ENACTED LEGISLATION
FLORIDA: E-Verify to become mandatory for government employers and contractors
Summary: Effective January 1, 2021, SB 664 will require all government employers and certain private employers to use E-Verify. This includes local school districts, public universities and colleges, and state and local agencies, as well as their private contractors. No public contract can be entered into without an E-Verify certificate. Private employers are not required to use the E-Verify system unless they contract with a public entity or they receive taxpayer-funded incentives through the Department of Economic Opportunity. However, any private employer who does not use E-Verify must also maintain copies of the documents used to complete the Form I-9 for three years (this is optional under federal law).
Impact(s): Florida public employers and contractors
View source document

NEW YORK CITY, NY: NYC Issues Guidance on "Safety Sensitive" Exception to Law Prohibiting Pre-Employment Marijuana Drug Testing
Summary: On May 10, 2020, New York City's new law went into effect prohibiting an employer from testing an applicant for marijuana as part of a pre-employment screening process. Exceptions to the law included "safety-sensitive" positions such as law enforcement, certain construction jobs, positions requiring a commercial driver's license, positions requiring the supervision or care of children, medical patients or vulnerable persons and positions with the "potential to significantly impact the health or safety of employees or members of the public." The law also does not apply to drug testing required pursuant to the Department of Transportation or state or local testing regulations or to federal contracts between the federal government and an employer that mandates drug testing, among several other exemptions.

The New York Commission on Human Rights adopted new rules that clarify the “safety-sensitive” exception to the above mentioned prohibition. Specifically, a position is deemed to significantly impact the health or safety of employees or members of the public and to be exempt if:

  • the position requires that an employee regularly, or within one week of beginning employment, work on an active construction site;
  • the position requires that an employee regularly operate heavy machinery;
  • the position requires that an employee regularly work on or near power or gas utility lines;
  • the position requires that an employee operate a motor vehicle on most work shifts;
  • the position requires work relating to fueling an aircraft, providing information regarding aircraft weight and balance, or maintaining or operating aircraft support equipment; or
  • impairment would interfere with the employee’s ability to take adequate care in the carrying out of his or her job duties and would pose an immediate risk of death or serious physical harm to the employee or to other people.

These rules become effective July 24, 2020.

Impact(s): New York City employers
View source document
COURT OPINIONS
U.S. SUPREME COURT: Supreme Court Rules CFPB Director Can Be Removed At-Will
Summary: On June 29, 2020, the U. S. Supreme Court rejected a limitation of the Dodd-Frank Act preventing the President of the United States from removing the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for reasons beyond "inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance," concluding that the stipulation created a level of unconstitutional insulation for the position.

While the court ruled in favor of removing this limitation, it chose not to strike down the CFPB in its entirety, finding that the constitutional issue created by the "for-cause" removal restriction is severable from the other statutory provisions bearing on the CFPB's authority.

Impact(s): For general legal review
View source document

U. S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: Court rules that background check claims must be individually arbitrated
Summary: Plaintiff filed a class action alleging violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and California consumer protection laws. The defendant brewery company removed the action to the district court and filed a Motion to Dismiss the class action lawsuit and a Motion for Bilateral Arbitration, stating that plaintiff completed a three-page "application for employment" wherein the third page of the application contained arbitration provisions and directed plaintiff to "[p]lease read carefully, initial each paragraph, and sign below." Plaintiff argued that the agreement was invalid because the application was superseded by an offer letter that did not contain arbitration language. The court disagreed finding that the offer letter did not supersede the arbitration agreement because the letter did not include arbitration language. The court also ruled that the plaintiff must arbitrate his claims on an individual basis and not as a class representative because the arbitration agreement did not contain language regarding class action proceedings.
Impact(s): For general legal review
View source document

This document and/or presentation is provided as a service to our customers. Its contents are designed solely for informational purposes, and should not be inferred or understood as legal advice or binding case law, nor shared with any third parties. Persons in need of legal assistance should seek the advice of competent legal counsel. Although care has been taken in preparation of these materials, we cannot guarantee the accuracy, currency or completeness of the information contained within it. Anyone using this information does so at his or her own risk.

© 2020 Truescreen, Inc. All Rights Reserved.