Workforce Bulletin

New York attorneys could soon have to complete cybersecurity training courses to satisfy their continuing legal education (“CLE”) requirement. The House of Delegates of the New York State Bar Association (“NYSBA”) has approved a report proposing that NYSBA’s Executive Committee recommend to the New York State Continuing Legal Education Board that the biennial CLE requirement be amended to require one credit on cybersecurity. The Committee on Technology and the Legal Profession (the “Committee”), which submitted the report, recognized the mounting ...

Part 4 of a series featuring our video Rules of the Road: Return to Work in the Time of COVID-19.

We have said this before, but we will say it again: in the workplace, there should be no touching – ever. The COVID-19 pandemic just provides another reason to follow the advice we give in the anti-harassment context, that employees should maintain distance and not touch others.

No Touching, Ever – Not Even For Handshakes

In almost a long forgotten time, pre-COVID-19, it was a natural tendency for employees to use handshakes, handshakes-plus, and hugs as a way to build rapport and ...

Part 3 of a series featuring our video Rules of the Road: Return to Work in the Time of COVID-19.

Whether physically in the office or not, regularly washing your hands should already be a routine practice. However, this innate rule is especially important, and recommended by the Center for Disease Control (“CDC”), to help prevent the spread of COVID-19 and to maintain safe, healthy and respectful workplaces.

Wash Your Hands…All the Time

Everyone should already be washing his or her hands – all the time. This is a cardinal hygiene rule that everyone learns in elementary school ...

Prompted by the many new telework or remote work arrangements that have arisen in response to COVID-19, on August 24, 2020, the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2020-5 (“Bulletin”) to provide guidance regarding employers’ obligation “to exercise reasonable diligence in tracking teleworking employees’ hours of work.” The guidance, which includes citations to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the DOL’s interpretive regulations, and federal case law, does not break new ground; ...

Featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  As employers plan for workers to return to work, utilizing COVID-19 liability waivers is one idea that businesses are thoroughly considering. Attorney Jimmy Oh discusses the risks and effectiveness of these waivers.

Video: YouTube, Vimeo, MP4, Instagram.

The beginning of the school year has added to a mire of uncertainty of how to manage work and family in our current COVID-19 world. Some schools have reopened to full-time in-person classes, while others have adopted full-time remote learning; still others have opted a hybrid model that mixes the two, and some give parent the choice of whether to send their children to school or have them login. Added to this, decisions once made are subject to reversal, if new COVID-19 cases enter the picture.  So now, on top of everything else that the COVID-19 crisis has affected, working parents must try ...

On May 28, 2019, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed Public Act 19-4, An Act Increasing the Minimum Fair Wage (the “Act”), which gradually increases the minimum wage in Connecticut over the next several years.  The first increase took place on October 1, 2019, when the minimum wage increased to $11.00 per hour. The next increase will take effect on September 1, 2020, when Connecticut’s minimum wage will increase to $12.00 per hour.

Additional increases will take place on an annual basis:

• $13.00 per hour on August 1, 2021
• $14.00 per hour on July 1, 2022
• $15.00 per hour on June 1 ...

Part 2 of a series featuring our video Rules of the Road: Return to Work in the Time of COVID-19. 

Who would have believed that months into this global pandemic, after the innumerable and unspeakable loss to human life, to global economies, and to our own sense of selves and normalcy – that the relatively straightforward issue of whether to wear a mask to curb the spread of this virus would remain such a hot button topic.  And yet, here we are.

The overwhelming science – yes, science – reported and confirmed by scientists, physicians, and leading health experts across the globe – is ...

Part 1 of a series featuring our video Rules of the Road: Return to Work in the Time of COVID-19. 

As Labor Day approaches, with schools reopening (in some form or fashion), and as we approach the end of our collective bandwidth for Zoom meetings, much time and attention has been spent discussing how and when to finally “return to work.”

But in thinking about that seemingly innocuous phrase - “return to work” - employers would be remiss not to take a moment to pause and re-think what that phrase actually means in a post-COVID-world.  Is work somewhere that you go?  Or is work something ...

On August 6, 2020, in Rose’s 1 LLC, et al. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, a District of Columbia trial court granted an insurer’s cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether COVID-19 closure orders constitute a “direct physical loss” under a commercial property policy. Plaintiff insureds (“Insureds”) own several restaurants in Washington D.C. that were forced to close and suffered serious revenue losses stemming from the Mayor’s orders to close non-essential businesses and ordering people to stay home. As a result, the Insureds made claims to Defendant Erie Insurance Exchange (the “Insurer”) under their policies that included coverage for “loss of ‘income’ and/or ‘rental income’” sustained “due to partial or total ‘interruption of business’ resulting directly from ‘loss’ or damage” to the property insured. The policy also stated that it “insures against direct physical ‘loss.’”

Dictionary Definitions Open to Interpretation

As the Court framed the issue, “[a]t the most basic level, the parties dispute whether the closure of the restaurants due to Mayor Bowser’s orders constituted a ‘direct physical loss’ under the policy.” To support their argument, the Insureds relied on dictionary definitions of “direct” as “[w]ithout intervening persons, conditions, or agencies; immediate;” and “physical” as pertaining to things “[o]f or pertaining to matter, or the world as perceived by the senses; material as [opposed] to mental or spiritual.” The policy defined “loss,” as “direct and accidental loss of or damage to covered property.”

The Insureds relied on these definitions to make three arguments. First, they argued that the loss of use of their restaurant properties was “direct” because the closures were the direct result of the Mayor’s orders without intervening action. The Court rejected that argument because those orders commanded individuals and businesses to take certain actions and “[s[tanding alone and absent intervening actions by individuals and businesses, the orders did not affect any direct changes to the properties.”

Second, the Insureds argued that their losses were “physical” because the COVID-19 virus is “material” and “tangible,” and because the harm they experienced was caused by the Mayor’s orders rather than diners being afraid to eat out. The Court also rejected that argument because the Insureds offered no evidence that COVID-19 was actually present on their properties at the time they were forced to close and the mayor’s orders did not impact the tangible structure of the properties.

Third, the Insureds argued that the policy’s definition of “loss” as encompassing either “loss” or “damage,” required the insurer to “treat the term ‘loss’ as distinct from ‘damage,’ which connotes physical damage to the property,” and thus “loss” incorporates “loss of use.” The Court rejected that argument and held that the words “direct” and “physical” modify the word “loss” and therefore any “loss of use” must be “caused, without the intervention of other persons or conditions, by something pertaining to matter—in other words, a direct physical intrusion [onto] the insured property.” The Court held that the Mayor’s orders did not constitute such a direct physical intrusion.