Today, Pillsbury attorneys Julia Judish and Ken Taber published their client alert titled New York City Bars Employers From Considering Criminal History Before Extending A Job Offer. This Alert discusses Mayor de Blasio’s recent approval of the Fair Chance Act, a new law that generally prohibits New York City employers from discriminating against job applicants with a criminal record and prohibits inquiries about job applicants’ criminal records before a job offer is extended. This new law applies to all private-sector New York City employers with 4 or more employees and, for or purposes of calculating coverage, the Act includes individual independent contractors performing work for the employer if those individuals do not themselves have employees. The new law is effective on October 27, 2015.
Cal/OSHA issues high heat advisory for Sacramento Valley/Northern California
Today, Cal/OSHA issued a high heat advisory urging all employers and, in particular, employers in the Sacramento Valley and adjacent foothills to protect their outdoor workers from heat illness. It advised that temperatures are expected to rise to highs of 115 degrees through Friday morning. Information is available online (Heat Illness Prevention and Water. Rest. Shade. Campaign) on the heat illness prevention requirements and training materials. A Heat Illness Prevention e-tool is also available on Cal/OSHA’s website.
Cal/OSHA issued its first high heat advisory for 2015 on June 16, 2015 for Southern California.
TX Court Rules That Duty to Defend Suit Seeking Damages Extends to Superfund Cleanup Proceedings Conducted by EPA, Claims Covered by CGL Policies
Responding to an inquiry from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday, in a 5 to 4 decision, that the “coercive nature” of the administrative proceedings employed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act’s (CERCLA) cleanup and cost recovery provisions amount to a “suit”, and a potentially responsible party’s (PRP) receipt of a CERCLA letter from EPA, inviting the recipient to negotiate with EPA “is effectively a demand”. Moreover, with respect to judicial review, “as a practical matter, courts afford PRPs no hope of relief, and consequently they have no choice but to comply with EPA’s directives”. The case is McGinnes Industrial Maintenance Corporation v. The Phoenix Insurance Company and The Travelers Indemnity Company. Chief Justice Hecht wrote the majority opinion.
This decision was triggered by ongoing cleanup actions taken at the San Jacinto Waste Pits Superfund Site, which is located in Harris County, Texas, in the vicinity of Pasadena, Texas. According to the Court, in the 1960’s McGinnes Industrial Waste Corporation (McGinnes) dumped pulp and paper mill waste sludge into disposal pits near the San Jacinto River. EPA began investigating possible environmental contamination in 2005 and, in 2007, notified McGinnes’ parent company that it was a PRP at the site, and invited the parent company to begin negotiating an order for the cleanup of the site, and the reimbursement of EPA’s expenses to date. When McGinnes and its parent company failed to respond to these EPA communications, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) directing McGinnes to conduct an remedial investigation and feasibility study; a failure to comply with this UAO would expose McGinnes to $37,500 per day in daily penalties and very costly punitive damages.
McGinnes was covered by a standard-form commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policies at the time it was “dumping” waste at the site, and it asked for a defense in accordance with the terms of the insurance policy. The insurers refused, arguing that these EPA administrative proceedings are not a “suit,” as specified by the policy. McGinnes then sued its insurers in federal court, but the court agreed with the insurers’ position, granting their motion for summary judgment. On appeal to the Fifth Circuit, that Court of Appeals asked the Texas Supreme Court to answer the question” “Whether EPA’s PRP letters/and or administrative order, issued pursuant to CERCLA, constitute a ‘suit’ within the meaning of the CGL policies, triggering the duty to defend” — to which the Texas Supreme Court answered: “Yes”.
Dissenting justices Boyd, Johnson, Guzman and Lehrmann argued that the Court was, in effect, rewriting these insurance policies, and described the ruling as a “disturbing decision”.
Fall Protection: “I survived.”
The Washington State Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) recently posted on its L&I Blog a blog titled “I survived,” a cautionary tale about how fall protection saved a construction work from a 30′ plunge. In early May, Apollo, Inc. employee Tanner Kane was using a bar to pop forms off the top of a retaining wall. Suddenly, he was catapulted over a 30′ retaining wall. According to his work partner, Carrie Johnson, “It was crazy; one minute he was there, and in a blink of an eye he was gone.” Because Tanner was using a fall protection system and was tied off to the horizontal lifeline installed for the job, he survived the potential 30′ fall with no significant injuries. Tanner’s coworkers activated the rescue plan and Tanner was able to self-rescue with help from Johnson.
WA: July 1, Identity Verification Required to Purchase Electrical Work Permit
Beginning July 1, 2015, in Washington, to protect against unlicensed electrical contractors fraudulently obtaining electrical work permits, electrical contractors purchasing electrical permits using the paper application form will be required to print their name and mark their affiliation with the company on the permit application. The customer service representative will then check the license information to confirm that the person purchasing the permit is authorized under Washington Administrative Code section 296-46B-901(3) to do so. If the person identified on the permit application is someone other than the assigned administrator, master electrician, owner, principal of the corporation, or a documented authorized signer, the customer service representative will not sell the permit.
Uber Hits a Speed Bump in California: Labor Commissioner Rules Driver is an Employee
Today, Pillsbury Paula Weber and Erica Turcios published their client alert titled Uber Hits a Speed Bump in California: Labor Commissioner Rules Driver is an Employee. This Alert discusses a recent decision that may signal a more stringent application of the test for determining independent contractor status. The California Labor Commissioner ruled in Uber Techs., Inc. v. Berwick, Labor Comm’n, Case No. 11-46739 EK (June 3, 2015), Super. Ct. Case No. CGC-15-546378, that an Uber driver is an employee of Uber, not an independent contractor.
DOL Invites Comments on Requirement That Bidders Disclose Employment Law Violations
Yesterday, Pillsbury attorney Julia Judish published her client advisory titled DOL Invites Comments on Requirement That Bidders Disclose Employment Law Violations. The Alert discusses President Obama’s Executive Order 13673, called the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Order; the Order uses the prospect of gaining or losing an edge in winning government contracts to provide a powerful incentive for employers to comply with a broad range of employment laws. On May 28, 2015, the Department of Labor (DOL) published a Proposed Guidance on implementation of the Order and invited the public to submit comments by July 27, 2015. Because aspects of the proposed guidance create compliance burdens for government contractors and could unfairly place some government contractors at a disadvantage in the procurement process, the contractor community would be prudent to submit comments that may lead to changes in the final guidance.
9th Cir. Approves EPA’s Retroactive Amendment of Earlier Approval of California SIP New Source Review Rules
In the case of Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, decided June 23, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review filed after EPA acknowledged that it had mistakenly approved certain New Source Review (NSR) rules affecting ozone emissions in California’s Central Valley (which includes the San Joaquin Valley) subject to California’s State Implementation Plan (SIP), and then corrected this error.
Continue Reading ›
Supreme Court Issues Important Takings Decision, 10 Years After Kelo Case Decided
An important Fifth Amendment Takings Clause case was decided today. The U.S. Supreme Court, by reversing the Ninth Circuit, has terminated the decades-old litigation over the Department of Agriculture’s administration of the California raisin “marketing order.” The case is Horne, et al. v. Department of Agriculture.
Continue Reading ›
Supreme Court Denies Cert in Aransas Project v. Shaw
The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear an appeal of the Fifth Circuit’s decision which reversed the lower court’s ruling. The Fifth Circuit found that the State of Texas had violated the Endangered Species Act in its administration of the state water permitting program which allegedly denied adequate amounts of fresh water at the Aransas, Texas Whooping Crane preserve. The case is Aransas Project v. Shaw.