Tag: contractors

NLRB’s Proposed New Joint Employer Rule: What to Do Now to Manage the Risk

On September 7, 2022, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would, if adopted, make it much easier for the NLRB to find a company to be a “joint employer” of persons directly employed by its contractors, vendors, suppliers and franchisees. The consequences of a joint employer finding are significant and can lead to: liability for unfair practices committed by the direct employer; a duty to bargain with a union representing the direct employer’s employees; exposure to liability for one’s own conduct that fails to take into account the indirect employer relationship and spread of a union from the direct employer’s employees to the indirect employer.

Joint-employer theory creates far more risk for employers than related doctrines such as single employer or alter ego because, unlike those theories, joint employer status does not require any common ownership or corporate control. Two companies operating entirely at arm’s length can be found joint employers.

The major proposed change relates to the degree of influence that an indirect employer must have to justify a finding of single employer status. Under the current NLRB standard, the indirect employer must actually exercise “immediate and direct” control over key terms of employment, normally limited to wages, benefits, hours and termination.

The proposed rule relaxes that standard in three key ways. First, it eliminates the actually exercise requirement and states that possession of even unused authority can be sufficient.

Second, it does away with the immediate and direct requirement so that influence exercised by the indirect employer through the direct employer can be used to support a finding.

Third, it expands, beyond the list enumerated in the current rule, the types of employment terms control of which will justify a finding of joint employer status. The Obama Board had adopted the currently proposed standard by an NLRB decision, Browning-Ferris Inds. 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015). However, that decision was overturned by the Trump Board’s adoption of the current rule, 85 FR 11184, codified at 29 CFR 103.40, (Feb. 26, 2020). The proposed rule seeks to reinstate Browning-Ferrisas the governing law.

Because Browning-Ferrisand the NPRM endorse pre-1984 NLRB decisions regarding joint employer status, those decisions provide guidance for how the new rule may be enforced. The NLRB and courts frequently relied on what authority was given to the alleged indirect employer in its agreement with the contractor or vendor. Clauses that required or allowed the indirect employer to approve hirings, terminations or wage adjustments to contractor employees usually resulted in finding joint employer status. In addition, cost-plus arrangements, particularly those that were terminable on short notice were often found to support a joint employer finding. Finally, clauses allowing the indirect employer to set work schedules, production rates, or requiring contractor employees to abide by the indirect employer’s work rules and other policies governing conduct also were found supportive of joint employer status.

The proposed rule is still subject to comment and revision, but it is likely to be adopted without significant change. The comment and review period, which closes on November 21, 2022, provides a window in which savvy employers can assess the risks to their organization when the Rule goes into effect. A key step is to examine existing contractual relationships with vendors to identify and modify those terms that may potentially support joint employer status, or, if modification is untenable, to manage the risk through indemnity agreements with the vendor.

Article By Ahmad Chehab and Robert T. Zielinski of Miller Canfield
© 2022 Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone PLC

The COVID-19 Change Order

During the pandemic it has become common for contractors to submit change orders to owners seeking reimbursement for COVID-19 related expenses and costs.  This is especially true for large construction projects.  These “COVID-19 Change Orders” seek reimbursement for everything from masks, dividers, hand sanitizer and other items required to follow and implement CDC guidelines (or to comply with state and local orders) for maintaining a safe work environment.  COVID-19 Change Orders also seek reimbursement for extended general conditions caused by having less workers on site because of social distancing requirements, lost time caused by shorter working hours, and lost time associated with CDC mandated hygiene breaks and temperature checks. On larger projects, COVID-19 Change Orders can escalate into millions of dollars and are often submitted without warning towards the end of a project when final completion and the payment of retainage are approaching.

For owners and contractors that are trying to complete their projects, many of which have been delayed or suffered from cost overruns, these unexpected COVID-19 Change Orders can be very problematic and hard to navigate.  Owners will argue that increased costs associated with the pandemic have affected all businesses, not just contractors.  Contractors will respond that these are real costs that they must pay to operate.  Often, the justification for reimbursement is not black and white because it is hard to find a specific contractual provision that addresses such an unprecedented situation, which causes uncertainty and strained relations between owners and contractors at the end of a project.

The justifications asserted for COVID-19 Change Orders vary from project to project and are sometimes asserted as an event of force majeure or more commonly as a general change in site conditions.  While many force majeure clauses expressly apply to acts of God, pandemics and government shutdowns, that is not the end of analyzing whether the clause applies.  While the application of a force majeure clause to these situations is highly dependent on the wording of such a clause, most require that performance be completely prevented and do not recognize commercial impracticability as a justification for delay.  There were a small number of projects that were shut down at the beginning of the pandemic by state and local orders in stricter jurisdictions, but for the most part complete shutdowns were uncommon because of various exceptions to such orders for businesses broadly defined as “essential.”  As the pandemic extended through late 2020, and into 2021, shutdowns became non-existent.  Finally, many force majeure clauses don’t allow for the reimbursement of costs for implementing required protective measures, they simply allow for an extension of the contract time.

As a result, many contractors have turned to other contractual provisions, such as language related to changes in site conditions or clauses related to change orders in general.  But prior to the pandemic these provisions were not drafted with this circumstance (a virus) in mind.  Instead, they usually apply to changes in “physical” conditions at the site that are specifically described, like subsurface conditions, otherwise concealed physical conditions or hazardous materials found at the site.   Making the argument that a virus is an unknown “physical” condition at the site can be a challenge since the virus is airborne, not necessarily part of the site itself and not unique to the site.  In addition, because many of these clauses require the approval of the owner or are only triggered by specific conditions, they may not support a unilateral change order.

Because of the ambiguity surrounding COVID-19 Change Orders, many owners will initially be reluctant to cover such reimbursements for their contractors.  Aside from the specific language in their construction contracts, Owners should consider other factors when deciding whether to reject, accept or partially accept COVID-19 Change Orders, including the risk of strained relations with its contractor, distractions at the project and the costs of a potential dispute with its contractor.  If there are remaining construction contingency funds available, and the project has otherwise run smoothly, the owner should consider offering all or part of it at the end of the project to avoid a dispute.  Likewise, contractors should be thoughtful and thorough when deciding whether to seek reimbursement for project costs associated with COVID-19, and make sure the costs at issue were necessary and can be verified.  Finally, if the contractor received government loans or payments because of the pandemic, including funds from the Paycheck Protection Program, it should strongly consider not seeking reimbursement from the owner.

Article By Richard F. Whiteley, Phillip L. Sampson Jr., and Stacianne M. Wilson of Bracewell LLP

For more coronavirus legal news updates, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Bracewell LLP

DOL Publishes Final Rule Implementing President Biden’s $15 Federal Contractor Minimum Wage Executive Order 14026

The Department of Labor (DOL) has published its Final Rule implementing President Biden’s April 27, 2021, Executive Order 14026 raising the minimum wage from $10.95 an hour to $15 an hour (with increases to be published annually). The new wage rate will take effect January 30, 2022, though as discussed below, the rate increases will not be applied to contracts automatically on that date.

The Final Rule is substantially similar to the DOL’s proposed Notice of Rulemaking issued in July 2021 and is more expansive in coverage than the current federal contractor minimum wage requirements in effect under former President Obama’s Executive Order 13658.

$15 Wage Rate Does Not Apply to All Federal Contractors, All Federal Contracts, or All Workers

Covered Contracts

The $15 wage rate will apply to workers on four specific types of federal contracts that are performed in the U.S. (including the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and certain U.S. territories):

  • Procurement contracts for construction covered by the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA), but not the Davis-Bacon Related Acts
  • Service Contract Act (SCA) covered contracts
  • Concessions contracts – meaning a contract under which the federal government grants a right to use federal property, including land or facilities, for furnishing services. The term “concessions contract” includes, but is not limited to, a contract the principal purpose of which is to furnish food, lodging, automobile fuel, souvenirs, newspaper stands, or recreational equipment, regardless of whether the services are of direct benefit to the government, its personnel, or the general public
  • Contracts related to federal property and the offering of services to the general public, federal employees, and their dependents

The Executive Order does not apply to contracts or other funding instruments, including:

  • Contracts for the manufacturing or furnishing of materials, supplies, articles, or equipment to the federal government
  • Grants
  • Contracts or agreements with Indian Tribes under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
  • Contracts excluded from coverage under the SCA or DBA and specifically excluded in the implementing regulations and
  • Other contracts specifically excluded (See NPRM Section 23.40)

Effective Date; Definition of “New” Contracts Expanded

The Final Rule specifies that the wage requirement will apply to new contracts and contract solicitations as of January 30, 2022. Despite the “new contract” limitation, the regulations, consistent with the language of the Biden Executive Order, strongly encourage federal agencies to require the $15 wage for all existing contracts and solicitations issued between the date of the Executive Order and the effective date of January 30, 2022.

Similarly, agencies are “strongly encouraged” to require the new wage where they have issued a solicitation before the effective date and entered into a new contract resulting from the solicitation within 60 days of such effective date.

Pursuant to the Final Rule, the new minimum wage will apply to new contracts; new contract-like instruments; new solicitations; extensions or renewals of existing contracts or contract-like instruments; and exercises of options on existing contracts or contract-like instruments on or after January 30, 2022.

Geographic Limitations Expanded

The Final Rule applies coverage to workers outside the 50 states and expands the definition of “United States” to include the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Outer Continental Shelf lands as defined in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Wake Island, and Johnston Island.

Workers Performing Work “On or In Connection With” a Covered Contract

Only workers who are non-exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act and performing work on or in connection with a covered contract must be paid $15 per hour. The wage requirement applies only to hours worked on or in connection with a covered contract.

A worker performs “on” a contract if the worker directly performs the specific services called for by the contract. A worker performs “in connection with” a contract if the worker’s work activities are necessary to the performance of a contract but are not the specific services called for by the contract.

The Final Rule includes a “less-than-20% exception” for those workers who only perform work “in connection with” a covered contract, but do not perform any direct work on the contract. For workers who spend less than 20% of their hours in a workweek working indirectly in connection with a covered contract, the contractor need not pay the $15 wage for any hours for that workweek.

Tipped Employees

Under the Final Rule, DOL is phasing out lower wages and tip credits for tipped employees on covered contracts. Employers must pay tipped employees $10.50 per hour in 2022 and increase those wages incrementally, under a proposed formula in the NPRM. Beginning in 2024, tipped employees must receive the full federal contractor wage rate.

$15 Wage Contract Clause Requirements, Enforcement Obligations

The Final Rule provides that a Minimum Wage contract clause will appear in covered prime contracts, except that procurement contracts subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) will include an applicable FAR Clause (to be issued by the Federal Acquisition Regulation Council) providing notice of the wage requirement.

In addition, covered prime contractors and subcontractors must include the Contract Clause in covered subcontracts and, as will be in the applicable FAR Clause, procurement prime contractors and subcontractors will be required to include the FAR clause in covered subcontracts.

In addition, the Final Rule provides that contractors and subcontractors:

“… shall require, as a condition of payment, that the subcontractor include the minimum wage contract clause in any lower-tier subcontracts … [and] shall be responsible for the compliance by any subcontractor or lower-tier subcontractor with the Executive Order minimum wage requirements, whether or not the contract clause was included in the subcontract.”

The DOL will investigate complaints and enforce the requirements but under the Final Rule, contracting agencies may also enforce the minimum wage requirements and take actions including contract termination, suspension and debarment for violations.

Preparation for the $15 wage

To prepare, contractors and subcontractors of covered contracts should consider taking the following steps:

  • Review existing multi-year contracts with options or extensions that may be exercised on or after January 30, 2022, to plan for wage increases at the exercise of the option or extension, but also review any contract modifications to see if an agency is including the requirement early than required, as is allowed under the Final Rule
  • Identify job titles that typically perform work directly on covered contracts and those that perform indirect work above 20% in a workweek
  • Plan for wage increases for covered workers who are not already making $15 per hour
  • Determine impact on existing collective bargaining agreements particularly on SCA-covered contracts
  • Prepare for submission of price/equitable adjustments based on wage increases if allowed under the contract terms

Article By Leslie A. Stout-Tabackman of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more labor and employment legal news, read more at the National Law Review.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2021

EEOC Proposes Rule Requiring Employers to Disclose Pay Data on EEO-1 Forms and Key Recent Pro-Employee Changes in New York State’s and New York City’s Employment Laws and Regulations

EEOC EEO-1 Form Pay Data Requirement Raises Risks for Management

In a proposed regulation announced on January 29, 2015, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission set forth changes that would require federal contractors and all other private-sector employers throughout the nation of more than 100 employees to report wage and salary data on their annual EEO-1 Forms. This new rule would mandate that such employers disclose compensation ranges and hours worked on their EEO-1 Forms, which already must contain data on employees’ gender, ethnicity, and race.

The Commission’s plans to require management to submit this data is part of the Obama Administration’s aggressive efforts to enforce the federal Equal Pay Act and other fair employment statutes and to promote pay equity in the workplace. Complying with the new regulation would require employers to spend substantial additional time and resources in gathering compensation information, which often involves many variables, and then organizing it into the format that the EEOC will mandate. Reporting this data to the EEOC would give the U.S. Government data without context and may lead to burdensome Commission investigations and enforcement actions based on misunderstandings of incomplete compensation information. Further, even though EEO-1 data enjoys some protections, the confidential status of employers’compensation information will now be vulnerable either to Freedom of Information Act requests or to kind of hacking attacks to which the federal government, with its antiquated IT systems in agencies such as the EEOC, has already suffered.

In sum, employers in New Jersey, New York, and around the country would become subject to higher EEOC scrutiny of their payroll practices, would face more Commission inquiries and litigations, would have to expend additional resources to complete EEO-1 Forms, and would need to live with a higher risk that their competitors will be able to obtain the confidential compensation data that the new rule would require management to submit each year to the EEOC.

Key Pro-Employee Changes in New York State and New York City Employment Laws and Regulations

New York State and New York City made significant changes in their labor and employment laws and regulations last year and this month. The NYS Legislature enacted, and Governor Cuomo signed, key revisions to laws that affect management throughout New York State. Mayor de Blasio and the City Council expanded local laws that further burden employers in the City. These important developments include:

A. New York State Women’s Equality Agenda

The Women’s Equality Agenda that went into effect on January 19, 2016 significantly amended New York State’s sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and equal pay laws to afford women greater protection in the workplace. These new statutes promoting gender equality in New York State include provisions that:

1. Amend New York State’s Equal Pay Act to require that an employer which pays lower wages to women than to men, for a job of equal skill, effort, and responsibility, demonstrate that such disparity is due to a bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience, and that the difference in pay is job related and consistent with business necessity.

2. Make it unlawful for employers, in general, to prohibit employees from discussing or disclosing their wages — a new provision which affects both women and men.

3. Significantly increase the penalties for New York State Equal Pay Act violations by allowing employees to recover liquidated damages of three times (300%) the unlawfully unpaid wages, in addition to making the employee whole by requiring payment of the unpaid wages.

4. Allow a court to award attorneys’ fees to a prevailing plaintiff in sexual harassment and other sex discrimination actions.

5. Add familial status as a protected class under the New York State Human Rights Law. This new provision applies equally to men and women who are parents or guardians.

6. Expand the New York State Human Rights Law’s coverage of sexual harassment claims to all employers, including employers of from one to three employees who were not previously covered.

7. Require employers to provide reasonable accommodation for pregnancy-related medical conditions.

B. New NYS and NYC Protections for Transgender Individuals

1. Earlier this month, the New York State Division of Human Rights adopted regulations that make discrimination on the basis of a person being transgender unlawful under the New York State Human Rights Law. These regulations also prohibit harassment of transgender persons and require New York employers to reasonably accommodate employees who have been diagnosed with a “gender dysphoria” medical condition.

2. On December 21, 2015, the New York City Commission on Human Rights issued new enforcement guidelines on discrimination against transgender individuals, which the New York City Human Rights Law prohibits. The guidelines provide for penalties of up to $250,000 for violations that are found to be willful, wanton, or malicious.

C. New NYC Protections for Caregivers

1. The New York City Council has amended the New York City Human Rights Law to include caregiver as a protected class. The new local legislation, which Mayor de Blasio signed on January 5, 2016, defines caregivers as persons who provide direct and ongoing care for a minor child or a care recipient, such as a relative or individual with a disability who resides in the caregiver’s household. This amendment will go into effect on May 4, 2016.

Article By David I. Rosen, Galit Kierkut & Charles H. Kaplan of Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.

© Copyright 2016 Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.

DoD Issues Targeted Class Deviation Updating Recently Adopted Cybersecurity DFARS Clauses

Last week, on October 8th, DoD issued a class deviation replacing DFARS 252.204-7012 and 252.204-2008 with revised clauses that give covered contractors up to nine (9) months (from the date of contract award or modification incorporating the new clause(s)) to satisfy the requirement for “multifactor authentication for local and network access” found in Section 3.5.3 of National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication 800-171, “Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Information Systems and Organizations.”

We previously reported on the August 26th Department of Defense (DoD) interim rule that greatly expanded the obligations imposed on defense contractors for safeguarding “covered defense information” and for reporting cybersecurity incidents involving unclassified information systems that house such information. The interim rule, which went into effect immediately, requires non-cloud contractors to comply with several new requirements, including those in DFARS 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting” and DFARS 252.204-7008, “Compliance with Safeguarding Covered Defense Information Controls.”  While the class deviation is a welcomed development for contractors that may struggle to implement the NIST SP 800-171 requirements for multifactor authentication, the deviation: (1) requires contractors to notify the government if they need more time to satisfy those requirements, and (2) does not alter any other aspect of the August 26th interim rule. 

DFARS 252.204-7012 requires prime contractors and their subcontractors to employ “adequate security” measures to protect “covered defense information.” Specifically, contractors must adhere to the security requirements in the version of NIST SP 800-171 that is in effect “at the time the solicitation is issued or as authorized by the Contracting Officer,” or employ alternative security measures approved in writing by an authorized representative of the DOD Chief Information Officer. Special Publication 800-171 describes fourteen families of basic security requirements. As described in section 2.2 of 800-171, each of these fourteen families has “derived security requirements,” which provide added detail of the security controls required to protect government data. These basic requirements are based on FIPS Publication 200, which “provides the high level and fundamental security requirements” for government information systems. The derived requirements are taken from the security controls contained in NIST Publication 800-53, “Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations.” Among those derived requirements is one for “multifactor authentication for local and network access.”

DoD contractors and subcontractors should be aware of what the class deviation does and does not change:

  1. Effective immediately, DoD contractors and subcontractors are required to comply with the clauses at DFARS 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting (DEVIATION 2016-O0001) (OCT 2015) and DFARS 252.204-7008, Compliance with Safeguarding Covered Defense Information Controls (DEVIATION 2016-O0001) (OCT 2015), in lieu of the clauses that were issued as part of the August 26th interim rule.
  2. Under the new clauses, DoD contractors (and subcontractors, through the prime contractor) may notify the contracting officer that they need up to 9 months (from the date of award or the date of a modification incorporating the new clauses) to comply with the requirements for “multifactor authentication for local and network access” in Section 3.5.3 of NIST SP 800-171.
  3. The revised clauses apply to all DoD contracts and subcontracts, including those for the acquisition of commercial items.
  4. The class deviation only impacts non-cloud contractor information systems that are not operated on behalf of the government (e.g., contractor internal systems).
  5. DoD contractors and subcontractors that cannot meet the specific requirements of NIST 800-171, including the requirements of Section 3.5.3, may still seek authorization from DoD to use “[a]lternative but equally effective security measures.”
  6. With the exception of the targeted changes to DFARS 252.204-7012 and DFARS 252.204-7008 (i.e., affording contractors up to 9 months to comply with Section 3.5.3 of NIST 800-171, provided they notify the contracting officer), all other requirements introduced by the August 26th interim rule remain in effect.
  7. Non-cloud contractor information systems that are operated on behalf of the government remain “subject to the security requirements specified [in their contracts].”
  8. The class deviation does not impact DoD cloud computing contracts, which remain subject to DFARS 252.239-7010, Cloud Computing Services.

Ensuring Compliance With the Revised DFARS Clauses and NIST SP 800-171 Section 3.5.3

During the solicitation phase of a procurement subject to the revised DFARS clauses, DoD contractors and subcontractors should engage technical experts to determine whether they would need additional time to satisfy the NIST requirements for multifactor authentication. If a contractor determines that additional time is needed, and is later awarded a contract subject to the new requirements, then the contractor should immediately notify the contracting officer in writing and should ensure that all subsequent communications with the government are adequately documented.

Upon providing such notice, contractors will have up to nine months (from the date of contract award or modification incorporating the revised clauses) to comply with Section 3.5.3 of NIST SP 800-171, which requires contractors to: “Use multifactor authentication for local and network access to privileged accounts and for network access to non-privileged accounts.” See NIST SP 800-171, Section 3.5.3 (emphasis added). Section 3.5.3 is a derived requirement of the basic security requirement in section 3.5 for identification and authentication. Section 3.5.3 of NIST SP 800-171 notes that:

  • “Multifactor authentication” requires two or more different factors to achieve authentication. Factors include: (i) something you know (e.g., password/PIN); (ii) something you have (e.g., cryptographic device, token); or (iii) something you are (e.g., biometric). The requirement for multifactor authentication does not require the use of a federal Personal Identification Verification (PIV) card or Department of Defense Common Access Card (CAC)-like solutions. Rather, “[a] variety of multifactor solutions (including those with replay resistance) using tokens and biometrics are commercially available. Such solutions may employ hard tokes (e.g., smartcards, key fobs, or dongles) or soft tokens to store user credentials. See id., n. 22.
  • “Local access” is any access to an information system by a user (or process acting on behalf of a user) communicating through a direct connection without the use of a network.

“Network access” is any access to an information system by a user (or a process acting on behalf of a user) communicating through a network (e.g., local area network, wide area network, Internet).

Article By Susan B. Cassidy, Alejandro L. Sarria, Patrick Stanton & Catlin M. Meade of Covington & Burling LLP
© 2015 Covington & Burling LLP

Making a Claim against a Payment Bond Posted by a General Contractor or Sub-Contractor

In construction projects that are performed either on behalf of a municipality or a state agency, a general contractor and potentially a sub-contractor are typically required to post payment and/or performance bonds with the county or municipality. A general contractor or sub-contractor is required to post a payment and/or performance bond, because this ensures that sub-contractors or suppliers are paid, and enables the Township or state agency to have the work completed should the contractor fail to do so in a timely fashion. As a supplier or sub-contractor on such a municipal or state project, it is important to know your rights with regard to making a claim against a payment bond.

The most important thing that any sub-contractor or supplier must do prior to providing materials or services for a public contract is to provide the proper notice as required by N.J.S.A. 2A.44-145. This strict notice requirement specifies that the sub-contractor or supplier notify the party who posted the payment bond for the project in writing via certified mail of their intent to provide materials or services for the project. This is a prerequisite to being able to make a claim against the bond, or to receive a payment for materials and services with regard to the project if they are not paid by the sub-contractor or general contractor. As such, it is very important that any sub-contractor or supplier provide the appropriate notice to the party that posted the bond prior to performing any work or providing any materials.

If proper notification has been sent and a sub-contractor or supplier did not receive payment for materials or services provided, they may make a claim against the bond posted by the general contractor or the sub-contractor. It is always suggested that a sub-contractor or supplier obtain a copy of the bond posted by the general contractor or sub-contractor before providing materials or services. This is to ensure that any claim against the bond is made in a timely manner and is not forfeited by failing to comply with the terms of the bond, which require that a claim be made within a certain specified period of time.

Assuming that you have complied with the time requirements of the bond, a sub-contractor or supplier would first send a Notice of Demand for Payment to the bonding company with a copy to the contractor who posted the bond. Typically, the bonding company will require the production of any and all documents which justify the payment sought by the claimant that was not tendered by the sub-contractor or general contractor. Upon receipt of this information, the bonding company will make a determination whether payment is due for the materials and services which were provided.

Article By Paul W. Norris of Stark & Stark

COPYRIGHT © 2015, STARK & STARK

The New OFCCP Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity Protections Are Now In Effect

Proskauer Rose LLP, Law Firm

Executive Order (“EO”) 11246, as amended by EO 13762, officially went into effect, representing the first time in the federal sector that sexual orientation and gender identity have been expressly protected. On July 21, 2014, President Obama issued EO 13762, which amended EO 11246 to prohibit federal contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. These additional protections are being incorporated into the Federal Acquisition Regulations (“FAR”), which will become effective tomorrow, April 10, 2015.

In order to educate the public on these new protections, the Office of Federal Contractor Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) is conducting a series of webinars regarding the new sexual orientation and gender identity protections. Thus far, the webinars have focused on the obligations of federal contractors and the procedures available to claimants for filing a complaint under the new protections. We have summarized below key points from the webinar:

To Whom Does This Apply?

These new protections apply to any federal contractor, subcontractor, or government funded construction contractor that enters into or renews a federal contract or contracts valued at $10,000 or more per year. These new protections only apply to contracts entered into or renewed on or after April 8, 2015. These protections do not apply to organizations receiving grants from the federal government.

Administrative Changes Required By Employers

Under the new protections, employers must update the EEO language on their job advertisements, their EEO policies, and their “EEO is the Law” poster. The poster need not be updated until the OFCCP releases a supplement. The OFCCP has not yet announced when this supplement will be released.

With respect to the EEO language, the OFCCP has said that employers can simply say “Equal Employment Opportunity” on their job postings. However, if the employer chooses to list out the protected groups, it must list “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” The OFCCP does not endorse the use of the acronym “LGBT,” as this is not representative of the entire protected class.

Dual Filing With The EEOC

The OFCCP clarified that any complaints alleging sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination are considered “dual-filed” with the EEOC. This means that the OFCCP will stand in the shoes of the EEOC when investigating the Title VII component of the complaint. While Title VII does not overtly protect against gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination, the EEOC has taken the position that these classifications are protected under Title VII and will pursue cases on behalf of these individuals.

As a consequence of the dual-filing process, if the OFCCP does not find cause or does not dispose of a case within 180 days, an employee can request a Notice of Right to Sue from the OFCCP to bring a private cause of action against the employer. This is significant as EO 11246 does not provide for a private cause of action. The OFCCP clarified, however, that it does not intend to pursue the compensatory and punitive damages available under Title VII (which are not available under the EO).

Religious Affiliated Contractors

In one of the webinars, the OFCCP clarified that all federal contractors, including religiously affiliated federal contractors, are required to comply with the new protections. This means that even those contractors who have been granted certain religious exemptions under EO 11246 may not discriminate based upon sexual orientation or gender identity.

Restroom Access Policies

The OFCCP clarified how employers must approach restroom access under the new protections. OFCCP explained that employers must allow employees to use restrooms based upon their gender identity. This means that if an employee was identified as a male at birth, but identifies as a female, the employer must permit that employee to use the female restroom if the employee desires to do so.

Benefits

The new protections provide that the same benefits must be provided to same-sex spouses as non-same-sex spouses. However, employers are not required to provide the same benefits to couples in civil unions or domestic partnerships as long as the denial of benefits is not based on discrimination. Consequently, if a contractor provides heterosexual domestic partners with benefits, it must provide homosexual domestic partners with the same benefits.

ARTICLE BY

Connie N Bertram
Alex C Weinstein
Proskauer Rose LLP

President Obama Urged to “Ban the Box” for Federal Contractors

Proskauer Rose LLP, Law Firm

In a letter this past week, nearly 200 interest groups urged President Obama to issue an executive order “banning the box” for federal contractors and to implement other “fair chance” hiring reforms protecting ex-offenders. “Ban the box” refers to a movement that has swept across state and local legislatures in recent years requiring contractors (and employers more broadly) to remove the check box from job applications asking whether prospective employees have a criminal history.

To date, several state and local jurisdictions have “banned the box” for contractors, including California (for construction contractors), Compton (CA), Richmond (CA), Hartford (CT), New Haven (CT), Indianapolis (IN), Louisville (KY), Boston (MA), Cambridge (MA), Worcester, (MA), Detroit (MI), Atlantic City (NJ), New York City (NY) (for human services contractors), Pittsburgh (PA), and Syracuse (NY). Delaware and Madison (WI) have “encouraged” the same.

In addition, six states—Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island—and twelve localities— Baltimore (MD), Buffalo (NY), Chicago (IL), Columbia (MO), D.C., Montgomery County (MD), Newark (NJ), Philadelphia (PA), Prince George’s County (MD), Rochester (NY), Seattle (WA), and San Francisco (CA)—have “banned the box” for private employers (either expressly or implicitly covering government contractors).

At the federal level, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) also has issued a directive on criminal background checks. The Directive cautions contractors that the consideration of criminal records in hiring or other personnel decisions may have a disparate impact on racial and ethnic minorities in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

If President Obama issues an executive order that “bans the box” for federal contractors, the executive action will add to an already growing patchwork of laws and orders restricting criminal background checks on job applicants and employees of government contractors. Stay tuned to see what the President decides.

ARTICLE BY

Connie N Bertram
Daniel L. Saperstein
Proskauer Rose LLP

Will Religiously Based Federal Contractors Challenge OFCCP's New LGBT Regulations?

Gonzalez Saggio & Harlan logo

As 2014 headed toward close, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) gave the federal contractor community, already presented with five Executive Orders in 2014, one last compliance gift. On December 9, 2014, without notice or an opportunity for public comment, OFCCP issued its final rule (“Rule”) implementing Executive Order (“EO”) 13672. President Obama signed EO 13672 on July 14, 2014, extending protections against workplace discrimination to members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) community by amending Executive Order 11246 to add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected characteristics. It also requires contractor employers to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants and employees are treated without regard to their sexual orientation or gender identity during their employment. The Executive Order was effective immediately. The Rule is effective April 8, 2015, and applies to all new or modified federal contracts and subcontracts after that date.

The issuance of EO 13672 and the requirements of its implementing Rule highlight OFCCP’s intention to focus on LGBT protections and might be seen as steps to squarely tee up the issue of enforcement of LGBT protections in the post-Hobby Lobby era. First, and seemingly to leave no doubt of its intention, OFCCP had also issued Directive 2014-02 in August 2014, with its stated purpose, “[t]o clarify that existing agency guidance on discrimination on the basis of sex under Executive Order 11246, as amended, includes discrimination on the bases of gender identity and transgender status.” The directive explicitly piggybacked off of the EEOC’s 2012 decision in Macy v. Holder, where the EEOC concluded that gender identity and transgender status did not need to be specifically addressed in Title VII in order to be protected bases of discrimination, as they are simply part of the protected category of “sex” under Title VII. Anticipating the question of why EO 13672 was then necessary if already protected under Title VII, OFCCP offered a questionable explanation that the directive “does not address gender identity as a stand-alone protected category, which (along with sexual orientation) is the subject of Executive Order 13672.”

Second, as written, the Rule is relatively straightforward. It amends EO 11246’s implementing regulations by replacing the phrase “sex or national origin” with the phrase “sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin” wherever the former appears in the regulations.  The Rule also places the following obligations on employers:

  1. Ensure that applicants and employees are not discriminated against based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

  2. Update existing affirmative action plans and all equal opportunity, harassment, and nondiscrimination policies to reflect the additional protected categories.

  3. Make available to applicants and employees a revised version of the “EEO is the Law” poster that includes a notice regarding the protections for LGBT workers.

  4. Include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected traits in the equal opportunity job solicitation taglines. (OFCCP suggested in the Rule preamble that “equal opportunity employer” may be sufficient to cover all protected categories of EO 11246.)

  5. Incorporate the new categories into new or modified subcontracts and purchase orders.

  6. Report to OFCCP and the Department of State any suspicion that it cannot obtain a visa for an employee, from another country with which it does business, due to the employee’s sexual orientation.

  7. Ensure that facilities (e.g., restrooms, locker rooms, and dressing areas) provided for employees are not segregated on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Rule does not burden contractor employers with the same data collection and analysis obligations that are required with respect to females and minorities and does not require contractor employers to set placement goals on the bases of sexual orientation or gender identity, nor does it require them to collect or analyze any data with respect to the sexual orientation or gender identity of their applicants or employees. Contractor employers are also not required to, or prohibited from, soliciting applicants or employees to self-identify regarding their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Finally, it is notable that EO 13672 and its implementing Rule were issued despite the growing number of states (currently 20 states plus the District of Columbia) that have implemented protections against sexual orientation and/or gender identity discrimination. And further, that they are set within the larger context of the legalization of same sex marriage by, as of this article, 37 states, as well as the US Supreme Court’s consideration of the status of same sex marriage this year. Thus, the issue brought to focus by these OFCCP actions and the Executive Order may be more pointed than an identification of sexual orientation and gender identity as protected traits and may go towards whether a religious contractor employer may base employment decisions on the LGBT status of an applicant or employee.

EO 13672 contains no exemption for religiously affiliated federal contractors. Section 204(c) of EO 11246, which allows a religious corporation, association, educational institution or society, to base employment decisions on the religious membership of a particular individual (rather than on the beliefs of the organization), was specifically not amended by EO 13672. Possibly by design, this may result in a test of the reach of the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., which, broadly speaking, allowed a closely-held, for-profit corporation to be exempt from the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate based upon its owners’ religious objection because it found that there was a less restrictive means of furthering the law’s interest.

A similar legal challenge may play out in the arena of employee benefits governed by EO 13672. OFCCP enforcement of the new Rule’s nondiscrimination prohibitions would bring within OFCCP’s purview the provision of benefits to an employee’s same sex spouse. Title VII and Supreme Court precedent require employers to make available the same benefits for spouses regardless of the gender of the employee. Closely-held contractor employers who oppose same sex marriage as a violation of religious belief may object to this requirement’s enforcement as a burden on their religious beliefs, similar to the arguments made by Hobby Lobby. While the Hobby Lobby majority attempted to dismiss the idea that its decision might allow an employer to “cloak as religious practice” prohibited acts, such as racial discrimination in hiring, the reach of the Hobby Lobby decision is far from settled, and the next batch of cases may seek to extend that decision to regulations requiring equal benefits based upon sexual orientation or gender identity.

And, lest employers think that the OFCCP was done, just today it announced that on January 30, 2015, it will publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to update contractors’ obligations to not discriminate on the basis of sex under EO 11246 to “reflect present-day workplace realities and align OFCCP’s rules with current law under Title VII.” The new rules will touch on “compensation discrimination, sexual harassment, failure to provide workplace accommodations for pregnancy, and gender identity and family caregiver discrimination, among other topics.” The regulatory landscape for federal contractors saw many changes in 2014, and it seems 2015 is shaping up to be no different.

ARTICLE BY

Jill Pedigo Hall
Gonzalez Saggio & Harlan LLP

California Labor Laws for the New Year

Drinker Biddle Law Firm

If only the Beatles’ call to “Let it Be” was heard by the California Legislature. Instead, employer regulation is on the rise again. In 2014, 574 bills introduced mentioned “employer,” compared to 186 in 2013. Most of those 500-plus bills did not pass, and several that did pass were not signed into law by the governor. One veto blocked a bill that would have penalized employers for limiting job prospects of, or discriminating against, job applicants who aren’t currently employed.

A sampling of significant new laws affecting private employers, effective Jan. 1, 2015, unless otherwise mentioned, follows.

Shared Liability for Employers Who Use Labor Contractors

AB 1897 mandates that companies provided with workers from a labor contractor to perform labor within its “usual course of business” at its premises or worksite will “share with the labor contractor all civil legal responsibility and civil liability” for the labor contractor’s failure to pay wages required by law or secure valid workers compensation insurance, for the workers supplied.

The law applies regardless of whether the company knew about the violations and whether the company hiring the labor contractor (recast by the new law as a “client employer”) and labor contractor are deemed joint employers. This liability sharing is in addition to any other theories of liability or requirements established by statutes or common law.

The client employer will not, however, share liability under this new law if it has a workforce of less than 25 employees (including those obtained through the labor contractor), or is supplied by the labor contractor with five or fewer workers at any given time.

A labor contractor is defined as an individual or entity that supplies, either with or without a contract, a client employer with workers to perform labor within the client employer’s usual course of business, unless the specific labor falls under the exclusion clause in AB 1897. Excluded are bona fide nonprofits, bona fide labor organizations, apprenticeship programs, hiring halls operated pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, motion picture payroll services companies and certain employee leasing arrangements that contractually obligate the client employer to assume all civil legal responsibility and civil liability for securing workers’ compensation insurance.

This bill is a significant expansion of existing law—which is limited to prohibiting employers from entering into a contract for labor or services with a construction, farm labor, garment, janitorial, security guard or warehouse contractor—if the employer knows or should know that the agreement does not include sufficient funds.

In light of the new law, labor services contractor engagements should be evaluated with an eye toward limiting the risk of retaining non-compliant contractors, including indemnity, insurance, termination provisions and compliance verification protocols.

Wage and Hour Changes

California’s $9 hourly minimum wage is due to increase to $10 Jan. 1, 2016. Defeated by the California Legislature, however, was a bill to raise the hourly minimum wage to $11 in 2015, $12 in 2016, $13 in 2017 and then adjust annually for inflation starting in 2018.

Undeterred, several municipalities have increased their respective minimum wage for companies who employ workers in their jurisdiction. For example, employees who work in San Francisco more than two hours per week, including part-time and temporary workers, are entitled to the San Francisco hourly minimum wage, which increased Jan. 1 from $10.74 to $11.05 and will increase to $12.25 by May 1. Hourly minimum wages also increased Jan. 1 in San Jose ($10.30).

The minimum wage will increase in Oakland March 2 ($12.25) and in Berkeley Oct. 1 ($11). Many other cities have either enacted, or have pending, minimum wage laws.

Federal minimum wage continues to lag behind California, but no longer for federal contractors. President Obama issued Executive Order 13658 in 2014 which established that workers under federal contracts must be paid at least $10.10 per hour. This applies to new contracts and replacements for expiring federal contracts that resulted from solicitations issued on or after Jan. 1, 2015, or to contracts that were awarded outside the solicitation process on or after Jan. 1, 2015. There are prevailing wage requirements for many state and local government and agency contractors as well.

Employers should monitor each of the requirements, including those in the jurisdiction in which they do business, to assure compliance.

Paid Sick Days Now Required

Effective July 1, AB 1522 is the first statewide law that requires employers to provide paid sick days to employees. The new law grants employees, who worked at least 30 days since the commencement of their employment, the right to accrue one hour of paid sick time off for each 30 hours worked—up to 24 hours (three days) in a year of employment. Exempt employees are presumed to work a 40-hour normal workweek; but, if their normal workweek is less, the lower amount could be used for accrual purposes.

An employer may cap accrual at 48 hours (six days) and also may limit the use of paid sick days in a year to 24 hours. Unused paid sick days normally carry-over from year to year, though no carry-over is required if 24 hours of paid sick days is accrued to the employee at the beginning of a year. No payout is required at termination of employment.

The paid sick days may be used for the employee’s own health condition or preventative care; a family member’s health condition or preventative care; if the employee is a victim of domestic assault or sexual violence; and stalking. “Family member” means a child, regardless of age or dependency (including adopted, foster, step or legal ward), parent (biological, adoptive, foster, step, in-law or registered domestic partner’s parent), spouse, registered domestic partner, grandparent, grandchild or siblings.

The law applies to all employers, regardless of size, except for a few categories of employees that are not covered—such as those governed by a collective bargaining agreement that contains certain provisions, in-home supportive services providers and certain air carrier personnel.

Employers must keep records for at least three years, a new workplace poster is required and employers are barred from retaliating against employees who assert rights under this new law.

Failure of an employer to comply with AB 1522 can result in significant monetary fines and penalties in addition to pay for the sick days withheld, reinstatement and back pay if employment was ended, and attorneys fees and costs.

Employers should beware to integrate city specific paid sick leave laws with the new state law. For example, the pre-existing San Francisco paid sick day law has some provisions that are similar and some that are different from AB 1522. As a general rule, where multiple laws afford employee rights on a common topic, the employee is entitled to the law benefits that favors the employee most.

Discrimination Law and Training Requirements Expanded

AB 1443 amends the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) to make its anti-discrimination, anti-harassment and religious accommodation provisions apply to unpaid interns. It also amends FEHA’s anti-harassment, and religious belief or observance accommodation provisions, to apply to volunteers. This new law appears to respond to, and trump, courts that have not classified these workers as employees and, in turn, found them not eligible for legal protections afforded to employees.

Prior law requires the California Department of Motor Vehicles to commence issuing special drivers licenses in January to applicants who meet other requirements to obtain a license, but cannot submit satisfactory proof of lawful presence in the United States. AB 1660 amends FEHA to prohibit discrimination against holders of these special drivers licenses; adverse action by an employer because an employee or applicant holds a special license can be a form of national origin discrimination. Employer compliance with any requirement or prohibition of federal immigration law is not a violation of FEHA.

Since 2006, employers of 50 or more employees have been required to provide supervisors with two hours of classroom or other effective interactive anti-sexual harassment training, every two years. New supervisors are to receive the training within six months after they start a supervisory position. This is commonly known as “AB 1825” training.

In apparent response to societal concerns about the impacts of bullying in general, AB 2053 requires that AB 1825 training include a component on abusive conduct prevention. Under the new law, abusive conduct means “conduct of an employer or employee in the workplace, with malice, that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive and unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests.

Abusive conduct may include repeated infliction of verbal abuse—such as the use of derogatory remarks, insults and epithets; verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating or humiliating; or the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of a person’s work performance. A single act shall not constitute abusive conduct, unless especially severe and egregious.”

The new law does not make abusive conduct unlawful in and of itself, but it’s common for plaintiffs’ counsel to try, in attempts to win cases, to tether abusive behavior by a supervisor to conduct that is alleged to be unlawful.

SB 1087 requires farm labor contractors to provide sexual harassment prevention and complaint process training annually to supervisory employees and at the time of hire and each two years thereafter to non-supervisory employees. The new law also blocks state licensing of farm labor contractors who have been found by a court or administrative agency to have engaged in sexual harassment in the past three years, or who knew— or should have known—that a supervisor had been found by a court or administrative agency to have engaged in sexual harassment in the past three years.

Child Labor Laws Enhanced

AB 2288, the Child Labor Protection Act of 2014, accomplishes three things.

1. It confirms existing law that “tolls” or suspends the running of statutes of limitation on a minor’s claims for unlawful employment practices until the minor reaches the age of 18.

2. Treble damages are now available—in addition to other remedies—to an individual who is discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, retaliated or discriminated against, or subjected to adverse action in the terms or conditions employment because the individual filed a claim or civil action alleging a violation of the Labor Code that arose while the individual was a minor.

3. For Class “A” child labor law violations involving minors at or under the age of 12, the required range of civil penalties increases to $25,000 to $50,000. Class A violations include employing certain minors in dangerous or prohibited occupations under the Labor Code, acting unlawfully or under conditions that present an imminent danger to the minor employee, and three or more violations of child work permit or hours requirements.

Immigration and Retaliation

Several new California laws involving immigration issues surfaced last year. All were premised on existing law that all workers are entitled to the rights and protections of state employment law regardless of immigration status, and that employers must not leverage immigration status against applicants, employees or their families.

This year, AB 2751 adds to and clarifies these existing laws.

For example, actionable “unfair immigration- related practices” now include threatening or filing a false report to any government agency. The bill also clarifies that a court has authority to order the suspension of business licenses of an offending employer to block otherwise lawful operations at worksites where the offenses occurred.

What’s Next?

Employers should consider how these new laws impact their workplaces, and then review and update their personnel practices and policies with the advice of experienced attorneys or human resource professionals.

*Originally published by CalCPA in the January/February 2015 issue of California CPA.

ARTICLE BY

Mark E. Terman
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP