Enacts the "faithless servant reform act", creating a rebuttable presumption of retaliation or discrimination for certain actions of an employer; provides that the employer maintains the burden of proof in certain actions against an employee; limits an employer's remedy of forfeiture against an employee's compensation.
Impact
If passed, S07776 will significantly amend the existing labor laws by defining the conditions under which an employer can claim forfeiture of unpaid wages and benefits. It limits the employer's remedy to only those instances where the employee's actions directly impair the employer's business, such as unfair competition or acceptance of improper kickbacks. Additionally, the bill mandates that such forfeiture cannot include minimum wage or overtime payments, thereby ensuring that employees retain their essential rights to fair compensation.
Summary
Bill S07776, known as the 'Faithless Servant Reform Act,' is designed to safeguard employees from retaliatory actions taken by employers in the context of employment disputes. It aims to create a rebuttable presumption of retaliation when an employer attempts to file a claim of disloyalty against an employee who asserts a claim for unpaid wages. The bill also places the burden of proof on the employer, stipulating that they must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the employee's conduct justified any claims of forfeiture of compensation.
Contention
Notable points of contention surrounding this bill stem from its implications on employer-employee relationships and the balance of power in employment disputes. Supporters argue that this legislation is necessary to protect employees from unjust attempts by employers to retaliate against them for voicing concerns about wage issues. On the other hand, critics may view it as potentially too restrictive on employers' rights to address perceived employee disloyalty, fearing that it may lead to unintended consequences in managing workplace behavior.
Implementation
To implement S07776 successfully, the law would need to be integrated into existing labor and executive regulations, affecting how claims of discrimination and retaliation are adjudicated. Its passage could set a precedent for stronger protections against employer retaliation, which may prompt further legislative discussions on the nature of employee rights and employer responsibilities in the state.
Same As
Enacts the "faithless servant reform act", creating a rebuttable presumption of retaliation or discrimination for certain actions of an employer; provides that the employer maintains the burden of proof in certain actions against an employee; limits an employer's remedy of forfeiture against an employee's compensation.
Prohibits agreements between employers that directly restrict the current or future employment of any employee; allows for a cause of action against employers who engage in such agreements.
Prohibits agreements between employers that directly restrict the current or future employment of any employee; allows for a cause of action against employers who engage in such agreements.
Provides protection to employees and former employees from retaliatory actions by employers for the reporting of illegal or dangerous business activities.
Enacts provisions providing protection to employees from retaliatory actions by employers where such employees report improper business activities; applicable to employees who in good faith reasonably believe that an improper business activity has or will occur, based on information that the employees reasonably believe to be true; provides remedies and relief.
Prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for confronting an individual to prevent a theft or the unlawful taking of goods, wares, or merchandise; does not prohibit employers from training or re-training employees on policies against confrontation of theft.
Prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for confronting an individual to prevent a theft or the unlawful taking of goods, wares, or merchandise; does not prohibit employers from training or re-training employees on policies against confrontation of theft.
Allows for department of motor vehicles employees to employ an attorney-at-law to defend against certain civil actions; limits the basis for removal of such employees.
Allows for department of motor vehicles employees to employ an attorney-at-law to defend against certain civil actions; limits the basis for removal of such employees.
Requiring a criminal conviction for civil asset forfeiture and proof beyond a reasonable doubt that property is subject to forfeiture, remitting proceeds to the state general fund and requiring law enforcement agencies to make forfeiture reports more frequently.
Requiring a criminal conviction for civil asset forfeiture and proof beyond a reasonable doubt that property is subject to forfeiture, remitting proceeds to the state general fund and requiring law enforcement agencies to make forfeiture reports more frequently.
Requiring a criminal conviction for civil asset forfeiture, remitting proceeds from civil asset forfeiture to the state general fund, increasing the burden of proof required to forfeit property, making certain property ineligible for forfeiture, providing persons involved in forfeiture proceedings representation by counsel and the ability to demand a jury trial and allowing a person to request a hearing on whether forfeiture is excessive.
Specifying that certain drug offenses do not give rise to forfeiture under the Kansas standard asset seizure and forfeiture act, providing limitations on state and local law enforcement agency requests for federal adoption of a seizure under the act, requiring probable cause affidavit filing and review to commence forfeiture proceedings, increasing the burden of proof required to forfeit property to clear and convincing evidence, authorizing courts to order payment of attorney fees and costs for certain claimants and requiring the Kansas bureau of investigation to submit forfeiture fund financial reports to the legislature.
Specifying that certain drug offenses do not give rise to forfeiture under the Kansas standard asset seizure and forfeiture act, requiring courts to make a finding that forfeiture is not excessive, restricting actions prior to commencement of forfeiture proceedings, requiring probable cause affidavit filing and review to commence proceedings, increasing the burden of proof required to forfeit property to clear and convincing evidence and authorizing courts to order payment of attorney fees and costs for certain claimants.