Category Archives: Washington DC

NEW LAW: DC To Require Sexual Harassment Training for Tipped Employees

Attention DC Employers, on October 23, 2018, the District of Columbia Mayor signed the “Tipped Wage Workers Fairness Amendment Act of 2018.”  While this law repealed Initiative 77 (discussed in NEW LAW – Washington DC Elimination of Tip Credit Repealed) and imposed new posting requirements on all DC employers (discussed in COMING SOON: New Posting Requirements for All DC Employers), the new law also imposes the following new requirements on employers of tipped employees:

Mandatory Sexual Harassment Training For Tipped Employees

Employers will be required to provide sexual harassment training to their tipped employees and managers.  This training must be either through a course developed by the Office of Human Rights (OHR) or from an OHR-certified provider. Continue reading NEW LAW: DC To Require Sexual Harassment Training for Tipped Employees

COMING SOON: New Posting Requirements for All DC Employers

Attention DC Employers, on October 23, 2018, the District of Columbia Mayor signed the “Tipped Wage Workers Fairness Amendment Act of 2018.”  While this new law primarily affects employers of tipped workers, there are two elements of the new law that apply to all DC employers.

Under the new law, the Mayor of DC is required to create a website setting forth employees’ rights and benefits under D.C.’s anti-discrimination and labor laws (including wage and leave laws), and providing resources for consultation.

In addition to this new website, all DC employers will be required to: Continue reading COMING SOON: New Posting Requirements for All DC Employers

NEW LAW – Washington DC Elimination of Tip Credit Repealed

Back in June 2018, Washington DC voters passed Initiative 77, which was intended to gradually eliminate the “tipped employee minimum wage” (or tip credit) by 2026.  That Initiative has officially been repealed.

Earlier this month, the D.C. Council passed a measure to overturn and repeal Initiative 77.  This means that employers in Washington DC will be able to continue paying their tipped employees a lower minimum wage than regular hourly workers.

Currently the tipped minimum wage in Washington DC is $3.89 per hour.  This minimum wage is slated to increase as follows: Continue reading NEW LAW – Washington DC Elimination of Tip Credit Repealed

Is The Minimum Pay Required For Commissioned Employees To Qualify For An Overtime Exemption Increasing In Your State In 2018?

While the minimum pay required for commissioned employees to qualify for an overtime exemption is not changing in 2018, there are several states where the minimum pay requirements for a “commissioned employee overtime exemption” are increasing.

These increases (i.e. in California, Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Washington DC) are occurring because the pay an inside or commissioned salesperson must receive to qualify for the inside or “commissioned” sales exemption (as established under state law) are scheduled to increase in 2018 (December 31st for New York employers).

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), in order for a commissioned salesperson to qualify for the FLSA’s 7(i) overtime exception (Commissioned Salesperson Exemption), the following three conditions must be met:

  1. The employee must be employed by a retail or service establishment, and
  2. The employee’s regular rate of pay must exceed one and one-half times the applicable minimum wage for every hour worked in a workweek in which overtime hours are worked, and
  3. More than half the employee’s total earnings in a representative period must consist of commissions.

Unless all three conditions are met, the Commissioned Salesperson Exemption is not applicable, and overtime premium pay must be paid for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek at time and one-half the regular rate of pay.

The below table sets forth the changes to the minimum salary requirements for exempt employees in these states.  In those instances where the state minimum salary requirements are lower than the above-listed FLSA requirements, the higher salary threshold applies for employers who are subject to FLSA in order for employees to qualify for an exemption under the FLSA. Continue reading Is The Minimum Pay Required For Commissioned Employees To Qualify For An Overtime Exemption Increasing In Your State In 2018?

2018 MINIMUM WAGE CHECK-UP

With various cities and counties having enacted local minimum wages and 18 states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Missouri, New Jersey, New York*, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington) are increasing their own minimum wages on January 1st (December 31st for New York), employers should take time to verify that they are meeting the minimum wage requirements of their state/city/county.

The below chart sets forth the minimum wage effective January 1, 2018.

employer PAYS $1.50/hr towards medical benefits$11.91

Federal $7.25
State City/County  Amount?
Alabama  $7.25
Alaska*  $9.84
Arizona* — all cities/counties except …  $10.50
Flagstaff* $11.00
Arkansas  $8.50
California* — all cities/counties except …                                  small employer (25 or less) $10.50
large employer (26 or more) $11.00
Berkeley  $13.75
Cupertino* $13.50
El Cerrito*  $13.60
Emeryville                                           small employer (55 or less) $14.00
large employer (56 or more) $15.20
Los Altos* $13.50
Los Angeles                                         small employer (25 or less) $10.50
large employer (26 or more) $12.00
Malibu                                                  small employer (25 or less) $10.50
large employer (26 or more) $12.00
Milpitas* $12.00
Mountain View* $15.00
Oakland $12.86
Palo Alto* $13.50
Pasadena                                             small employer (25 or less) $10.50
large employer (26 or more) $12.00
Richmond*                                             employer does NOT pay $1.50/hr towards medical benefits $13.41
employer PAYS $1.50/hr towards medical benefits $11.91
Sacramento*                                      small employer (100 or less) $10.50
large employer (101 or more) $11.00
San Diego $11.50
San Francisco $14.00
San Jose* $13.50
San Leandro $13.00
San Mateo*                                                 For-profit organizations $13.50
Non-profit organizations $12.00
Santa Clara* $13.00
Santa Monica                                       small employer (25 or less) $10.50
large employer (26 or more) $12.00
Sunnyvale* $15.00
Los Angeles County                            small employer (25 or less)

unincorporated areas                            large employer (26 or more)

$10.50

$12.00

Colorado* $10.20
Connecticut $10.10
Delaware $8.25
Florida* $8.25
Georgia $7.25
Hawaii* $10.10
Idaho $7.25
Illinois — all cities/counties except … $8.25
Chicago $11.00
Cook County

(except for the Village of Barrington)

$10.00
Indiana $7.25
Iowa $7.25
Kansas $7.25
Kentucky $7.25
Louisiana $7.25
Maine* — all cities/counties except … $10.00
Portland $10.68
Maryland — all cities/counties except … $9.25
Montgomery County $11.50
Prince George’s County $11.50
Massachusetts $11.00
Michigan* $9.25
Minnesota* — all cities/counties except … “small employers” (employers with an annual sales volume of less than $500,000) $7.87
“large employers” (employers with an annual sales volume of $500,000+) $9.65
Minneapolis                                         large employer (101 or more) $10.00
Mississippi $7.25
Missouri $7.85
Montana* $8.30
Nebraska $9.00
Nevada $8.25
New Hampshire $7.25
New Jersey* $8.60
New Mexico — all cities/counties except … $7.50
Albuquerque*                                             employer provides benefits $7.95
employer does NOT provide benefits $8.95
Las Cruces* $9.45
Santa Fe $11.09
Bernalillo County*unincorporated areas                                             employer provides benefits $7.85
employer does NOT provide benefits $8.85
Santa Fe County unincorporated areas $11.09
New York**  “Upstate” employers (excluding fast food employees) $10.40
“Downstate” employers (excluding fast food employees) $11.00
“Small” NYC employers (excluding fast food employees $12.00
Fast food employees outside NYC $11.75
“Large” NYC employers (excluding fast food employees) $13.00
Fast food employees inside NYC $13.50
North Carolina $7.25
North Dakota $7.25
Ohio* $8.30
Oklahoma $7.25
Oregon — all cities/counties except … $10.25
Portland $11.25
Nonurban Counties 

(Baker, Coos, Crook, Curry, Douglas, Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Jefferson, Klmath, Lake, Malheur, Morrow, Sherman, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa Wheeler counties)

$10.00
Pennsylvania $7.25
Rhode Island* $10.10
South Carolina $7.25
South Dakota* $8.85
Tennessee $7.25
Texas $7.25
Utah $7.25
Vermont* $10.50
Virginia $7.25
Washington* — all cities/counties except … $11.50
City of SeaTac* (hospitality and transportation workers) $15.64
Seattle* $14.00
small employer who does not pay towards medical benefits

(500 or less)

small employer who does pay towards medical benefits

(500 or less)

$11.50
large employer who does not pay towards medical benefits

(501 or more)

$15.00
large employer who does pay towards medical benefits

(501 or more)

$15.45
Tacoma* $12.00
Washington DC $12.50
West Virginia $8.75
Wisconsin $7.25
Wyoming $7.25
 * = increase in minimum wage effective January 1, 2018

** = increase in minimum wage effective December 31, 2017

 

Caveat: Please be advised that this information is being provided as a courtesy and that ePlace Solutions, Inc. does not track local laws and ordinances and will not update this information with changes in local laws and ordinances.

 

 

NEW LAW — Washington DC Universal Paid Leave Act

Earlier this year, the Washington DC Universal Paid Leave Amendment Act was passed into law. Once in effect (July 1, 2020), the new law will require all DC employers, regardless of size, to provide employees with paid leave, including up to eight (8) weeks of family, parental, and/or medical leave each year.

The Act provides Universal Paid Leave for the three following purposes:

  1. Medical Leave: Eligible employees may take up 2 workweeks of leave within a 52-workweek period following the diagnosis of a serious health condition of the employee. Medical leave must be taken within one year of the qualifying medical leave event.
  2. Family Leave: Eligible employees may take up to 6 workweeks of leave within a 52-workweek period to provide care or companionship to a family member because of the diagnosis of a “serious health condition” of an employee’s family member.
  3. Parental Leave: Eligible employees may take up to 8 workweeks of leave within a 52-workweek period to bond with a newborn or a child placed for adoption, foster care, or in loco parentis. Parental leave must be taken within one year of the birth or placement.

Under the Act, the following terms mean:

  • “Covered employer” means virtually all private employers in Washington DC, as there is not a minimum employee threshold for Universal Paid Leave
  • “Eligible employee” means an employee who
    • Spends more than 50 percent of his work time for the covered employer in the District of Columbia
    • Regularly spends a substantial amount of his or her work time for the covered employer in the District of Columbia and not more than 50 percent of his or her work time for the covered employer in another jurisdiction
    • has worked “some or all” of the previous 52 calendar weeks for a covered employer
  • “Serious health condition” has the same meaning as under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act
  • “Family member” means a child (including a biological, adopted, or foster son or daughter; a stepchild; or a legal ward or person to whom the employee stands in loco parentis), a parent (including in-laws, foster parents, guardians, and persons in loco parentis), a spouse or domestic partner, a grandparent, or a sibling

Universal Paid Leave is protected leave to the extent that the leave runs concurrently with DCFMLA. In other words, an employee who works for an employer with fewer than 20 employees is not entitled to job protection if he or she takes Universal Paid Leave because that employee is not eligible for DCFMLA.

Under the law, employees are required to provide their employers with notice regarding their intention to take Universal Paid Leave. Employees are required to provide at least 10 days’ notice when the need for leave is foreseeable and prior to the start of the work shift (if possible) when the leave is unforeseeable.

In addition, employers will be required to provide all employees with notice regarding Universal Paid Leave. The notice must be provided to employees on the following occasions:

  1. upon hire,
  2. annually thereafter, and
  3. each time the employer is aware that leave is needed.

Employers must also post the notice in a conspicuous place within the workplace. The notice, which must be created by the DC mayor, will explain:

  • Employees’ right to paid leave benefits under the Act, and the terms under which such leave may be used;
  • That retaliation by an employer against an employee for requesting, applying for, or using paid leave benefits is prohibited;
  • That an employee who works for an employer with under 20 employees will not be entitled to job protection if he or she decides to take paid leave pursuant to the Act; and
  • That the employee has a right to file a complaint, and the procedures established by the mayor for filing a complaint.

Action Items for DC Employers

DC employers have a bit of time before the new law actually goes into effect. During this “waiting time,” DC employers should review their family and medical leave policies and make necessary revisions that reference and ensure compliance with the Universal Leave Act. Once published, DC employers should review the proposed rules regarding the implementation of Universal Paid Leave. Those employers who employ union employees should also review their collective bargaining agreements and determine if any revisions need to be discussed with the Union to include reference to Universal Paid Leave. Finally, employers should train their HR staff about the new law.

Coming Soon to Washington DC – Paid Family Medical Leave

On February 15, 2017, Washington DC’s Mayor Muriel Bowser announced that she will not veto the Universal Paid Leave Amendment Act of 2016 (Bill 21-415). This means that, following the 30-day congressional review period required by the District of Columbia Home Rule Act and publication in the D.C. Register, this new law will take effect.  However Universal Paid Leave benefits will not be available to DC employees until July 1, 2020.

The mayor has 180 days from the Act’s effective date to issue rules regarding the implementation of Universal Paid Leave. The proposed rules will then be submitted to the D.C. Council for a 45-day review period.

The Act provides Universal Paid Leave for the three following purposes:

  1. Medical Leave: Eligible employees may take up 2 workweeks of leave within a 52-workweek period following the diagnosis of a serious health condition of the employee. Medical leave must be taken within one year of the qualifying medical leave event.
  2. Family Leave: Eligible employees may take up to 6 workweeks of leave within a 52-workweek period to provide care or companionship to a family member because of the diagnosis of a “serious health condition” of an employee’s family member.
  3. Parental Leave: Eligible employees may take up to 8 workweeks of leave within a 52-workweek period to bond with a newborn or a child placed for adoption, foster care, or in loco parentis. Parental leave must be taken within one year of the birth or placement.

Under the Act, the following terms mean:

  • “Covered employer” means virtually all private employers in Washington DC, as there is not a minimum employee threshold for Universal Paid Leave
  • “Eligible employee” means an employee who
    • spends more than 50 percent of his work time for the covered employer in the District of Columbia,
    • regularly spends a substantial amount of his or her work time for the covered employer in the District of Columbia and not more than 50 percent of his or her work time for the covered employer in another jurisdiction, and
    • has worked “some or all” of the previous 52 calendar weeks for a covered employer
  • “Serious health condition” has the same meaning as under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.
  • “Family member” means a child (including a biological, adopted, or foster son or daughter; a stepchild; or a legal ward or person to whom the employee stands in loco parentis), a parent (including in-laws, foster parents, guardians, and persons in loco parentis), a spouse or domestic partner, a grandparent, or a sibling

Universal Paid Leave is protected leave to the extent that the leave runs concurrently with DCFMLA. In other words, an employee who works for an employer with fewer than 20 employees is not entitled to job protection if he or she takes Universal Paid Leave because that employee is not eligible for DCFMLA.

Under the law, employees are required to provide their employers with notice regarding their intention to take Universal Paid Leave. Employees are required to provide at least 10 days’ notice when the need for leave is foreseeable and prior to the start of the work shift (if possible) when the leave is unforeseeable.

In addition, employers will be required to provide all employees with notice regarding Universal Paid Leave. The notice must be provided to employees on the following occasions:

  1. upon hire,
  2. annually thereafter, and
  3. each time the employer is aware that leave is needed.

Employers must also post the notice in a conspicuous place within the workplace. The notice, which must be created by the DC mayor, will explain:

  • Employees’ right to paid leave benefits under the Act, and the terms under which such leave may be used;
  • That retaliation by an employer against an employee for requesting, applying for, or using paid leave benefits is prohibited;
  • That an employee who works for an employer with under 20 employees will not be entitled to job protection if he or she decides to take paid leave pursuant to the Act; and
  • That the employee has a right to file a complaint, and the procedures established by the mayor for filing a complaint.

Action Items for DC Employers

DC employers have a bit of time before the new law actually goes into effect. During this “waiting time,” DC employers should review their family and medical leave policies and make necessary revisions that reference and ensure compliance with the Universal Leave Act. Once published, DC employers should review the proposed rules regarding the implementation of Universal Paid Leave. Those employers who employ union employees should also review their collective bargaining agreements and determine if any revisions need to be discussed with the Union to include reference to Universal Paid Leave. Finally, employers should train their HR staff about the new law.

Coming Soon to Washington DC – New Law Prohibiting Employers from Using Credit Information in Employment Decisions

On February 15, 2017, Washington DC’s Mayor Muriel Bowser signed the “Fair Credit in Employment Amendment Act” into law. This new law prohibits Washington DC employers from using or obtaining a job applicant’s or employee’s credit information for employment purposes. This law is similar to prohibitions in other cities/states, including California, Chicago, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New York City, Oregon, Philadelphia, Vermont, and Washington.

The Fair Credit in Employment Amendment Act amends the Washington DC Human Rights Act and makes it unlawful for an employer to “directly or indirectly require, request, suggest, or cause any employee to submit credit information, or use, accept, refer to, or inquire into an employee’s credit information.”

Under the new law, “credit information” is defined as “any written, oral, or other communication of information bearing on an employee’s creditworthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, or credit history.” The term “inquire” is defined to mean “any direct or indirect conduct intended to gather credit information using any method, including application forms, interviews, and credit history checks.”

There are a few, limited exceptions to this prohibition that apply to private employers. Specifically, the prohibition does not apply:

  • Where an employer is otherwise required by Washington DC law to (a) require any employee to submit credit information or (b) inquire into an employee’s credit information;
  • Where the individual is applying for certain police officer positions;
  • To the Office of the Chief Financial Officer of the District;
  • Where the individual will work in a position that requires possession of a security clearance under District law;
  • To disclosures by District government employees of their credit information to the Board of Ethics and Government Accountability or the Office of the Inspector General, or to the use of such disclosures by those agencies;
  • To financial institutions where the position will involve access to personal financial information; and
  • Where an employer requests or receives credit information pursuant to a lawful subpoena, court order, or law enforcement investigation.

The new law will go into effect after the 30-day congressional review period required by the District of Columbia Home Rule Act and publication in the D.C. Register. In the meantime, it is recommended that employers who use credit reports or other credit information for employment purposes consult with an HR Professional or qualified employment attorney to verify that their use of such information is in compliance with the new law.

Washington DC’s Minimum Wage to Increase July 1, 2017

As reported in earlier articles (“Minimum Wage Increase May Be On The Horizon For DC Employers” and “DC’s Proposed Minimum Wage Increase Includes Tipped Employees“), the United States Congress has approved the previously passed DC legislation (the “Fair Shot Minimum Wage Amendment Act of 2016”), which means that Washington DC’s minimum wage will begin its increase towards $15 per hour on July 1, 2017 in accordance with the following schedule:

Non-Tipped Employees:

  • July 1, 2017 – increases to $12.50 per hour
  • July 1, 2018 – increases to $13.25 per hour
  • July 1, 2019 – increases to $14.00 per hour
  • July 1, 2020 – increases to $15.00 per hour

On July 1, 2021 (and on July 1st of each year thereafter) – The non-tipped employee minimum wage shall be increased in proportion to the annual average increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers in the Washington Metropolitan Statistical Area published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor for the previous calendar year.

Tipped Employees:

  • July 1, 2017 – increases to $3.33 per hour
  • July 1, 2018 – increases to $3.89 per hour
  • July 1, 2019 – increases to $4.45 per hour
  • July 1, 2020 – increases to $5.00 per hour

On July 1, 2021 (and on July 1st of each year thereafter) – The tipped employee minimum wage shall be increased in proportion to the annual average increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers in the Washington Metropolitan Statistical Area published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor for the previous calendar year.

It is recommended that all DC employers start preparing for this increase.

Employer Dos and Don’ts for Elections

In a previous article (Does Your State Require Voting Leave?), we broke down which states require employers to provide employees with time off to vote. In addition to these voting leave laws, many states have other laws in place that regulate what employers can, and more importantly, what an employer cannot do with respect to an election.

Below is a summary of the applicable laws for each state:

Alabama Employers may not:

·         Use coercion (e.g. Threatening to discharge an employee; reducing an employee’s compensation or benefits; punitively changing an employee’s schedule or job description; reducing compensation) to influence an employee’s vote in an election and

·         Seek to examine an employee’s ballot.

Alaska Employer may not threaten to inflict damage, harm, or loss to induce an employee to vote or refrain from voting in an election.
Arizona Employers may not

·         Coerce employees to support (or not) a referendum or recall;

·         Include with employees’ paychecks any statements to influence the political opinions or actions of employees; or

·         Display any notice within 90 days before an election that attempts to influence employees to support (or not) a particular candidate by stating that if a candidate succeeds, there will be consequences in the workplace.

Arkansas Employers may not use threats or efforts to intimidate individuals with respect to whether and how they choose to vote.
California Employers may not

·         Prevent an employee from participating in politics;

·         Direct the political activities or affiliations of an employee; or

·         Threaten to discharge an employee for engaging or refusing to engage in certain political activity.

Colorado Employers may not

·         Threaten to discharge employees because of their political party affiliation;

·         Create or enforce a policy to prevent an employee from participating in politics; or

·         Discharge an employee for voting in an election or advocating for a particular candidate or political viewpoint while off duty.

Connecticut Employers may not discipline or discharge employees for exercising their First Amendment rights.
Delaware Employers may not coerce any employee with respect to his political activity.
Florida Employers may not

·         Discharge or threaten to discharge employees for how they voted in an election.

·         Use coercion to get an employee to register to vote or support a certain candidate.

Georgia Employers may not

·         Coerce employees to support (or not) a recall;

·         Use threats or efforts to intimidate individuals with respect to whether and how they choose to vote.

Hawaii Employers may not use coercion (e.g. Threatening to discharge an employee; reducing an employee’s compensation or benefits; punitively changing an employee’s schedule or job description; reducing compensation) to influence an employee’s vote in an election.
Idaho Employers may not use coercion (e.g. Threatening to discharge an employee; reducing an employee’s compensation or benefits; punitively changing an employee’s schedule or job description; reducing compensation) to influence an employee’s vote in an election.
Illinois Employers may not

·         Use coercion (e.g. Threatening to discharge an employee; reducing an employee’s compensation or benefits; punitively changing an employee’s schedule or job description; reducing compensation) to influence an employee’s vote in an election

·         Keep records relating to employees’ off-duty political activities, unless the employee gives authorization and/or provides those records to the employer

·         Punish an employee for his off-duty use of “lawful products” (which could include comments made on social media).

Indiana Employers may not

·         Coerce employees to support (or not) a referendum or recall;

·         Include with employees’ paychecks any statements to influence the political opinions or actions of employees; or

·         Attempt to influence employees to support (or not) a particular candidate by stating that if a candidate succeeds, there will be consequences in the workplace.

Iowa Employers may not use coercion to get an employee to register to vote, to support a certain candidate, or to sign a petition.
Kansas Employers may not coerce any employee with respect to his political activity.
Kentucky Employers may not

·         Use coercion (e.g. Threatening to discharge an employee; reducing an employee’s compensation or benefits; punitively changing an employee’s schedule or job description; reducing compensation) to influence an employee’s vote in an election

·         Distribute any materials stating that employees are expected to vote for a particular candidate; or

·         Attempt to induce employees to vote a certain way in a state election.

Louisiana Employers may not

·         Threaten to discharge employees or otherwise intimidate employees because of their political party affiliation;

·         Allow an employee’s political contributions to affect his employment (including compensation)

Employers with 20+ employees may not

·         Prevent employees from participating in politics;

·         Control employees’ political activities or affiliations; or

·         Threaten to discharge employees if they support certain political parties or activities

 

Maine No laws relating to politics in the workplace
Maryland Employers may not

·         Influence employees’ voting activity through intimidation or bribery;

·         Include with employees’ paychecks any statements to influence the political opinions or actions of employees; or

·         Display any notice within 90 days before an election that attempts to influence employees to support (or not) a particular candidate by stating that if a candidate succeeds, there will be consequences in the workplace

Massachusetts Employers may not coerce any employee with respect to his political activity.
Michigan Employers may not

·         Use coercion (e.g. Threatening to discharge an employee; reducing an employee’s compensation or benefits; punitively changing an employee’s schedule or job description; reducing compensation) to influence an employee’s vote in an election

·         Keep records relating to employees’ off-duty political activities, unless the employee gives authorization and/or provides those records to the employer or the records pertain to activities that took place at work

Minnesota Employers may not coerce any employee with respect to his political activity.
Mississippi Employers may not interfere with the political rights of employees.
Missouri Employers may not

·         Coerce any employee with respect to his or her political activity or

·         Prevent employees from engaging in political activities.

Montana Employers may not coerce any employee with respect to his political activity.
Nebraska Employers may not

·         Coerce any employee with respect to his political activity or

·         Close the business as a result of election results.

Nevada Employers may not

·         Prohibit employees from engaging in politics or serving in public office

·         Punish an employee for his off-duty use of “lawful products” (which could include comments made on social media).

New Hampshire Employers may not coerce any employee with respect to his political activity.
New Jersey Employers may not

·         Coerce any employee with respect to his political activity;

·         Include with employees’ paychecks any statements to influence the political opinions or actions of employees;

·         Display any notice within 90 days before an election that attempts to influence employees to support (or not) a particular candidate by stating that if a candidate succeeds, there will be consequences in the workplace; or

·         Require employees to attend employer-sponsored political meetings.

New Mexico Employers may not coerce any employee with respect to his political activity.
New York Employers may not punish an employee for his off-duty political activities.
North Carolina Employers may not

·         Coerce any employee with respect to his political activity;

·         Punish an employee for his off-duty use of “lawful products” (which could include comments made on social media).

North Dakota Employers may not punish an employee for his off-duty political activities.
Ohio Employers may not

·         Coerce any employee with respect to his political activity; or

·         Attempt to influence an employee’s political beliefs.

Oklahoma Employers may not coerce any employee with respect to his political activity.
Oregon Employers may not coerce any employee with respect to his political activity.
Pennsylvania Employers may not

·         Coerce any employee with respect to his political activity;

·         Include with employees’ paychecks any statements to influence the political opinions or actions of employees; or

·         Display any notice within 90 days before an election that attempts to influence employees to support (or not) a particular candidate by stating that if a candidate succeeds, there will be consequences in the workplace.

Rhode Island Employers may not

·         Coerce any employee with respect to his political activity;

·         Include with employees’ paychecks any statements to influence the political opinions or actions of employees; or

·         Display any notice within 90 days before an election that attempts to influence employees to support (or not) a particular candidate by stating that if a candidate succeeds, there will be consequences in the workplace.

South Carolina Employers may not coerce any employee with respect to his political activity.
South Dakota Employers may not

·         Coerce any employee with respect to his political activity;

·         Include with employees’ paychecks any statements to influence the political opinions or actions of employees; or

·         Display any notice within 90 days before an election that attempts to influence employees to support (or not) a particular candidate by stating that if a candidate succeeds, there will be consequences in the workplace.

Tennessee Employers may not

·         Coerce any employee with respect to his political activity;

·         Distribute materials intended to coerce employees to vote in a certain way

Texas Employers may not coerce any employee with respect to his political activity.
Utah Employers may not

·         Coerce any employee with respect to his political activity;

·         Include with employees’ paychecks any statements to influence the political opinions or actions of employees; or

·         Display any notice within 90 days before an election that attempts to influence employees to support (or not) a particular candidate by stating that if a candidate succeeds, there will be consequences in the workplace.

Vermont Employers may not coerce any employee with respect to his political activity.
Virginia Employers may not

·         Require employees to donate money to political action committees as a condition of employment; or

·         Coerce any employee with respect to his political activity.

Washington Employers may not

·         Interfere with an employee’s efforts to support or oppose a political effort

·         Use payroll contributions or salary increases for the purposes of funding political activities; or

·         Coerce any employee with respect to his political activity.

Washington DC Employers may not coerce any employee with respect to his political activity.
West Virginia Employers may not

·         Require employees to donate money to political action committees as a condition of employment; or

·         Influence employees to support (or not) a particular candidate by stating that if a candidate succeeds, there will be consequences in the workplace.

Wisconsin Employers may not

·         Coerce any employee with respect to his political activity; or

·         Influence employees to support (or not) a particular candidate by stating that if a candidate succeeds, there will be consequences in the workplace.

Wyoming Employers may not coerce any employee with respect to his political activity.