Effective Sept. 30, 2009, Arizona has joined a growing number of states* that have passed laws prohibiting public or private employers from restricting an employee’s right to transport or store a firearm that is both:

1. in the person’s locked and privately owned motor vehicle or in a locked compartment on the person’s privately owned motorcycle; and
2. not visible form the outside of the motor vehicle or motorcycle.

Exceptions to this law include:

• The possession of a firearm is prohibited by federal or state law;
• The motor vehicle is owned or leased by the employer and is used by an employee in the course of employment; and
• The employer provides a parking lot, parking garage or other area designated for parking motor vehicles that:

1. is secured by a fence or other physical barrier;
2. limits access by a guard or other security measure; and
3. provides temporary and secure firearm storage readily accessible upon entry into the premises and allows for the immediate retrieval of the firearm on exit from the premises.

According to the statute, “any policy or rule that is established or maintained or the attempted enforcement of any policy or rule that is in violation of [the statute] is contrary to public policy, is null and void and does not have legal force or effect.”  The statute does not specify any criminal or civil penalties for violators.

Employers should review their existing workplace safety policies and enforcement practices to determine whether they run afoul of this statute and modify to conform to the new law.  As always, I am available to assist with this review.

* The other states include Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Utah.

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) recently published a rule that makes changes to the Form I-9. The revised Form I-9 must only be used on or after April 3, 2009, the effective date of the rule.  A downloadable version of the form and information concerning these upcoming changes to the Form I-9 may be found at this USCIS web link.  Please call if you have further questions.

As a post script to the legal update previously sent (see 11/28/08 entry below), the 9th Circuit has vacated its decision and asked the California Supreme Court to weigh in on the legal issues presented in the case.  Accordingly, it remains unclear whether non-residents who perform work in California are subject to the state’s liberal overtime laws.  Stay tuned.

After lengthy debate and public comment, the Department of Labor (DOL) has issued final regulations that substantially overhaul and supplement existing FMLA regulations.  The revised regulations become effective on January 16, 2009. Organizations with 50 or more employees are covered by The FMLA and should be prepared to comply with the revised regulations.  Among other important changes, the revised regulations implement two new military family leave entitlements for eligible family members of covered servicemembers.

To assist you understand your new obligations under the FMLA, I am providing you with:

The DOL Fact Sheet summarizing the revised regulations (download Fact Sheet here)

The DOL-mandated FMLA notice that must be posted in the workplace. In addition, the notice must be included in the employer’s handbook (or other written guidance) or distributed to each new employee upon hire

(download FMLA Notice Poster here).

I am available to assist your organization develop policies and practices that comply with your obligations under the revised regulations.

Are you a business based outside California that sends employees to perform short-term assignments in California?  If so, according to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, those workers are covered by California’s Labor Code for work performed in that state, regardless of the length of the work assignment.  For non-exempt (i.e., hourly employees) that means they are entitled to overtime after working 8 hours in a day as well as after 40 hours in a week (and are entitled to double time when they work more than 12 hours in a day).  Also, California uses a more exacting standard than federal law in determining whether a worker qualifies as exempt from the overtime requirement. Additionally, California mandates certain meal and rest breaks for non-exempt employees.  Finally, California prohibits “tip credits” and the “fluctuating workweek” method of calculating overtime pay.

This decision is a trap for the unwary.  Please be mindful of your company’s additional obligations should you send employees to perform work in California.