Workforce Bulletin

Is the developer of an AI resume-screening tool an “employment agency” or “agent” subject to liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for its customers’ allegedly discriminatory employment decisions? According to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the answer is yes. On April 9, 2024, the EEOC filed a motion for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae, together with a brief, in Mobley v. Workday, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL, to support plaintiff Derek Mobley’s (“Mobley”) motion to dismiss.

The EEOC’s action is ...

On December 11, 2023, the City of San Francisco released the San Francisco Generative AI Guidelines (“Guidelines”).  The Guidelines set forth parameters for City employees, contractors, consultants, volunteers, and vendors who use generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools to perform work on behalf of the City.

Specifically, the Guidelines encourage City employees, contractors, consultants, volunteers, and vendors to use generative AI tools for purposes such as preparing initial drafts of documents, “translating” text into levels of formality or for a ...

Approximately a month after the Board issued McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58, which left employers scrambling to decipher its unclear impact on both unionized and non-unionized workplaces, Jennifer Abruzzo, the General Counsel (“GC”) of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) released guidance outlining her views on the decision’s implications and meaning in Memorandum GC 23-05 on March 22, 2023. The GC’s Memo contains an FAQ in response to inquiries the NLRB has received about the McLaren Macomb decision and outlines Abruzzo’s plans for enforcement of the decision.

In the wake of the landmark decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, we have been closely monitoring legal developments across the country. In addition to well publicized “trigger laws” that were effectuated as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s order, states have taken up a variety of legislative actions in response to the ruling, which placed authority for the regulation of abortion with the states.

On June 7, 2022, the District of Columbia Council approved the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget Support Act of 2022 (“Act”), which includes an increase to the number of weeks of paid leave available to eligible employees through the Universal Paid Leave Act (“UPLA”) (also known as “Paid Family Leave,” or “PFL”).  Generally, as we previously explained, PFL-eligible employees are those who spend at least 50 percent of their work time – whether full time or part time – in D.C.

Due to a surplus in the Universal Paid Leave Fund (the “Fund”), D.C. employees who are covered by the District’s Paid Family Leave (PFL”) program will soon be eligible for the maximum amount of paid family leave benefits permitted under the law.

As discussed in our previous Insight, starting in 2022, under the Universal Paid Leave Emergency Amendment Act of 2021 (“PLEAA”), the District’s Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) may modify the maximum duration of leave available under the PFL program annually depending upon the projected balance of the Universal Paid Leave Fund.  On March 1, 2022, the Acting CFO certified that the Fund has enough money to increase the potential maximum duration of qualifying paid leave available to D.C. employees as follows:

On December 13, 2021, the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) announced new Guidance for the Use of Face Coverings (“CDPH Guidance”), implementing a mandatory mask mandate for individuals (employees and patrons) in all indoor public settings, irrespective of vaccination status, beginning on December 15, 2021 through at least January 15, 2022.  The CDPH Guidance requires that masks be worn by all individuals over the age of two, unless exempt for disability-related or medical condition-based reasons, and recommends the use of surgical masks or higher-level respirators.

FAQs issued by the CDPH specify that the CDPH Guidance applies to workplaces, and clarify that local public health regulations remain in effect for localities that have previously adopted face covering measures prior to issuance of the CDPH Guidance that apply regardless of vaccination status. That is, the CDPH Guidance only applies to local health jurisdictions that do not have existing indoor masking requirements.  Notably, the San Francisco Department of Public Health (“SFDPH”) has taken the position, in its updated Order and FAQs, that its own masking rules remain in place—including exemptions for “stable cohorts” with 100% vaccination rates, among other criteria.  Marin County and Contra Costa County have taken similar positions regarding the applicability of local health order mask exceptions.  It remains unclear whether local mask exceptions apply given the CDPH Guidance masking rules.