From California to Indiana, new employment legislation has passed and is pending. Within the past few months San Francisco has enacted a ban on asking a job applicant what their salary history is, while it is likely that the state of Oregon will soon be reducing the penalties for the possession of drugs like heroin, cocaine and meth. Ultimately, you’re going to want to keep your eyes peeled on these new employment laws.
As of June 9th, 2017, Washington property owners and property management companies that rely on tenant screening to vet their rental applicants will need to adhere to a new law. Passed on March 29th, Washington’s SB 6413 makes it the property owner’s (or property management company’s) responsibility to provide notice before performing tenant screening on an applicant. Although the bill makes it clear what language the notice needs to have, alongside other regulations, the application of this bill has been up to debate.
The Residential Landlord-Tenant Act (RLTA) already requires property owners to notify the applicant in writing:
**UPDATE 12/2/16: On December 1 (the day on which the new salary level was supposed to become effective) the Department of Justice and Department of Labor filed a notice of appeal from the district court’s order granting a preliminary injunction. The notice was filed around the same time that a number of members of Congress held a media event in support of the increased salary level. According to Seyfarth Shaw LLP, at this time, it does not appear that the government has sought a stay of the preliminary injunction. Subscribe for continued updates**
Late Tuesday afternoon, Judge Amos Mazzant of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued an order enjoining the U.S. Department of Labor’s implementation and enforcement of the new overtime exemption rules that were set to go into effect on December 1, 2016. The court granted a motion for preliminary injunction filed by the attorneys general of 22 states, in which the states argued among other things that the new rules were unlawfully promulgated and would be likely to cause irreparable harm to the states that requested the injunction. The court also considered amicus arguments made by various chambers of commerce and trade associations, which filed a companion case asserting similar and separate grounds for overturning the DOL’s new rules. Although the court’s order leaves some room for confusion on this point, it appears to apply to all public and private sector employers nationwide.