Comparison of Federal and Ca Labor Lawas

HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT FEDERAL & CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAW COMPARISON – February, 2013 FEDERAL Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (1990) & ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) (2008) CALIFORNIA Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) DIFFERENCES FEHA is stricter than ADA: applies to employers with 5+ employees and requires “reasonable accommodation” for persons with disabilities (CA disabled is defined as “limited” in one or more of major life activities rather than “substantially limited” as required under ADA) State law takes precedence – differences in age group work, IWC minimum wage, overtime, etc. CA employers with 2 employees or more vs. 20 or more for the Federal; extends coverage to 36 months for those laid off and not eligible for insurance coverage after 18 mos. Expansion of whistleblower (WB) protections under SOX by including the creation of SEC and Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) whistleblower programs. WB can be awarded a share of sanctions that exceed $1MM and retaliation claim actions can go directly to federal district court. State law is almost identical to Federal, but applies only to persons or businesses contracting with CA. CA Appeals Ct. ruled – employers are within rights in refusing to hire an applicant who tests positive to marijuana, despite CA law permitting doctor prescribed medical marijuana. State law also prohibits retaliation for employee who refuses to submit to polygraph test. CA law provides stricter notification and disclosure requirements than federal law when employers are seeking to obtain background information (CC §1786) and credit reports (CC §1785) on job applicants and employees. (AB22 – 1/1/12) prohibits employers, except managers and certain financial and other positions, from getting and getting and using credit reports on job applicants and employees. To protect individuals from ID theft, allows annual free credit reports and other ID protections. Also, all employment records that contain personal