june 21, 2021
june 11. 2021
june 9, 2021
June 7, 2021
may 18, 2021
april 26, 2021
april 1, 2021
march 29, 2021
march 25, 2021
march 11, 2021
march 8, 2021
march 4, 2021
MARCH 2, 2021
- New $1.9 Trillion COVID Relief Bill Passes House, Moves to Senate
february 25, 2021
- Back to Basics: Small Businesses Given Priority for PPP Loans
- State Tax Treatment of Forgiven PPP Loans
FEBRUARY 3, 2021
january 11, 2021
january 5, 2021
january 4, 2021
december 28, 2020
DECEMBER 23, 2020
- Paycheck Protection Program: The Sequel
- Taking the Shot: Can You Require Your Employees to Get Vaccinated Against COVID-19?
- What Employees Need to Know About the Pending $900 Billion COVID-19 Relief Package
december 21, 2020
december 10, 2020
december 7, 2020
- New Statewide Stay-at-Home Orders in Effect as COVID-19 Surges
- Congress Working Toward $908 Billion Coronavirus Relief Package
october 28, 2020
october 22, 2020
October 19, 2020
- Hope for Companies Where COVID-19-Related Business Interruption Claims Have Been Denied Without Investigation
october 15, 2020
october 12, 2020
october 8, 2020
october 5, 2020
september 22, 2020
- California Employers Now Subject to Additional COVID-19-Related Laws Related to Cal/OSHA Reporting and Worker’s Compensation
september 21, 2020
September 11, 2020
- COVID-19-Related Paid Sick Leave Has Been Expanded in California Yet Again to All Employers with 500+ Employees
august 4, 2020
july 6, 2020
july 1, 2020
- PPP Loan Deadline May Be Extended as SBA Issues New Rules Relating to Loan Forgiveness and Eligibility
- California Looks to Pass Legislation Concerning Business Interruption Coverage Due to COVID-19
June 29, 2020
June 22, 2020
- PPP Loan Forgiveness Application Forms Updated and Streamlined
- Nevada Division of Insurance to Disallow Policy Exclusions Related to COVID-19
- CDI Announces New Order Regarding Workers’ Compensation Premium Savings for CA Businesses Affected by COVID-19
june 15, 2020
june 10, 2020
- Note to the SBA: Debtors in Bankruptcy Are Eligible for PPP Loans
- California Modifies the Tolling of Statutes of Limitations in Civil Cases
june 8, 2020
June 4, 2020
may 29, 2020
may 28, 2020
- House Introduces Pandemic Risk Insurance Act of 2020 in the Wake of COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims
may 27, 2020
- Hoteliers Beware: a Return to Business Post-Pandemic Brings With It Potential Legal Liability
- House Contemplates Revisions to the Paycheck Protection Program
may 15, 2020
may 14, 2020
- U.S. House Democrats Introduce HEROES Act, a New $3T Stimulus Package
- SAFE Banking Act for Cannabis-Related Businesses Included in the HEROES Act
may 12, 2020
may 8, 2020
- Treasury and the SBA Issue Guidance Regarding the Employee Retention Credit
- Businesses Reopen in Los Angeles County as Stage 2 of California’s Statewide Plan Begins
- Update: Large Employers Required to Pay Coronavirus-Related Sick Leave Under New L.A. County Ordinance
may 6, 2020
- SBA Extends PPP Certification Safe Harbor to May 14
- EPLI Insurance and Employee Benefits in the Age of the Coronavirus
may 5, 2020
- Update: PPP Guidance Issued by the SBA and U.S. Treasury at Odds With the CARES Act—Michelman & Robinson Files First-of-Its-Kind Lawsuit Challenging FAQs
- NAIC Issues Business Interruption Data Call in the Wake of COVID-19
may 4, 2020
- PPP Guidance Issued by the SBA and U.S. Treasury at Odds With the CARES Act—Michelman & Robinson Files First-of-Its-Kind Lawsuit Challenging FAQs
may 1, 2020
april 29, 2020
- Planning for Your Employees' Return to the Workplace
- Los Angeles Hospitality Workers Among Those Thrown a Potential Lifeline
april 24, 2020
- Attention Cannabis Businesses: Hope May Be on the Horizon for Federal COVID-19-Related Relief
- California Department of Insurance Issues Notice Granting Tax-Filing Extension in Response to COVID-19
- SEC Approves Amendments to Nasdaq and NYSE Continued Listing Requirements Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic
April 23, 2020
april 21, 2020
- Additional Funding Is on the Way to Resurrect the PPP
- Certifying Your PPP Loan: Proceed With Caution
april 17, 2020
april 16, 2020
- Employment in the Wake of Coronavirus: EEOC and OSHA Guidance Allows Employers to Go Where They Could Not Go Before
- New Yorkers Ordered to Stay at Home Even Longer Amid the COVID-19 Crisis
- Paycheck Protection Program Funds Exhausted
april 15, 2020
- Attention Insurers: the CDI Has Ordered You to Fairly Investigate All Business Interruption Insurance Claims Caused By the COVID-19 Outbreak
April 14, 2020
- Insurance Companies Have Been Ordered to Provide COVID-19-Related Premium Relief to Businesses and Drivers in California
- What to Do If Your New York Business Has Been Deemed Non-Essential
APRIL 13, 2020
- IP Deadlines and Fees Extended Under the CARES Act
- Employment in the Wake of Coronavirus: Reintegrating Your Workforce in the New Normal
APRIL 10, 2020
- You Successfully Applied for and Received a PPP Loan Under the CARES Act: Now What?
- Safer at Home Order in L.A. Extended to May 15
- Maintaining Your Trade Secrets During the Coronavirus Crisis
APRIL 9, 2020
april 8, 2020
- Congress Looks to Bolster the PPP With Another $250B in Funding
- U.S. Treasury Provides Further Guidance to PPP Borrowers and Lenders
- L.A. Mayor Amends COVID-19-Related Paid Sick Leave Ordinance
april 7, 2020
- Clarifying the Paycheck Protection Program: Payment of Insurance Premiums and Loan Forgiveness under the CARES Act
April 3, 2020
april 2, 2020
april 1, 2020
March 31, 2020
march 30, 2020
- Large Employers Required to Pay Coronavirus-Related Sick Leave Under New L.A. Ordinance
- Insurance Coverage Potentially Triggered by COVID-19
- Attention Insurers: CDI Orders Mandatory Call for Business Interruption Coverage Information in the Wake of COVID-19
- DOL Is Requiring Employers to Post Families First Employee Rights Notice
March 27, 2020
- A Comprehensive Guide to Understanding Coronavirus-Related State Assistance Programs: Who is Giving What to Whom (Part II)
- HHS Relaxing Enforcement of HIPAA to Facilitate Sharing of Information During the COVID-19 Crisis
March 26, 2020
march 25, 2020
march 24, 2020
- Navigating the Coronavirus Pandemic: a Critical Business Review Checklist
- SBA Loans for Companies Impacted by Coronavirus
- SEC Relaxes Federal Proxy Rules for Annual Meetings
march 23, 2020
- Federal Reserve Responds Boldly to Coronavirus-Related Economic Downturn
- The Number of Jurisdictions Implementing Stay-at-Home Orders Is Increasing Exponentially
- Michelman & Robinson’s Guide to Coronavirus-Related Paid Sick Leave and Unemployment Insurance Laws in the Tri-State Area
MARCH 21, 2020
MARCH 20, 2020
- New York Governor’s PAUSE Order
- Illinois Governor’s Statewide Stay-at-Home Order
- Force Majeure Clauses in Commercial Real Estate Contracts
MARCH 19, 2020
- SEC Provides Regulatory Relief for Public Reporting Companies
- Student Loan Borrowers Can Breathe a Sigh of Relief, At Least Temporarily
- California Governor's Statewide Stay-At-Home Order
MARCH 18, 2020
- "Shelter in Place" Orders
- Telecommuting in the Age of Coronavirus
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act Just Passed by the Senate and Signed Into Law by the President
MARCH 17, 2020
- M&R Coronavirus Risk Mitigation Team: A Multi-Disciplinary Legal Team Ready To Immediately Address A Host Of Coronavirus-Related Issues for Businesses, Quickly And Holistically
MARCH 16, 2020
MARCH 5, 2020
Hospitality and Business Service Employers Subject to New Recall Law in the Wake of COVID-19
As California continues to lift pandemic-related restrictions on businesses, and the state continues to emerge from the COVID-19 public health crisis, the hits keep on coming for employers in the hospitality space. While already reeling from the devastating impact of the novel coronavirus upon their businesses, California hospitality and business service employers are now subject to SB 93—a vague and restrictive right of recall law recently signed by Governor Gavin Newsom that is inconsistent with multiple local ordinances already in place.
By way of this alert, Michelman & Robinson, LLP answers many of the questions raised by impacted employers about the newly enacted law.
Q. What is a right of recall ordinance in the employment context?
A. A right of recall ordinance requires certain delineated employers to call back members of their prior workforces—those that have been laid off—and give them a first chance to fill their former positions as they become available again. SB 93 does just that.
Q. What employers are covered under the SB 93?
A. Covered employers include:
- Hotels with 50 or more rooms/suites
- Private clubs that operate a building or complex that has 50 or more guest rooms for overnight lodging of members
- Event centers of more than 50,000 square feet or 1,000 seats, including certain related premises, services, and parking structures
- Airport hospitality operations that provide food, beverage, or retail at airports
- Airport service providers such as businesses related to security, airport ticketing and check-in functions, ground-handling of aircraft, aircraft cleaning and sanitization functions, and waste removal, but excluding FAA-certified air carriers
- Building services such as janitorial, building maintenance, or security services to office, retail or other commercial buildings
Q. When rehiring, what is a covered employer required to do under SB 93?
A. Within five business days of establishing an open position, a covered employer must offer its laid off employee(s) the job(s) that become available for which the employee is qualified. Notably, SB 93 is not retroactive and only applies to job positions that became available after the effective date of the law. The offer must be made in writing and may be delivered by hand, mail to the last known address, e-mail, or text message. Employees are deemed to be qualified if they held the same or similar positions at the time of the most recent layoff. The covered employer must give employees at least five business days from the date of receipt of an offer to accept or decline the job offer(s) in question.
Q. What if more than one employee is entitled to preference for an available position?
A. SB 93 states that seniority applies and the employee with the greatest length of service must be given the job. That being said, jobs can be made available to multiple employees, but if more than one qualified laid off employee accepts the position, the employer must rehire the individual with the most seniority.
Q. Are there special rules that apply to hiring employees that were not laid off?
A. Yes. SB 93 requires covered employers to provide a written notice within 30 days to any laid off employee that it declines to recall based on lack of qualification. The written notice must include a list of all employees hired for the position, with their length of service with the employer, and the employer’s explanation as to why the employer did not rehire the employee being notified.
Q. What are the effective dates of SB 93 and what body is charged with enforcing the law?
A. SB 93, which creates Labor Code section 2810.8, is effective immediately and is to remain in place until December 31, 2024. The law is to be enforced by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE).
Q. Does SB 93 apply to all employees working for covered employers?
A. Almost, though there are some parameters. SB 93 applies to employees who have worked two hours or more per week for a covered employer. The employee must have been employed by the covered employer for 6 months or more in the 12 months preceding January 1, 2020 and have been separated from active service due to a reason related to COVID-19, including a public health directive, government shutdown order, lack of business, a reduction in force, or another economic, non-disciplinary reason related to the pandemic.
Q. Can the right to recall under SB93 be waived?
A. At this time, it is unclear whether laid off employees who signed severance agreements have waived their respective rights to recall under SB 93. What we do know is that SB 93 does allow for its waiver by a collective bargaining agreement if the waiver is set forth in clear and unambiguous terms. Also, employers should note that some cities have adopted their own ordinances prohibiting waiver of recall rights.
Q. What is a covered employer to do about related local ordinances?
A. When considering recalling employees, covered employers should be mindful of local recall ordinances. In the event such an ordinance contradicts SB 93, the new law specifically states, “nothing in this section shall prohibit a local government agency from enacting ordinances that impose greater standards than, or establish additional enforcement provisions to, those proscribed by this section.” Thus, employers should follow the law or ordinance that is most favorable to the employee.
Q. Are there any recordkeeping requirements associated with SB 93?
A. Yes. SB 93 contemplates a recording requirement by which covered employers must keep records of any communications with laid off employees concerning offers of employment made for three years from the date of their written notice of layoff.
Q. What should covered employers do in the wake of the enactment of SB 93?
A. It may be prudent for covered employers to begin compliance preparations. Toward that end, they should (1) list their laid off employees by classification and (2) create the forms now required by law, including a conditional offer of employment and written notice in the case a laid off employee is not being rehired for a particular position.
Of course, M&R’s employment attorneys are available to answer any of your employee recall-related questions or any others regarding COVID-19 and its impact upon the workplace.
We are working diligently to keep our clients up to date on coronavirus-related developments. Nevertheless, these developments are changing daily and, in some cases even hourly, so it is important that you make sure you are dealing with the most current information. That being said, this alert is not offered, and should not be relied on, as legal advice. You should consult an attorney for guidance and counsel regarding any specific concern or situation.