The Dynamex Decision: The California Supreme Court Restricts Use of Independent Contractors

Timothy KimBy Timothy Kim on Posted in Labor and Employment

On Monday, April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in the matter of Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles. In a voluminous, 82-page decision, the California Supreme Court reinterpreted and ultimately rejected the Borello test for determining whether workers should be classified as either employees or independent contractors for the purposes of the wage orders adopted by California’s Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) in favor of a worker-friendly standard that may upend the existing independent contractor labor market.

In particular, the Court embraced a standard presuming that all workers are employees instead of contractors, and placed the burden on any entity classifying an individual as an independent contractor of establishing that such classification is proper under the newly adopted “ABC test” which will be discussed in further detail below. Continue Reading

#MeToo Mobilizes State Legislatures, Creates New Training Obligations For Employers

Lindsay Colvin StoneBy Lindsay Colvin Stone on Posted in Labor and Employment

On April 12, 2018, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the 2019 budget for the State of New York (the “Budget”) which dramatically changed the landscape of obligations which New York employers are to their employees.  Beyond allocating financial resources, the Budget includes a new change to New York law requiring New York employers to conduct annual sexual harassment training for all employees in accordance with state standards.  Viewed as a response to the #MeToo movement, the Budget tasks the New York State Department of Labor and New York State Division of Human Rights with creating an interactive model sexual harassment training program for employers in the state, which shall contain the following elements:

Continue Reading

Under the Radar Changes to Proposition 65 – OEHHA Issues New “Guidance” For Web Purchases (Is it an Illegal “Underground Regulation”?)

Whitney Jones RoyJeffrey ParkerBy Whitney Jones Roy and Jeffrey Parker on Posted in Government Regulations, Prop 65

If your products are sold online or you operate a website with sales to consumers in California, these changes will impact whether you can obtain “safe harbor” protection under Prop 65.

Over a year after adopting new regulations—which were crafted through an exhaustive 3 year rulemaking process of public workshops, public comments, and revisions to address stakeholders’ concerns—California’s OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment) issued a guidance document purporting to change the answer to the question of whether a website warning is sufficient to qualify for “safe harbor” protection or whether a separate type of warning must be provided to the consumer in addition to the website warning. OEHHA, the state entity charged with managing Prop 65, quietly changed its position on the subject and offered so-called “guidance” that imposes much more onerous obligations. If you have already assessed whether you company is in compliance and ready for the new regulations, you should consider reviewing them again. Continue Reading

An Uphill Battle Protecting Fashion Designs In Nigeria and Abroad

Chidera AnyanwuBy Chidera Anyanwu on Posted in Copyrights, Global Trade, IP/Brand Protection

Growing frustration in the fashion community regarding weak or non-existent intellectual property laws has finally caught the attention of some nations. Nigeria is one nation that currently is trying to alleviate this frustration by reforming its intellectual property laws. This reform is driven, in part, because, Lagos, Nigeria has quickly risen as a fashion hub, and has been compared with such fashion centers as London, Paris, Milan, and New York. Nigerian designers have recently experienced great global success and visibility. For example, Amaka Osakwe has been pushing the limits of Nigerian fashion and has gained the attention of fashionistas in the United States and abroad. In 2014, she was invited to the White House by Michelle Obama, an admirer of her work, and her “Maki Oh” designs have been worn by Lupita Nyongo and other A-list celebrities. Last year, Ms. Osakwe was named a LVMH Louis Vuitton Moët Hennessy Finalist, placing her among the most notable young fashion designers in the world today. Other talented Nigerian designers include Duro Olowu, Deola Sagoe, Lisa Folawiyo, and Lanre DeSilva-Ajayi. As these designers continue to gain worldwide recognition, they must protect their designs from infringement both within Nigeria and globally. Continue Reading

Do We Need A Truth In Advertising Act? The Industry and Retailers Self-Regulate Photoshopping Ads

Ted MaxBy Ted Max on Posted in Advertising

Digitally altered images of models have been a controversial advertising issue for decades. In Great Britain, the Advertising Standards Authority Ltd., which is the governing regulatory advertising body, in 2011 banned skincare advertisements featuring digitally altered images because the advertisements exaggerated the effects of the skincare and makeup products and were held to be misleading “per se.”[1] In France, as of October 1, 2017, “it [was] mandatory to use the label ‘retouched photo’ alongside any photo used for commercial purposes where the body of a model has been modified by image-editing software to either slim or flesh out her figure” and any violation might result in a fine of up to €37,500. Continue Reading

WARNING: Prop 65 Has Changed – If Your Product Is Sold In California Or You Do Business In California, Pay Attention

Whitney Jones RoyJeffrey ParkerBy Whitney Jones Roy and Jeffrey Parker on Posted in Government Regulations, Prop 65

What is Prop 65?

Prop 65 is a California law that requires California consumers receive warnings regarding the presence of chemicals that cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. The law is highly technical, constantly evolving and actively enforced by the government and private enforcers. Continue Reading

Selective Distribution Systems and Bans on Sales of Luxury Products via Online Market Platforms: Initial Thoughts on the CJEU’s Coty Judgment

Oliver HeinischBy Oliver Heinisch on Posted in Antitrust

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirmed in a short judgment of 6 December 2017 that a prohibition imposed on authorized distributors from using third party platforms for the sale of their luxury products is in line with European competition law provided certain conditions are met. This judgment also ends an ongoing debate and confirms that selective distribution systems are indeed permissible if they are used to preserve and enhance the luxury image of a product. This outcome is not surprising to those familiar with the Court’s case law and is welcomed by companies running selective distribution networks to market their luxury products. However, the judgment is specific to the facts at hand and bans relating to online platforms will have to be reviewed on the basis of the merits of each case and of the products concerned. Continue Reading

A Deeper Dive Into the FTC Crack-Down on Social Media Influencers: What You Should Know Before You Post

Ilona M. WheatLisa MartensBy Ilona M. Wheat and Lisa Martens on Posted in Enforcement of Fashion Laws

In our previous blog post, “Brands Beware!!! FTC Scrutinizing Influencer Posts for Compliance with Endorsement Guides,” we reported that the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) had issued more than 90 letters to brands and influencers, making it clear that it is paying close attention to influencer-based marketing.  More recently, the letters have been made publicly available, providing valuable insight into the types of disclosures that the FTC considers unacceptable or inadequate. Continue Reading

“Ban the Box” and Background Checks – Recent Trends and Movements

Garen DodgeBy Garen Dodge and Daniel Masakayan* on Posted in Labor and Employment

Overview

Retailers and other employers regularly consider the backgrounds of job applicants and employees when making personnel decisions. It is not illegal for employers to ask questions about an applicant’s criminal history, or to require a background check. However, whenever an employer requests background information about a job applicant or employee, the employer must comply with federal and state laws. Within the last five years, employers have been put under increased scrutiny, especially when they require criminal background checks during the hiring process. This article summarizes recent legal trends regarding criminal background checks in the employment context, and discusses how employers—particularly those within the retail industry—can ensure compliance with the law. Continue Reading

LexBlog

By scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to browse our website, you consent to our use of cookies as described in our Cookie and Advertising Policy. If you do not wish to accept cookies from our website, or would like to stop cookies being stored on your device in the future, you can find out more and adjust your preferences here.

Agree