only applies to employers<strong> one or more</strong> Employee. To that end, virtually all Texas employers are within reach of the law.[1]</p><p>Second, SB 45 extends liability to persons who act “directly in the interests of an employer in relation to an employee”. The result of this revision is that individuals acting as supervisors, managers, owners, agents, contractors or (potentially) non-regulatory employees may be personally liable under the new state law. As a result, for essentially the first time in Texas history, individuals can find themselves named defendants in a sexual harassment lawsuit in the workplace.</p><p>Third, the revised law also increases the duty of employers to investigate and remediate sexual harassment complaints. Previously, and by analogy with federal law, Texas employers could raise an affirmative plea of liability if they took “immediate remedial action” in response to a sexual harassment complaint.[2] But the revised language of the Statute seems to raise that standard. Specifically, SB 45 partially states that an employer is acting unlawfully:</p><p>[I]f sexual harassment of an employee occurs and the employer or his or her representatives or superiors (1) know or need to know that the behavior constituting sexual harassment has taken place; and (2) don’t take <strong>immediately and appropriately</strong> Corrective action.</p><p>Although the new language has not yet been tested, the plaintiffs’ attorneys will no doubt argue that the phrase “promptly and appropriately” creates additional urgency for the defendant employer to act in order to successfully invoke the defense.</p><p>Finally, but importantly, the accompanying legislation has also extended the limitation periods within which employees can assert a claim. Specifically, HB 21 extends the legal deadline for filing a complaint for sexual harassment by employees to 300 days from the date of the alleged harassment. Previously, employees were required to file a harassment / discrimination complaint with the Texas Workforce Commission (“TWC”) within 180 days of the incident. This change effectively aligns the submission deadline for state claims with that of the federal government of 300 days.[3]</p><p>All of the above changes only apply to claims based on behavior that occurred on or after September 1, 2021.</p><p>Three key takeaways for employers:</p><ol><li><strong>Know your exposure</strong>. As of September 2021, essentially any business or employer in Texas will fall under the scope of the new Harassment Act. If you have an employee, you are a potential defendant.</li><li><strong>act accordingly</strong>. Regarding item “1”, employers who previously overlooked harassment policies, procedures and training must act quickly to implement the necessary procedures. External advice can play an important role in this process. Creating effective manuals, delivering training, implementing policies, and conducting thorough research can enable employers to avoid claims or otherwise seek liability.</li><li><strong>Alert supervisors</strong>. Supervisors, managers and employees (whether in positions of authority or not) could face individual liability under the revised law. To this end, and in addition to point “2”, employers should ensure that their employees know that they can be held personally liable for sexual harassment in the workplace – or not report it.</li></ol><p>Texas employers who have questions or need help navigating this new legal landscape should contact Sheppard Mullin. Our Texas labor law experts are on hand to provide advice and support, from drafting, training, and enforcing policies to defending litigation.</p>]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>Texas Expands Protection and Penalties for Sexual Harassment within the Office: Particular person Legal responsibility Now Accessible</title> <link>https://employment-law.review/texas-expands-protection-and-penalties-for-sexual-harassment-within-the-office-particular-person-legal-responsibility-now-accessible/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Jason Wilson]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2021 19:00:27 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Labor Relations Law]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Coverage]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Expands]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Harassment]]></category> <category><![CDATA[individual]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Liability]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Penalties]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Sexual]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Texas]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Workplace]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://employment-law.review/?p=23096</guid> <description><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="1000" height="500" src="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Decrees-guiding-the-implementation-of-the-Labor-Code-2019.png" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Decrees guiding the implementation of the Labor Code 2019" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Decrees-guiding-the-implementation-of-the-Labor-Code-2019.png 1000w, https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Decrees-guiding-the-implementation-of-the-Labor-Code-2019-300x150.png 300w, https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Decrees-guiding-the-implementation-of-the-Labor-Code-2019-768x384.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 1000px) 100vw, 1000px" /></div>summary On September 1, 2021, over 600 new laws came into effect in Texas. Importantly, three (Senate Act No. 45, Senate Act No. 282, House Act No. 21) have drastically modified the established, employer-friendly framework for sexual harassment lawsuits in the state of Lone Star. Specifically, these changes include: (1) greater protection for people working […]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="1000" height="500" src="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Decrees-guiding-the-implementation-of-the-Labor-Code-2019.png" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Decrees guiding the implementation of the Labor Code 2019" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Decrees-guiding-the-implementation-of-the-Labor-Code-2019.png 1000w, https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Decrees-guiding-the-implementation-of-the-Labor-Code-2019-300x150.png 300w, https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Decrees-guiding-the-implementation-of-the-Labor-Code-2019-768x384.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 1000px) 100vw, 1000px" /></div><p></p><p><strong>summary</strong></p><p>On September 1, 2021, over 600 new laws came into effect in Texas. Importantly, three (Senate Act No. 45, Senate Act No. 282, House Act No. 21) have drastically modified the established, employer-friendly framework for sexual harassment lawsuits in the state of Lone Star. Specifically, these changes include: (1) greater protection for people working for small employers who are otherwise not covered by anti-discrimination laws; (2) <strong>individual liability for sexual harassment</strong>; (3) Extended deadlines in which employees can submit complaints to the responsible federal and state enforcement authorities; and (4) a ban on the use of taxpayers ’money to resolve sexual harassment lawsuits against elected officials.</p><p>Not only will these changes significantly expand the scope of existing anti-discrimination laws, but they will undoubtedly lead to an increase in the number of sexual harassment lawsuits and lawsuits against employers and members of management. As such, companies are encouraged to review their current sexual harassment policies, practices, and training and, if necessary, consult trusted employment counselors for more information.</p><p><strong>Expansion of employer coverage to companies with only one employee</strong></p><p>Prior to September 1, an “employer” subject to Texas Labor Law (as well as federal anti-discrimination laws) was a natural or legal person <strong>employ at least 15 people</strong>. However, Senate Act 45 amended Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code relating to Sexual Harassment Lawsuits and added Sub-Chapter C-1 – now an “employer” is defined as any person who “<strong>employs one or more employees</strong> or acts directly in the interests of an employer vis-à-vis an employee. ”In other words, any company that employs at least one employee is now subject to the Texas Labor Code and can therefore potentially be held liable for sexual harassment experienced by an employee in the workplace.</p><p><strong>Individuals can now be held liable for employee sexual harassment</strong></p><p>Subchapter C-1 also provides for the manager’s individual liability for sexual harassment claims. Subchapter C-1 provides that liability for sexual harassment cannot only be attributed to the ultimate employer; <strong>it can also be attributed to agents or superiors of the employer </strong>when they “knew or should have known that the behavior constituting sexual harassment took place and are not taking immediate and appropriate remedial action”.</p><p>Basically, this change significantly changes the environment for sexual harassment in Texas, as supervisors and managers (under previous law) were generally not individually liable for claims (unless the manager or supervisor was directly involved in an attack or other crime-like behavior ). . However, members of management can now also be named who fail to take “immediate and appropriate corrective measures” – <strong>individually</strong> – as a defendant in a follow-up lawsuit. What is meant by “immediate measures” must of course be clarified by the courts. At a minimum, however, employers should instruct senior management to report any harassment they have observed to a human resources representative (or other designated group / person) as soon as possible in order to limit potential liability. In light of this change, employers should continue to consider solid executive training on sexual harassment in the near future – even if she did it earlier in the year.</p><p><strong>Plaintiffs have more time to file claims</strong></p><p>Prior to September 1, employees were required to file a discrimination charge with the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 days of suspected sexual harassment. Otherwise it is not possible for the employee to bring a later action against the employer. Employees now have 300 days to submit an application to the TWC or EEOC. This change only applies to sexual harassment claims. Applicants alleging all other forms of unlawful employment practices are still subject to the 180-day statute of limitations.</p><p><strong>Officials are not allowed to use taxpayers money to resolve sexual harassment claims</strong></p><p>In addition to the newly added worker protection measures discussed above, under Senate Bill No. 282, Texas tax dollars can no longer be used or appropriated for the purpose of resolving or settling claims of sexual harassment against elected and / or appointed public officials – including members of the Executive, legislative and judicial branches of the state government. It is important that the prohibition apply to both the officially elected officer (e.g. governor, house member, judge, etc.) and any person appointed by the governor as a member of a department, commission, committee or other office is within the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Texas government.</p><p><strong>Bottom line</strong></p><p>September 1, 2021 marks a drastic change in Texan labor law. Employers are strongly advised to review their policies, procedures and training on sexual harassment in the workplace and, if necessary, to contact a trusted employment advisor for more information.</p>]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>‘Grand discount’ of employees’ compensation beneath siege – Lake County File-Bee</title> <link>https://employment-law.review/grand-discount-of-employees-compensation-beneath-siege-lake-county-file-bee/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Jason Wilson]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2021 14:20:37 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Workers' Compensation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Bargain]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Compensation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[COUNTY]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Grand]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Lake]]></category> <category><![CDATA[RecordBee]]></category> <category><![CDATA[siege]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Workers]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://employment-law.review/?p=23090</guid> <description><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="776" height="514" src="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/‘Grand-bargain-of-workers-compensation-under-siege-–-Lake-County.png" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Will Gavin Newsom release Robert Kennedy’s killer?" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/‘Grand-bargain-of-workers-compensation-under-siege-–-Lake-County.png 776w, https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/‘Grand-bargain-of-workers-compensation-under-siege-–-Lake-County-300x199.png 300w, https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/‘Grand-bargain-of-workers-compensation-under-siege-–-Lake-County-768x509.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 776px) 100vw, 776px" /></div>The COVID-19 pandemic, we have been told, is changing everything, and that includes possibly one of California’s oldest social support systems, employee compensation. Legal tinkering and a potentially disruptive lawsuit threatens to undo a so-called “big deal” in workers’ compensation that closed more than a century ago. Employers agreed to indemnify workers suffering work-related illnesses […]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img width="776" height="514" src="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/‘Grand-bargain-of-workers-compensation-under-siege-–-Lake-County.png" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Will Gavin Newsom release Robert Kennedy’s killer?" decoding="async" loading="lazy" srcset="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/‘Grand-bargain-of-workers-compensation-under-siege-–-Lake-County.png 776w, https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/‘Grand-bargain-of-workers-compensation-under-siege-–-Lake-County-300x199.png 300w, https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/‘Grand-bargain-of-workers-compensation-under-siege-–-Lake-County-768x509.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 776px) 100vw, 776px" /></div><p></p><p>The COVID-19 pandemic, we have been told, is changing everything, and that includes possibly one of California’s oldest social support systems, employee compensation.</p><p>Legal tinkering and a potentially disruptive lawsuit threatens to undo a so-called “big deal” in workers’ compensation that closed more than a century ago.</p><p>Employers agreed to indemnify workers suffering work-related illnesses and injuries through medical care and cash payments as an “exclusive remedy” to protect employers from individual disability lawsuits.</p><p>Employers either take out insurance to cover their potential liabilities or insure themselves like most larger corporations and government agencies do.</p><p>From time to time lawmakers have changed the system for certain professions, particularly police officers and firefighters, creating the assumption that if they were affected by certain disabling conditions, including cancer and post-traumatic stress disorder, they would be entitled to workers’ severance pay, without this having to be proven professionally.</p><p>However, the big deal stayed with the vast majority of workers and their employers, at least until the pandemic broke out.</p><p>Last year the legislature passed and Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill creating a “rebuttable presumption” that health workers and public safety workers infected with COVID-19 are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits, and that presumption applies to all employees expands whose workplace has experienced an “outbreak” of the disease.</p><p>The law deviates significantly from the long-standing procedural rule that an employee who uses benefits must prove that the disability is work-related. It was backed by a coalition of trade unions and rejected by employer groups who viewed it as a potentially costly loophole.</p><p>Meanwhile, a lawsuit against See’s Candies, a centuries-old California institution, could make an even more fundamental change to the employee compensation system and its “exclusive remedies” provisions.</p><p>Matilde Ek, a worker at the See distribution center in Southern California, contracted COVID-19 and apparently infected her 72-year-old husband Arturo, who died. Ek said she was working on the lake’s packaging line without proper social distancing or other protective measures, although some workers were coughing, sneezing and other showing signs of COVID-19 infection.</p><p>She and her daughters sued See’s, claiming the company was liable for his death because their workplace was not adequately protected against infection.</p><p>See’s, now owned by Berkshire Hathaway Corp. of billionaire Warren Buffet, admitted that Ek’s illness was work-related, but argued that the company has since been protected from liability for her husband’s death under the “only cures” doctrine.</p><p>However, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Daniel M. Crowley refused to dismiss Ek’s lawsuit and agreed that Ek’s attorney agreed that her husband’s death was a separate event from her workplace infection.</p><p>Crowley’s ruling has brought the matter to appeals courts and has drawn the attention of large California and national corporate groups who see it as potentially undermining a fundamental principle of the employee compensation system.</p><p>“The judgment of the court of first instance, if upheld, could potentially expose employers across the state to unlimited criminal liability for alleged workplace injuries that lawmakers sought to address under the employee compensation system,” a coalition of corporate groups explained briefly on their appeal to the court. “Given this prospect, the potential impact … can hardly be overestimated.”</p><p>The money invested in workers’ compensation, about $ 20 billion a year, creates constant political competition between affected interests such as employers, unions, insurers, medical providers, and lawyers.</p><p>Their quarrels over the division of the cake have never fundamentally changed the 108-year-old system. However, the legislature and the courts can go in that direction, for better or for worse.</p>]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>Indonesia’s New Manpower Regime: Termination Of Employment Underneath Omnibus Regulation And Its Implementing Laws – Employment and HR</title> <link>https://employment-law.review/indonesias-new-manpower-regime-termination-of-employment-underneath-omnibus-regulation-and-its-implementing-laws-employment-and-hr/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Jason Wilson]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2021 13:58:20 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Labor Relations Law]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Employment]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Implementing]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Indonesias]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Law]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Manpower]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Omnibus]]></category> <category><![CDATA[regime]]></category> <category><![CDATA[regulations]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Termination]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://employment-law.review/?p=23086</guid> <description><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img src="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Indonesias-New-Manpower-Regime-Termination-Of-Employment-Under-Omnibus-Law.webp.webp" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Indonesia's New Manpower Regime: Termination Of Employment Under Omnibus Law And Its Implementing Regulations - Employment and HR" decoding="async" loading="lazy" /></div>Indonesia: Indonesia’s new personnel regime: termination of employment under the Omnibus Act and its implementing regulations September 01, 2021 Nusantara Legal Partnership To print this article, all you need to do is register or log in to Mondaq.com. In connection with the adoption of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation (“Law 11/2020” or […]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="margin-bottom:20px;"><img src="https://employment-law.review/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Indonesias-New-Manpower-Regime-Termination-Of-Employment-Under-Omnibus-Law.webp.webp" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="Indonesia's New Manpower Regime: Termination Of Employment Under Omnibus Law And Its Implementing Regulations - Employment and HR" decoding="async" loading="lazy" /></div><p></p><p><h2> <span class="region-heading">Indonesia: </span></p><p> Indonesia’s new personnel regime: termination of employment under the Omnibus Act and its implementing regulations<br /> </h2></p><p>September 01, 2021 </p><p> Nusantara Legal Partnership </p><p> To print this article, all you need to do is register or log in to Mondaq.com. </p><p>In connection with the adoption of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation (<strong>“Law 11/2020”</strong> or<br /><strong>“Buffy Law”</strong>). We will now deal with the most important changes to the employment regime, in particular with regard to the termination of the employment relationship in accordance with the new implementing provisions of the Omnibus Act. (<strong>Note:</strong> Our earlier publication on the FAQ on the new personnel regime can be found here).</p><p>This article addresses the following matters relating to changes to the employment termination provisions: (i) termination procedures for permanent employees and (ii) severance payments after the Omnibus Act comes into force.</p><p><strong>Legal framework:</strong> In writing this article, we will refer to the following laws and regulations:</p><ol><li>Law No. 13 of 2003 on Labor Law, as last amended by Law 11/2020 <strong>(“Amended Law 13/2003”)</strong>; and</li><li>State regulation <strong>(“GR”)</strong> No. 35 of 2021 on fixed-term employment, outsourcing, working and rest times and dismissal <strong>(“GR35 / 2021”)</strong>.</li></ol><p>(collectively referred to as <strong>“Staff Regulations”</strong>)</p><p>Procedure for terminating a permanent employee: In general, termination of employment within the framework of the employment relationship is carried out through 2 (two) systems: (i) voluntary termination by the employee or (ii) termination by the employer for certain reasons.</p><p>The employer must notify the employee and / or the union (if he is a member of a union) of any such termination, including the reasons for termination, in writing at least 14 (fourteen) working days prior to the termination date, or 7 (seven) working days if the employee is in the probationary period is located.</p><p>Notwithstanding the foregoing, the company can waive the obligation to notify if the employee has committed an urgent violation of the employment contract, the factory rules. committed<br /><strong>(“CR”)</strong>, or collective agreement<br /><strong>(“CLA”)</strong> (Art. 52 (3) of GR 35/2021).</p><p>If the employee accepts the dismissal, the employer can notify the competent employment office of the dismissal. Otherwise, the employee of the termination must submit a letter of rejection no later than 7 (seven) working days.</p><p>If the employee refuses to give notice, the employee and employer must negotiate on both sides. If no consensus is reached, both parties conduct the termination procedure through the dispute settlement procedure (<strong>ie</strong>, Mediation and legal proceedings) at the labor court.</p><p><strong>Compensation for fixed-term employees:</strong> GR 35/2021 provides that employees with fixed-term contracts are entitled to a compensation payment after the termination of their employment contract. Below you will find the formula for calculating the compensation in accordance with Art. 16 (1) of GR 35/2021:</p><table border="1" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="5"><tr style="background-color:#bdd6ee;"><td valign="top"><strong>Maintenance interval</strong> </td><td valign="top"><strong>compensation</strong></td></tr><tr><td valign="top"></td><td valign="top">None</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">> 1 month but</td><td valign="top">(Length of service / 12) x (1 monthly salary + fixed deposit)</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">12 months</td><td valign="top">1 monthly salary + fixed deposit</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">> 12 months</td><td valign="top">(Length of service / 12) x (1 monthly salary + fixed deposit)</td></tr></table><p></p><p>The above compensation payment will be paid after the initial period of a fixed-term contract has expired before its extension and after the conclusion of any extension of this fixed-term contract.</p><p><strong>Compensation for permanent employees:</strong> In the event of such termination, the employer pays the terminated employee a severance payment that includes (i) severance pay, (ii) service and (iii) compensation (if applicable). (Note: The severance payment is different from the above-mentioned compensation for fixed-term employees. In this context, the compensation consists of: (i) remaining annual vacation, (ii) repatriation costs of the employee and (iii) other compensation, as in the employment contract, CR or CLA established.)</p><p><strong>Calculation of severance payments and salaries:</strong> The applicable personnel regulations regulate the entitlement to severance payments and salaries based on the employee’s length of service as follows:</p><table border="1" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="5"><tr style="background-color:#bdd6ee;"><td valign="top" colspan="2" align="center"><strong>severance pay</strong></td><td valign="top" colspan="2" align="center"><strong>Service pay</strong></td></tr><tr style="background-color:#bdd6ee;"><td valign="top"><strong>Maintenance interval</strong></td><td valign="top"><strong>Monthly income</strong></td><td valign="top"><strong>Maintenance interval</strong></td><td valign="top"><strong>Monthly income</strong></td></tr><tr><td valign="top"></td><td valign="top">1</td><td valign="top">3-6 years</td><td valign="top">2</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">1-2 years</td><td valign="top">2</td><td valign="top">6-9 years</td><td valign="top">3</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">2-3 years</td><td valign="top">3</td><td valign="top">9-12 years</td><td valign="top">4th</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">3-4 years</td><td valign="top">4th</td><td valign="top">12-15 years</td><td valign="top">5</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">4-5 years</td><td valign="top">5</td><td valign="top">15-18 years</td><td valign="top">6th</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">5-6 years</td><td valign="top">6th</td><td valign="top">18-21 years</td><td valign="top">7th</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">6-7 years</td><td valign="top">7th</td><td valign="top">21-24 years</td><td valign="top">8th</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">7-8 years</td><td valign="top">8th</td><td valign="top">> 24 years</td><td valign="top">10</td></tr><tr><td valign="top">> 8 years</td><td valign="top">9</td><td valign="top" colspan="2"/></tr></table><p><strong>Compensation claim of the employee based on the reason for termination:</strong> GR 35/2021 also specifies the formula for calculating the compensation claim based on the reason for termination. The following is a tabular comparison of the employee’s severance payment entitlements based on the grounds for termination before the Omnibus Act and GR 35/2021.</p><table border="1" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="5"><tr style="background-color:#bdd6ee;"><td valign="top"><strong>Reason for termination</strong></td><td valign="top" width="33%"><strong>Before the omnibus law</strong></td><td valign="top" width="34%"><strong>Amended Law 13/2003 and GR 35/2021</strong></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Company merger and consolidation</td><td valign="top"><ul><li>1x or 2x severance pay (depending on the works agreement / disagreement about the termination);</li><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td><td valign="top"><ul><li>1x severance payment;</li><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Company spin-off</td><td valign="top">Not available</td><td valign="top"><ul><li>1x severance payment;</li><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" rowspan="2">Takeover of the company</td><td valign="top" rowspan="2"><ul><li>1x severance payment;</li><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td><td valign="top"><p><strong>When the company initiates termination:</strong></p><ul><li>1x severance payment</li><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td valign="top"><p><strong>When the company initiates termination:</strong></p><ul><li>0.5x severance payment;</li><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" rowspan="2">Business efficiency</td><td valign="top" rowspan="2"><p><strong>Efficiency that leads to company closure:</strong></p><ul><li>2x severance pay;</li><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td><td valign="top"><p><strong>Because of company loss:</strong></p><ul><li>0.5x severance payment;</li><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td valign="top"><p><strong>To avoid business losses:</strong></p><ul><li>1x severance payment;</li><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" rowspan="3">Company closure</td><td valign="top"><p><strong>Due to business losses for 2 consecutive years</strong></p><ul><li>1x severance payment;</li><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td><td valign="top"><p><strong>Due to a business loss for 2 years (either consecutive or not)</strong></p><ul><li>0.5x severance payment;</li><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td valign="top"><p><strong>Without corporate losses or force majeure</strong></p><ul><li>2x severance pay;</li><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td><td valign="top"><p><strong>Without corporate losses</strong></p><ul><li>1x severance payment;</li><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td valign="top"><p><strong>Due to force majeure</strong></p><ul><li>1x severance payment;</li><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td><td valign="top"><p><strong>Due to force majeure</strong></p><ul><li>0.5x severance payment;</li><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Force majeure without business closure</td><td valign="top">Not available</td><td valign="top"><ul><li>0.75x severance payment;</li><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" rowspan="2">Suspension of the company’s payment obligations due to losses</td><td valign="top" rowspan="2"><p>Not available</p></td><td valign="top"><p><strong>Due to corporate losses</strong></p><ul><li>0.5x severance payment;</li><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td valign="top"><p><strong>Without corporate losses</strong></p><ul><li>1x severance payment;</li><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Corporate bankruptcy</td><td valign="top"><ul><li>1x severance payment;</li><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td><td valign="top"><ul><li>0.5x severance payment;</li><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Application by the employee based on a measure taken by the employer</td><td valign="top"><ul><li>2x severance pay;</li><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td><td valign="top"><ul><li>1x severance payment;</li><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Decision of the company following a decision by the IRC that the company did not lead the accused of the employee (see point above)</td><td valign="top">Not available</td><td valign="top"><ul><li>compensation</li><li>Separation allowance (<strong>Note:</strong> This is to be regulated in the employment contract or company regulations)</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Voluntary resignation of the employee</td><td valign="top"><ul><li>Compensation; and</li><li>Separation allowance (only for employees who do not represent the interests of the company)</li></ul></td><td valign="top"><ul><li>Compensation; and</li><li>Separation allowance</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Absence of the employee for at least 5 consecutive days</td><td valign="top"><ul><li>Compensation; and</li><li>Separation allowance (only for employees who do not “represent the interests of the company)</li></ul></td><td valign="top"><ul><li>Compensation; and</li><li>Separation allowance</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Employee violation of employment contract, CR or CLA (after 3 warnings)</td><td valign="top"><ul><li>1x severance payment;</li><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td><td valign="top"><ul><li>0.5x severance payment;</li><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" rowspan="2"><p>Employees who commit criminal acts</p></td><td valign="top" rowspan="2"><p><strong>Employee is guilty according to final and binding court decision</strong></p><ul><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td><td valign="top"><p><strong>Criminal acts that cause business damage</strong></p><p>A. If the employee is unable to work due to a detention of> 6 months</p><ul><li>Compensation; and</li><li>Separation allowance</li></ul><p>B. If the employee is guilty of a final judicial decision</p><ul><li>Compensation; and</li><li>Separation allowance</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td valign="top"><p><strong>Criminal acts that do not cause company damage</strong></p><p>A. If the employee is unable to work due to a detention of> 6 months</p><ul><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul><p>B. If the employee is guilty of a final judicial decision</p><ul><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Longer illness of the employee (> 12 consecutive months) due to an accident at work</td><td valign="top"><ul><li>2x severance pay;</li><li>2x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td><td valign="top"><ul><li>2x severance pay;</li><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">retirement</td><td valign="top"><ul><li>2x severance pay;</li><li>1x service fee;</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td><td valign="top"><ul><li>1.75 severance payments;</li><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td valign="top">Death of the employee</td><td valign="top"><ul><li>2x severance pay;</li><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td><td valign="top"><ul><li>2x severance pay;</li><li>1x service fee; and</li><li>compensation</li></ul></td></tr></table><p><strong>Exemption from severance pay for micro and small businesses:</strong> According to the new Regime / Omnibusgesetz, micro and small businesses are exempt from the obligation to pay severance pay according to the formula in GR 35/2021. The severance payment for micro and small businesses is paid on the basis of the agreement between the respective employer and the terminated employee (Art. 59 GR 35/2021).</p><p>The content of this article is intended to provide general guidance on the subject. Expert advice should be sought regarding your specific circumstances.</p><p>POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Employment and Human Resources from Indonesia</p><p> My employer forced me to quit</p><p>Ramsden Lawyers</p><p>Employees must prove that they did not quit voluntarily, but that their employer actually forced them to quit. </p>]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel></rss> If you would like to create a banner that links to this page (i.e. this validation result), do the following:
Download the "valid RSS" banner.
Upload the image to your own server. (This step is important. Please do not link directly to the image on this server.)
Add this HTML to your page (change the image src attribute if necessary):
If you would like to create a text link instead, here is the URL you can use:
http://www.feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=https%3A//employment-law.review/feed/
