State Law Changes

August 18, 2010 Update

No Updates as of August 18, 2010

Health Insurance Benefit Coverage Law

A new law in Alaska will require health insurers to cover routine patient care costs incurred by a patient enrolled in an approved clinical trial related to cancer, including leukemia, lymphoma, and bone marrow stem cell disorders (Ch. 117 (S. 10), L. 2009, effective September 28, 2010, at AK ¶2-4000).

Legal Workers Act

Judge Susan Bolton of the District Court of Arizona, granted the Obama administration’s request for a preliminary injunction (United States of America v State of Arizona, July 28, 2010, Bolton, S) barring enforcement of the new controversial provisions (S.B. 1070). However, the remaining portions of the law will take effect July 29 as planned, she said. ``S.B. 1070 is not a freestanding statute,’’ said Bolton, and; ``[t]he [c]ourt is obligated to consider S.B. 1070 on a section by section and provision by provision basis.’’ On July 6, the United States filed a suit challenging the legality of S.B. 1070, and it also filed a motion requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction to stop Arizona from enforcing S.B. 1070 until a final determination is made on the law’s constitutionality. The United States principally argued that the law violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution because it unconstitutionally interferes with the federal government’s authority to set and enforce immigration policy. Of note, six other lawsuits have been filed challenging S.B. 1070, including one filed by the ACLU, among other civil rights organizations (Friendly House v Whiting, DAriz, No CV-10-01061-MEA, complaint filed May 17, 2010). However, on July 29, the state of Arizona filed an expedited appeal with the Ninth Circuit asking the court to lift a preliminary injunction granted July 28 by Judge Susan Bolton of the District Court of Arizona preventing the state from implementing portions of its new immigration enforcement law (United States of America v State of Arizona, no 2:10-cv-01413-SRB, preliminary injunction motion filed July 29, 2010). Title 23, Chapter 2, Article 2, Sections 23-211 through 2-216. Para 3-24,051.

On immigration, five states look to Arizona

As Arizona’s controversial new immigration law from going into effect on July 29, as a federal court in Arizona decides whether to block that state’s law. The Obama administration is suing to stop the measure, which Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed in April and gives local police broad new responsibility to determine the immigration status of those they question during the course of normal law enforcement duties. The administration is arguing that immigration enforcement is the job of the federal government, not the states; Justice Department lawyers are seeking a last-minute injunction. Despite the administration’s arguments, it is clear that state lawmakers are increasingly taking immigration matters into their own hands amid congressional inaction on a comprehensive national policy. The latest reminder is a new report by the National Conference of State Legislatures, finding that every state with a regular legislative session this year addressed immigration and migrant issues. NCSL’s annual report, which tracks immigration bills introduced in legislatures around the country, also found that at least five states—Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Rhode Island—are weighing their own Arizona-style immigration measures. With legislative sessions still under way in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, it is possible that another state could follow Arizona this year, though the bills are still in the early stages of debate. Meanwhile, a new poll in Tennessee is the latest to find that public support for the Arizona law appears to be high in many states. Tennesseans favor the measure by an eye-opening 4-to-1 margin, according to the poll, which was conducted by The Tennessean newspaper and other media outlets. Source: John Gramlich, Stateline Staff Writer (July 28, 2010) (http://www.stateline.org).

Preemployment Inquiries Law

Arizona must not enforce the more controversial provisions of its new immigration enforcement law (S.B. 1070), determined Judge Susan Bolton of the District Court of Arizona, granting the Obama administration’s request for a preliminary injunction (United States of America v State of Arizona, July 28, 2010, Bolton, S). But the remaining portions of the law took effect July 29 as planned. “S.B. 1070 is not a freestanding statute,” said Bolton, and “[t]he [c]ourt is obligated to consider S.B. 1070 on a section by section and provision by provision basis.”

As previously reported, on July 6, the United States filed a suit challenging the legality of S.B. 1070, and it also filed a motion requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction to stop Arizona from enforcing S.B. 1070 until a final determination is made on the law’s constitutionality. The United States principally argued that the law violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution because it unconstitutionally interferes with the federal government’s authority to set and enforce immigration policy. Of note, six other lawsuits have been filed challenging S.B. 1070, including one filed by the ACLU, among other civil rights organizations (Friendly House v Whiting, DAriz, No CV-10-01061-MEA, complaint filed May 17, 2010).

The court found that the United States was likely to succeed on the merits in showing that the following sections of S.B. 1070 are preempted by federal law:

(1) A portion of Section 2 of S.B. 1070/A.R.S. Sec.11-1051(B): requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained, or arrested if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person;

(2) Section 3 of S.B. 1070/A.R.S. Sec. 13-1509: making failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers a crime;

(3) A portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070/A.R.S. Sec. 13-2928(C): making it a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work; and

(4) Section 6 of S.B. 1070/A.R.S. Sec. 13-3883(A)(5): authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

In addition, the court found that the United States was likely to suffer irreparable harm if it did not preliminarily enjoin enforcement of these sections and that “the balance of equities tips in the United States” favor considering the public interest.”

Bolton did, however, uphold a provision of the law making it a crime for a motor vehicle to stop to pick up day laborers and for day laborers to get into a motor vehicle if it impedes the normal movement of traffic. She also upheld a provision prohibiting Arizona officials, agencies, and political subdivisions from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Appeal filed quickly. The state of Arizona filed an expedited appeal July 29 with the Ninth Circuit, asking the court to lift the preliminary injunction granted on July 28 (United States of America v State of Arizona, no 2:10-cv-01413-SRB, preliminary injunction motion filed July 29, 2010).

The notice of appeal and motion for expedited briefing and hearing schedule asks the Ninth Circuit to establish a timeline that would have the state file a substantive brief on August 12, the United States file its response brief on August 26, and the state file its reply brief on September 2. The state asked the Ninth Circuit to schedule oral arguments on the appeal the week of September 13 and to expedite its ruling. Good cause exists to expedite this appeal under Ninth Circuit rules, said the state in its motion, “because it is an appeal of a preliminary injunction enjoining several key provisions of S.B. 1070 that the Arizona legislature determined were critical to address serious criminal, environmental, and economic problems Arizona has been suffering as a consequence of illegal immigration and the lack of effective enforcement activity by the federal government.” Moreover, said the state, an expedited briefing schedule would not unreasonably burden the parties because it is consistent with the expedited briefing schedule the federal government received for the initial ruling on its motion for preliminary injunction and the issues on appeal are narrower than those the district court addressed.

DOJ wants review, too, but not on state’s schedule. The Justice Department on July 29 joined the state of Arizona in urging the Ninth Circuit to quickly review the state’s appeal of Judge Susan Bolton’s order enjoining portions of Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law, but objected to the state’s expedited briefing and hearing schedule, asking for a different schedule than the one the state had proposed (United States of America v State of Arizona, DAriz, no 2:10-cv-01413-SRB, response to Arizona’s motion to expedite briefing and hearing schedule for preliminary injunction appeal filed July 29, 2010). Thus, the DOJ opposes the state’s motion insofar as it would provide the United States only 14 days from the due date of the state’s opening brief in which to file its response brief.

In its response, the DOJ argued that the Ninth Circuit’s existing rules governing preliminary injunction appeals (3-3(b) et seq.) fully accommodate the interest in achieving expedited review “without needlessly foreshortening the time for preparing the parties’ appellate briefs in this important case.” Rule 3-3(b) establishes a highly expedited briefing schedule for preliminary injunction appeals, explained the DOJ. The appellant’s brief is due 28 days from the docketing of a notice of appeal; the appellee’s brief is due 28 days after service of the appellant’s brief; and appellant’s reply is 14 days after service of appellee’s brief. Arizona’s motion identifies no reason for limiting the briefing time of the United States to 14 days instead of the 28 days contemplated by Rule 3-3(b), said the DOJ. Pursuant to the rule then, said the federal agency, briefing would be completed no later than October 7, with oral argument to be scheduled at the circuit court’s “earliest convenience.” Assuming it takes the expedited appeal, the Ninth Circuit will decide the briefing and hearing schedule (AZ ¶3-9000).

Minimum Wage Law

Until June 30, 2011, the living wage in Berkeley is $12.41 per hour plus a medical benefit equivalent to at least $2.06 per hour. If the employer does not provide the employee at least $2.06 per hour toward an employee medical benefits plan, the employer shall pay an hourly wage of not less than $14.47.

The City of Irvine Living Wage Ordinance requires a contractor entering into city contracts that are subject to the ordinance to pay its covered employees an hourly rate, comparable health benefits and paid time off as set by the most current City Council Resolution establishing compensation policy for employees. The current Resolution sets the minimum hourly rate at $10.82 per hour. This is the rate at which a covered employee must be paid if the contractor also provides the employee with health benefits and paid time off that are equal to or exceed those offered to city employees.

An additional “benefit factor” must be added to the above hourly rate if those covered employees are not offered health and paid time off benefits that are equal to or exceed those offered to city employees. The current “benefit factor” is set at $2.34 per hour, and must be added to the base minimum rate of $10.82 per hour for a total rate of $13.16 per hour.

Santa Monica’s living wage rate has also been amended. Effective to June 30, 2011, the minimum wage set by the city's living wage ordinance is $13.27 an hour for service contracts that are $54,200 or more.

Employees of private sector contractors/employers who enter into a service contract with the City of Santa Cruz for $10,000 or more must be paid a living wage prescribed annually by the city council pursuant to resolution. Effective through June 30, 2011, the living wage is $13.60 per hour with benefits, and $14.83 per hour without benefits.

The current living wage in the City of Port Hueneme is $10.35 per hour if the employer provides benefits, and $12.90 per hour if benefits are not provided.

The current living wage rate for Sacramento is $10.72 per hour, if health benefits are provided and the employer’s contribution for the benefits is at least $1.61 for each hour of work. If health benefits are not provided or if health benefits are provided but the employer’s contribution rate is less than $1.61 for each hour of work, the covered employee’s minimum wage rate is $12.33 per hour.(CA ¶5-1000).

Unemployment Insurance Law

The 2010 disability elective coverage rate in California is 2.57% (CA ¶5-1700).

Whistleblower Protection Law

The California Whistleblower Protection Act authorizes a California State University employee or applicant for employment to have an available action for damages caused by intentional acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, or coercion under a specified procedure. The state has enacted a law that authorizes an available action for damages or other legal remedies arising on or after January 1, 2011, for a University of California employee or applicant for employment under the same procedure (Ch. 104 (S. 650), L. 2009, enacted July 15, 2010, at CA ¶5-3600).

Anti-Bias Rules: Department of Personnel–State Employment

Effective August 14, 2010, the Colorado Personnel Board requires a complainant to file his or her information sheet with the Board and serve a copy on the respondent within 25 days of receipt of the petition for hearing by the Board for investigations of discrimination complaints. The respondent shall file its information sheet with the Board no more than ten days after the complainant has filed his or her information sheet with the Board. Three days shall not be added for pleadings sent by mail. However, the Board may grant one extension of time to each party for the filing of information sheets, not to exceed more than 5 days, and granted only upon good cause shown. 4CCR 801-1, Chapter 8, Section 8-50B, as amended effective Aug. 14, 2010. Para 6-20,075.50.

Discrimination Against Victims of Crime Law

Effective October 1, 2010, employers with three or more employees, including the state and any political subdivision of the state, will be required to allow an employee who is a victim of family violence to take paid or unpaid leave (1) to seek medical care or psychological or other counseling for physical or psychological injury or disability for the victim, (2) to obtain services from a victim services organization on behalf of the victim, (3) to relocate due to such family violence, or (4) to participate in any civil or criminal proceeding related to or resulting from such family violence. Additionally, an employer shall not deprive an employee of employment, penalize or threaten or otherwise coerce an employee with respect to employment, because the employee is a victim of family violence. Title 54, Chapter 961, Part 1, Sections 54-85b and 15, as amended and enacted by P.A. 10-144 (H. 5497), L. 2010, enacted June 7, 2010, effective Oct. 1, 2010. Paras 7-21,050.01 and 7-21,050.03.

Read IRN                    Read IntelliConnect

Discrimination Against Person with Disabilities

The Service Animal Amendment Act of 2010 provides that service animal trainers who are training an animal to be a service animal are subject to the same access and liability provisions as a person who is blind or deaf. In addition the terms “service animal’’ and service animal in training” were added to the law. Division 1, Title 7, Subtitle B, Chapter 10, Sections 7-1007 and 7-1009, as amended by B. 207 (Act No. 18-329, Law No. 18-0146), L. 2009, effective May 22, 2010. Paras 9-20,750.07 and 9-20,750.09.

Read IRN                    Read IntelliConnect

Marital Status Discrimination Law

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals on July 15, 2010, upheld the decision of the District’s Board of Elections and Ethics to reject a ballot initiative to prohibit same-sex marriage in the District, in Jackson v. D.C. Board of Elections & Ethics (DCCA No. 10-CV-20). “Today’s decision proves that discrimination of any kind will not be tolerated in the District of Columbia,” said Mayor Adrian M. Fenty. “We all stand to benefit when the District remains a welcoming and inclusive city for all residents” (District of Columbia Mayor’s Office, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, News Release, July 15, 2010).

In May 2009, the DC Council passed the Jury and Marriage Amendment Act of 2009, which allowed the District to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. Then, in December 2009, the DC Council adopted the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009, which authorized same-sex marriages within the District. That act became law in March 2010. A group of citizens, the appellants in this case, proposed to put an initiative on the ballot stating, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in the District of Columbia.”

On January 14, 2010, the Superior Court granted the District’s motion for summary judgment, agreeing that the proposed initiative would authorize discrimination based on sexual orientation. Because a provision in District law prohibits initiatives that would violate the District’s law against discrimination, the Human Rights Act, the proposed initiative thus did not present a proper subject for initiative under District law.

This decision by the DC Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirms 5-4 the decision of the lower court. The court agreed with the arguments presented by the District’s Office of the Attorney General (OAG). In particular, the Human Rights Act safeguard provision is a valid restriction on the right of initiative and the Board was correct to conclude that the appellant's proposed initiative would impermissibly authorize discrimination (DC ¶9-3200).

Minimum Wage Law

The District of Columbia's living wage rate for 2010 is $12.50 per hour, unchanged from the 2009 rate. The living wage rate, authorized by the Living Wage Act of 2006, determines the pay rate employers receiving economic development assistance or funding from the District must offer workers. All recipients of government contracts or assistance of $100,000 or more are required to pay their employees no less than the living wage authorized by the District. All subcontractors of contracts for $15,000 or more must also pay their employees the living wage. A living wage is also paid to employees of the District government (District of Columbia Department of Employment Services Press Release, July 19, 2010, at DC ¶9-1000).

Second Amendment Rights in Employment Law—Topic Added.

No private or public employer shall condition employment upon any agreement by a prospective employee that prohibits an employee from entering the parking lot and access thereto when the employee's privately owned motor vehicle contains a firearm that is locked out of sight within the trunk, glove box, or other enclosed compartment or area within such privately owned motor vehicle, provided that any applicable employees possess a Georgia weapons carry license. Title 16, Chapter 11, Article 4, Section 16-11-135, as amended by S. 308, L. 2010, effective June 4, 2010. Para 11-20,026.01.

Child Labor Law

The state has amended its Child Labor Law to provide that in situations where a minor from another state seeks to obtain an Illinois employment certificate, the Department of Labor shall work with a City or Regional Superintendent of Schools, or the State Superintendent of Education, or his or her duly authorized agents, to issue the certificate. The Superintendent may waive the requirement that a minor submit his or her application in person if the minor resides in another state (P.A. 96-1247 (H. 6014), L. 2009, enacted and effective July 23, 2010, at IL ¶14-1500).

Employee Credit Privacy Act—Topic added.

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn on August 10 signed P.A. 96-1426 (H. 4658), L. 2009, prohibiting Illinois employers from discriminating based on a job seeker or employee's credit history. Effective January 1, 2011, the Employee Credit Privacy Act, prohibits Illinois' employers to use a person's credit history to determine employment, recruiting, discharge or compensation. The new law forbids employers from inquiring about an applicant or employee's credit history or obtaining a copy of their credit report. The law does not affect an employer's ability to conduct a thorough background investigation that does not contain a credit history or report. Employers who violate the new law can be subject to civil liability for damages or injunctive relief. However, employers may access credit checks under limited circumstances, including positions that involve: bonding or security per state or federal law; unsupervised access to more than $2,500; signatory power over businesses assets of more than $100; management and control of the business; access to personal, financial or confidential information, trade secrets, or state or national security information. The law is to be codified in the Illinois Compiled Statutes and reads as enacted by P.A. 96-1426 (H. 4658), L. 2009, Sections 1 through 30, effective Jan. 1, 2011. Paras 14-20,036.01 through 14-20,036.07.

Family Military Leave Law

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed a bill into law on July 30 to expand family military leave to the children and grandparents of active duty service men and women. Senate Bill 3818 amends the Family Military Leave Act to include adult children and grandparents of individuals called to military service as eligible for the same leave provided to spouses and parents. Under the new law, employers with 50 or more employees will be required to provide up to 30 days of unpaid family military leave to a worker when their spouse, child, parent, or grandchild is being deployed. Chapter 820, Sections 151/5 and 151/10, as amended by P.A. 096-1417 (S. 3818), L. 2010, effective Jan. 1, 2011. Paras 14-22,451.05 and 14-22,451.10.

Read IRN                    Read IntelliConnect

Read IRN                    Read IntelliConnect

Read IRN                    Read IntelliConnect

Wage Payment Law

The Day and Temporary Labor Services Act has been amended with respect to third party clients (P.A. 96-1185 (H. 5247), L. 2009, enacted and effective July 22, 2010, at IL ¶14-1200).

Whistleblower Protection Law

The Nursing Home Care Act has been amended to add whistleblower protections for facility employees, effective July 29, 2010 (S. 326, L. 2009, enacted July 29, 2010, at IL ¶14-3600).

Second Amendment Rights in Employment Law—Topic added.

Under the state’s Personal and Family Protection Act, it is not to be construed to prevent any public or private employer from restricting or prohibiting by personnel policies persons licensed under the Act from carrying a concealed handgun while on the premises of the employer's business or while engaged in the duties of the person's employment by the employer, except that no employer may prohibit possession of a handgun in a private means of conveyance, even if parked on the employer's premises. Chapter 75, Article 7c, Section 75-7c10, as amended by S. 306, L. 2010, effective July 1, 2010. Para 17-20,030.01.

Health Insurance Benefit Coverage Law

Louisiana has enacted a “health care freedom” law declaring that, under the public policy of the state, every person shall be free from government intrusion in choosing (or declining) any mode of securing health insurance coverage, without penalty or threat of penalty. Therefore, regardless of their eligibility for health insurance coverage through an employer or government plan, residents may not be required to obtain or maintain an individual health insurance policy, and the state may not impose a penalty or fee on residents for failure to do so (Act 952 (H. 1474), L. 2010, enacted July 2, 2010, effective August 15, 2010, at LA ¶19-4000).

The state has enacted a law that implements the extended dependent coverage requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Children, including a grandchild in the legal custody of and residing with a grandparent, will be considered dependents of a primary insured or enrollee until age 26, under the provisions of a group health and accident insurance policy or HMO. For group health plans in existence before March 23, 2010, this requirement applies (until January 1, 2014) only if the child is not qualified to enroll in an eligible employer-sponsored health plan. The law also prohibits premium increases based on the addition of a child under age 26; requires application of portability rights in reference to preexisting conditions; and requires health insurers to offer a special enrollment period (Act 912 (H. 244), L. 2010, effective for policies issued or renewed after September 23, 2010, at LA ¶19-4000).

Also reflecting federal health reform legislation, a new law provides that health care plans established through an exchange in Louisiana may not offer coverage for abortion services (Act 941 (H. 1247), L. 2010, enacted and effective July 2, 2010, at LA ¶19-4000).

Louisiana has established requirements for health care coverage of step therapy and fail first protocols, which are processes used to manage prescription drug costs. When insurers restrict the use of medication through such protocols, the prescribing physician must be given access to a clear and convenient process to expeditiously override the restriction. In turn, the insurer must expeditiously consider the override when the physician can demonstrate that the preferred treatment required under the step therapy or fail first protocol has been, or is expected to be, ineffective (Act 884 (S. 421), L. 2010, enacted July 2, 2010, effective for plans issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2011, at LA ¶19-4000).

Health insurance issuers and HMOs in Louisiana may offer voluntary wellness or health improvement programs that provide incentives to encourage or reward participation in the program. Under the law, an insured or enrollee may be required to provide verification that a medical condition makes it unreasonably difficult or medically inadvisable for the individual to participate in the program (Act 280 (H. 821), L. 2010, enacted and effective June 17, 2010, at LA ¶19-4000).

The state has made minor technical corrections to many of its mandated benefit provisions, including those governing dependent coverage, substance abuse treatment, mammograms and colorectal cancer screenings (Act 919 (H. 464), L. 2010, effective January 1, 2011, at LA ¶19-4000).

Unemployment Insurance Law

The current maximum weekly benefit amount in Maine is $359 (ME ¶20-1700).

Child Labor Law

The state’s child labor law has been amended to provide for the issuance of work certificates to youth by the principal of a public or private school, chief executive officer of a charter school, or a person possessing a student services certificate with the authorization of a school's superintendent or chief executive officer (H. 1892, L. 2010, at MO ¶26-1500).

Health Insurance Benefit Coverage Law

A new law in Missouri will require group health plans to cover the diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorders. Coverage is limited to medically necessary treatment ordered by the insured’s treating licensed physician or licensed psychologist, in accordance with a treatment plan. Limits on the number of visits to an autism service provider are generally prohibited. However, coverage for applied behavior analysis is subject to a maximum benefit of $40,000 per calendar year for individuals through 18 years of age (H. 1311, L. 2010, effective for plans delivered or renewed on or after January 1, 2011, at MO ¶26-4000).

Missouri has amended language contained in its dependent coverage mandate for adoptive children. Under the law, health carriers offering health benefit plans, other than Medicaid plans, may not deliver, issue, continue or renew a plan to a Missouri resident on or after January 1, 2011, unless the plan covers adopted children of the insured, subscriber or enrollee on the same basis as other dependents (S. 583, L. 2010, enacted July 13, 2010, effective January 1, 2011, at MO ¶26-4000).

Missouri’s health care freedom law was scheduled for voter approval or rejection at an election held on August 3, 2010. Under the measure: (1) laws or rules may not compel individuals, employers or health care providers to participate in a health care system; (2) individuals and employers may pay directly for lawful health care services, and providers may accept direct payment for such services without penalty or fine; and (3) subject to reasonable and necessary rules that do not substantially limit an individual’s options, the purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems may not be prohibited by law or rule (H. 1764, L. 2010, adopted May 11, 2011, effective when approved by a majority of votes cast, at MO ¶26-4000).

Preemployment Inquiries Law

The Fremont, Nebraska City Council on July 13, 2010, unanimously certified the election results of an immigration ordinance that bans harboring, hiring, or renting homes to illegal immigrants. The petition-driven measure, which passed in a special June 21, 2010, election by a 57-43 percent margin, was to have required city businesses to use the federal government’s E-Verify system to verify the employment eligibility of new hires.

Following the June election, the Nebraska American Civil Liberties Union announced its plans to file suit challenging the ordinance’s constitutionality. Laurel Marsh, executive director of ACLU Nebraska, stated that she believed it violates the supremacy clause of the United States. Marsh argued that two main problems exist with the law: that setting immigration policy is solely a federal function, and that the 14th Amendment guarantees due process to all people in the US, not just citizens.

On July 27, 2010, the Fremont, Nebraska, City Council voted to suspend implementation and enforcement of its immigration ordinance until 14 days after the US District Court for the District of Nebraska rules on motions for preliminary injunction filed by the ACLU and Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. The ordinance was scheduled to take effect July 29, 2010, the same day as Arizona’s controversial immigration enforcement law (S. 1070) was to have taken effect (NE ¶28-9000).

Unemployment Insurance Law

The taxable wage base for Nevada in 2011 will decrease to $26,600, down from the 2010 taxable wage base of $27,000 (NV ¶29-1700).

Health Insurance Benefit Coverage Law

New Hampshire has enacted a law that implements the extended dependent coverage requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). A “dependent child” will mean “a subscriber's child by blood or by law, who is under age 26.” The revised definition applies to dependent coverage requirements for accident and health insurance policies, health services corporations, health maintenance organizations, preferred provider arrangements, and managed care (Ch. 243 (S. 455), L. 2009, effective September 23, 2010, at NH ¶30-4000).

New Hampshire has deleted references to “blanket” health insurance policies in many of its health benefit mandates (Ch. 188 (S. 352), L. 2009, effective August 20, 2010, at NH ¶30-4000).

Minimum Wage Law

The state has clarified the applicability of the state minimum hourly wage to tipped restaurant employees (Ch. 284 (S. 416), L. 2009, enacted July 8, 2010, at NH ¶30-1000).

Preemployment Inquiries Law

Effective September 18, 2010, New Hampshire will require nonpublic schools and public academies to submit a criminal history records check through the division of state police and will permit nonpublic schools to obtain a criminal history records check for selected applicants for employment and selected volunteers (Ch. 318 (H. 1286), L. 2009, enacted July 20, 2010, at NH ¶30-9000).

Workers’ Compensation Law

Effective January 1, 2011, an injured employee shall have the right to have a witness present during an independent medical examination (Ch. 227 (H. 1371), L. 2009, enacted June 28, 2010, at NH ¶30-4300).

Health Insurance Benefit Coverage Law

New Hampshire has postponed the effective date of its Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act until October 1, 2010 (Ch. 307 (S. 119), L. 2009, as amended by Ch. 36 (S. 2105), L. 2010, enacted and effective June 30, 2010, at NJ ¶31-4000).

Disability Law

The Human Rights Law has been amended to insure the protection of individuals with disabilities. Amendments include reasonable modification to common use portions of dwellings and making it an unlawful discriminatory practice to boycott or blacklist or refuse to buy from, sell, to trade with, or otherwise discriminate against any person on the basis of disability (A. 10771, L. 2010, effective July 20, 2010, at NY ¶33-2600).

Human Rights Law

The Human Rights Law was amended to insure the protection of individuals with disabilities. Amendments include reasonable modification to common use portions of dwellings and making it an unlawful discriminatory practice to boycott or blacklist or refuse to buy from, sell to trade with, or otherwise discriminate against any person on the basis of disability. New York Executive Law, Article 15, Sections 291 and 296, as amended by A. 10771, L. 2010, effective July 20, 2010. Paras 33-20,025.001 and 33-20-025.06.

Read IRN                    Read IntelliConnect

Minimum Wage Law

The Nassau County, New York, living wage rate will increase to $14.10 an hour, or $12.50 an hour with health benefits, effective August 1, 2010 (NY ¶33-1000).

The current Suffolk County living wage rates are $10.83 per hour with health benefits provided, and $12.33 per hour if health benefits are not provided (NY ¶33-1000).

New Hire Reporting Law

The state’s new hire reporting law has been amended to require employers to report whether dependent health insurance benefits are available and the date the employee qualifies for the benefits (A. 8952, L. 2009, enacted July 20, 2010, at NY ¶33-1600).

Family Military Leave Law—Topic added.

Ohio Family Military Leave Law—Topic added. Private and public employers, employing 50 or more employees, are required to provide leave to employees who are the parent, spouse, or person with legal custody of a member of the uniformed armed services up to two weeks of unpaid leave when the service member is to be deployed or is injured. Title 59, Chapter 5906, Sections 5906.01 through 5906.99, as enacted by H. 48, L. 2009, effective July 2, 2010. Paras 36-22,451.01 through 36-22,451.04.

Read IRN                    Read IntelliConnect

Read IRN                    Read IntelliConnect

Read IRN                    Read IntelliConnect

COBRA Law

The state’s “mini-COBRA” law has been amended (H. 1251, L. 2009, enacted July 9, 2010, at PA ¶39-4200).

Child Labor Law

Retail dealers of any gasoline or other motor fuel are not prohibited from employing any person who has reached the age of 16 for the purposes of operating any gasoline dispensing device, notwithstanding any other statute, rule or regulation to the contrary (Ch. 226 (H. 7047), L. 2009, enacted and effective June 25, 2010, at RI ¶41-1500).

Unemployment Insurance Law

The maximum weekly benefit amount for temporary disability purposes in Rhode Island effective July 1, 2010, is $700. The minimum weekly benefit amount is $69 (RI ¶41-1700).

Workers’ Compensation Law

The medical review procedure for claimants receiving workers' compensation benefits has been amended. Also, the law voids any contract which restricts a health care provider's ability to make referrals or an injured employee's choice of health care provider, substitutes certain treatment protocols, or attempts to evade the jurisdiction of the workers' compensation court (Ch. 121 (H. 8114) and Ch. 95 (S. 2083), L. 2010, at RI ¶41-4300).

Criminal Background Checks Law

The state has added a requirement that an individual hired to serve in any capacity in a public school district undergo a criminal record search by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division. The district board must adopt a written policy on the criminal record searches, and provide training for appropriate district personnel on the criminal record searches. Each school district must perform a National Sex Offender Registry check on all district employees and on certain volunteers, and must provide training for appropriate district personnel on appropriate uses of the database. Each district board must also adopt a written policy on the sex offender registry check. Title 59, Chapter 19, Section 59-19-117, as enacted by H. 4248, L. 2009, effective May 11, 2010. Para 42-23,600.01.

Unemployment Insurance Law

The South Carolina General Assembly has amended its Code of Laws as follows. Chapters 27 through 41 of Title 41 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina are to be known and cited as the “South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce.” In addition, the Employment Security Commission has been replaced by the Department of Employment and Workforce, which is added to the Executive Branch of state government. The Workforce Investment Act program is transferred from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Employment and Workforce (SC ¶42-1700).

Unemployment Insurance Law

Effective July 4, 2010, the maximum weekly benefit amount in South Dakota is $314. The minimum weekly benefit amount remains $28 (SD ¶43-1700).

Preemployment Inquiries Law

The state has ratified the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact (Act 108 (S. 161), L. 2009, enacted and effective July 1, 2010, at VT ¶47-9000).

Unemployment Insurance Law

The current maximum weekly benefit amount in Vermont effective July 1, 2010, is $425 (VT ¶47-1700).

COBRA Law

The state’s COBRA law has been amended to provide for two specific options for individuals seeking continuation of health coverage upon termination of eligibility (Ch. 503 (H. 315), L. 2010, at VA ¶48-4200).

Leave for Crime Victims Rules—Topic added.

On July 6, 2010, Washington’s Department of Labor and Industries issued final rules with regard to Substitute House Bill 2602 (L. 2008, eff. Apr. 1, 2008), requiring employee leave for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. The rules set forth administrative and civil causes of action for violation of the provisions of the bill, clarify the meaning of terms; and state the scheme of administration and enforcement. WAC Title 296, Chapter 296-135, Sections 296-135-001 through 296-135-210, as adopted effective Sept. 1, 2010. Paras 50-21,100.001 through 50-21,200.21.

Read IRN                    Read IntelliConnect