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
This legislation marks a significant change in labor law within the state, reinforcing the rights of employees and imposing stricter limitations on the remedies available to employers concerning compensation forfeiture. Specifically, the act delineates that forfeiture can only pertain to wages for periods during which alleged disloyal conduct occurred. Importantly, it explicitly excludes deductions from minimum wage or overtime pay, thereby safeguarding workers from losing their basic earnings. By doing so, A08336 aims to protect employees from punitive actions that might have been unjustified or retaliatory in nature.
Summary
Assembly Bill A08336, known as the 'Faithless Servant Reform Act', primarily aims to enhance employee protections against employer retaliation in employment disputes. The act introduces a rebuttable presumption that any attempt by an employer to claim forfeiture of wages or benefits due to alleged employee disloyalty is retaliatory. Furthermore, the bill places the burden of proof on employers, requiring them to demonstrate through clear and convincing evidence that the employee's actions were egregious enough to negate the fundamental purpose of the employment relationship.
Contention
While proponents of A08336 argue it will foster a fairer working environment by disincentivizing wrongful retaliatory practices, critics may see it as a potential hindrance to legitimate business interests. Concerns have been raised that the rebuttable presumption could lead to an imbalance in employment relationships, wherein genuine claims of employee misconduct could become more challenging for employers to substantiate. The balance between protecting employees and allowing employers to enforce legitimate business interests remains a significant point of contention in the discussions surrounding the bill.
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.
Provides protection to employees and former employees from retaliatory actions by employers for the reporting of illegal or dangerous business activities.
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.
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.