March 2021

Since the start of pandemic, our courts have rendered a number of decisions regarding the impact of COVID-19 and whether it constitutes superior force (commonly known as “force majeure” ) for the purposes of limiting liability. In particular, we can think of numerous cases in real estate law, whereby lessees and owners looked to the

Depuis le début de la pandémie, nos tribunaux ont rendu plusieurs décisions concernant l’incidence de la COVID-19 et la question de savoir si elle constitue un événement de force majeure aux fins de la limitation de la responsabilité. On peut notamment penser aux nombreux cas, dans le domaine du droit immobilier, où des locataires et

The latest COVID-relief bill, the American Rescue Plan Act, will allow most current and former employees and their dependents to receive fully subsidized COBRA continuation coverage beginning April 1 and continuing through September 30, 2021—even if they never elected COBRA or dropped coverage. To learn more about what employers with group health plans subject to

It is difficult to imagine that the evil of human trafficking, and all the pain and suffering it entails, can still be so pervasive this deep into the 21st Century. One would have expected that contemporary domestic and international law enforcement, to say nothing of the United Nations and all the monies it has at its disposal for such purposes, would serve as a resolute bulwark against this scourge of modern humanity. And yet it is a dominant player in the headlines as we learn daily of some new outrage perpetrated by those who would profit from human misery, sexual abuse, prostitution, illegal narcotics distribution, and other criminal enterprises.

There is a particularly scurrilous, often unrecognized activity within this umbrella of behavior that gets little attention and yet may be among the most pervasive—the grooming by US domiciliaries (whether or not citizens) of young, poor and often undereducated foreign nationals—from Asia, Central and South America, Eastern Europe and Africa­—to serve as household servants under the guise of promising adoption, education, employment and other illusory opportunities in the United States. Indeed, in conjunction with our public service law colleagues, we are representing such individuals in pro bono civil litigation against their captors in efforts to obtain both just compensation for the services rendered (routinely denied them), the restoration of their passports (typically taken from them), and the opportunity to be freed from what amounts to indentured servitude.

These situations exist among us, in our own neighborhoods, in the most unsuspected of places.  The law provides us with robust means of rooting them out and remedying the situation.

California Wage Order 15

We write today about the application of California Department of Industrial Relations Wage Order 15 (codified at 8 Cal. Code Regs. § 11150) to this “household occupations” circumstance. Subject to certain well-articulated (and largely inapplicable) exceptions, Wage Order 15 addresses the necessary minimum wages and employment times and conditions (e.g., meal and rest periods; facilities) to be afforded those working in the home environment. These include prospective deductions for meals and lodging provided to the worker.

The typical situation we address in this context concerns a young man or woman brought to the United States from their home country by a “patron” who has perhaps promised to adopt them and otherwise provide for their education, sustenance, housing, and employment in America.  Some victims might be requested to lie about their age and status (claiming to be an “orphan” even if one or both parents are alive) in order to ease any “adoption” process. Once in the United States, however, the relationship changes dramatically. The patron seizes the victim’s passport and enslaves the victim in the patron’s or another’s home to serve as a virtual around-the-clock servant, often without pay and perhaps even charging “rent” for the provision of room and board.

In cynical efforts to avoid the requirements of Wage Order 15, the patron may claim that the Order, by its terms, does not apply to legally adopted children (8 Cal. Code Regs. § 11150 (1)(C)) and/or that the victim is serving as a “personal attendant” to the patron’s elderly or infirm family member (8 Cal. Code Regs. § 11150 (1)(B)). The realities of the situation demonstrate, however, that neither avenue is availing.

In a recent decision – Centre de services scolaire du Lac-Témiscamingue et Syndicat de l’enseignement de l’Ungava et de l’Abitibi-Témiscamingue, 2020 QCTA 641, an arbitrator was called upon to determine if a school board’s requirement that teachers undertake a dual teaching system of simultaneous in-person and online learning was contrary to their right to privacy

Dans une décision récente, un arbitre de griefs a précisé les droits et obligations des employeurs québécois en matière de télétravail. Cette décision fait suite à celle qu’il a rendue l’automne dernier dans laquelle il a rejeté la demande d’ordonnance de sauvegarde du Syndicat des fonctionnaires municipaux de Québec (le Syndicat) visant à forcer