Tag: employee

Immigration Fact and Fiction for the U.S. Employer: Know Your Rights – 5 Things to Tell Your Foreign National Employee in the Current Climate

foreign national employeeOn February 21, 2017, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released two memoranda signed by DHS Secretary Kelly addressing immigration enforcement.  While a sitting President cannot independently modify laws or regulations without going through the normal rule making process, he/she can significantly alter policy and enforcement priorities.  These two memoranda are a clear example of a shift in focus.  While the memos largely address individuals who are undocumented, your foreign national employees may be collaterally impacted as a result of being inadvertently involved in an enforcement action, when encountering an emboldened DHS officer or even in dealing with local police officials, given their new immigration related authority.

We provide a brief overview of several issues one may encounter.  We will provide additional information in subsequent postings as these directives, and others, continue to evolve.

1. Fact or Fiction, Can Your Foreign National Employee be Detained by DHS?

The new Kelly memos make it clear that the previous administration’s “catch and release” program is over.  The administration vows to deter illegal immigration by aggressively detaining noncitizens and expanding the categories of individuals who are considered priorities for removal.   The broad language of the memos suggest that  a foreign national employee could be detained and deported if he/she is convicted of a criminal offense, charged with a criminal offense, or even has committed acts that could rise to a chargeable criminal offense.  Assuming your employee has proper visa classification and he/she has been maintaining status, all should be OK.

As the law requires, we recommend all foreign nationals carry with them, at all times, proof of immigration status.  This means if your employee is a nonimmigrant worker (H-1B, L-1B, E-3, etc.) he/she should carry his/her Employment Authorization Document, I-94 card, passport with entry stamp, or other proof of lawful presence (or at least a photocopy of the relevant documents and be able to access the original quickly if needed).  If your employee is a Lawful Permanent Resident, he/she should carry his/her greencard (or at least a photocopy and be able to access the original quickly if needed).  Employees should have handy the name and contact information of their supervisor or HR representative who can also verify their employment details.

2. Fact or Fiction, Can the Company Continue to Employ a Foreign National Worker Authorized to Work Pursuant to DACA (Deferred Action Childhood Arrivals)?

As per the Questions and Answers guidance provided by DHS subsequent to the release of the memos, DACA continues as a program.  That means that if your employee is a DACA beneficiary and is employed pursuant to a valid Employment Authorization Document (EAD), you can continue to employ him/her and they can continue to renew their work permit.   This may change in the near future but for now it stands.

Some leaked Executive Orders (EO) have included provisions to end “amnesty programs.”   If this should happen, a DACA beneficiary will lose his/her permission to work in the United States.  Short of marrying a U.S. citizen, most DACA participants have no other immigration relief or form of work eligibility.  We have some hope that when implementing any new executive orders, the government will allow the “Dreamers” to continue working at least through the expiration of their current EADs so that both employers and employees alike are not impacted suddenly.

3. Fact or Fiction, Can the Company’s Foreign National Employees Continue to Travel Abroad?

Yes, but customs officers at airports and other ports of entry may question the employee about their immigration status and underlying eligibility for that status.   If the employee is selected for a longer interview during the admission process, he/she will be sent to a “secondary inspection” area.  While United States citizens have the right to have an attorney present during questioning, non-citizens generally do not have such a right while the officer determines whether or not to admit the foreign national employee.

Please advise your employees that if a DHS officer’s questions have to do with anything other than the foreign national’s immigration status, he/she does have the right to an attorney but it is unlikely that such requests will be granted until after the questioning is completed.

Also, employers should be warned that we expect a new Executive Order (EO) re-implementing the “travel ban” will be issued next week.   While foreign nationals of the 7 countries noted in the previous EO, namely Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, will be surely impacted, it is possible the new EO will extend a “travel ban” to other countries.  As such, we recommend foreign nationals from these 7 countries not travel abroad at this time, and we will keep you updated as the new EO is released to warn potentially additional foreign national employees against travel.

4. Fact of Fiction, Can a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Officer Review My and/or a Foreign Employee’s Personal Electronic Devices and /or Social Media Accounts?

Since 2008, it has been the position of CBP that it may, upon a “reasonable suspicion”, inspect electronic devices, such as phones and laptops.  Moreover, this can result in CBP confiscating the devices for several weeks or months.  As such, employees should take proactive steps to ensure the confidentiality of client, customer and proprietary information.   This means that phones and computers should contain only information that is needed for the business trip. Some employers may want to provide laptops and phones that are used solely for business trips and do not contain any sensitive information.   Basically, if the employee does not need the device or information for the trip – it should be left at home.

With respect to social media, CBP Officers have recently been requesting passwords to review an applicant for admission’s social networking activity.  In addition, social media questions – while not yet mandatory – have been added to the ESTA online application.  ESTA provides visa free travel to nationals of certain designated countries.  As such, it appears that the trend will continue so employees should continue to utilize social media judiciously and remember that no post in cyber space is confidential.

5. Fact of Fiction, Do These Changes Impact a Foreign Worker’s Privacy Rights?

The memorandum addressing this issue states that DHS will no longer afford Privacy Act rights and protections to individuals who are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents.  Since 2009, DHS has treated personally identifiable information (PII) as subject to the Privacy Act. PII includes information that is collected, used, maintained, or disseminated and includes U.S. citizens and LPRs, as well as visitors and undocumented persons.

Non-U.S. persons have had the right of access to their PII and the right to amend their records, absent an exemption under the Privacy Act.   It is unclear whether the 2009 guidance will remain in place until the DHS Privacy Office develops new guidance and it is unclear what DHS intends as to the scope, purpose, and intent of the new guidance.   For example, if your foreign national employee commits a crime or is even suspected of committing a crime as determined by an immigration officer, the employee’s name may be placed on a list which DHS will be begin publishing and making public soon.

Conclusion

Most employers are committed to having a diversity of talent and to the fair and equal treatment of all employees, whatever their background, so perhaps this is a good time to share such a message with your employees.  It is probably beneficial to include that as an employer, the company will aim to support and protect colleagues, regardless of their race, country of origin, and religion or belief system, and that the previous (and perhaps future) executive orders, as well as memoranda are only likely to affect a small minority of employees but are still taken very seriously.  Confirming that impacted employees can reach out to local HR partners or managers if they have questions or concerns is highly reassuring to most employees.

ARTICLE BY David Grunblatt & Erica Loomba of Proskauer Rose LLP
© 2017 Proskauer Rose LLP.

Election Day is Coming – What are Your Obligations as Employer?

election dayWith Election Day drawing near, and large voter turnout expected, employers should ensure they are aware of state law requirements related to providing employees with time off. While not all states impose requirements on employers, some impose time off obligations with the possibility of criminal or civil penalties for non-compliance.

Applicable laws vary by state. Some provide for paid time while others do not mandate that such time off be paid. Laws also vary as to the amount of time that must be provided and whether an employer can dictate which hours are taken off, such as at the start or end of the workday. Further, some jurisdictions require postings to advise employees of voting leave rights. Additionally, some jurisdictions also obligate employers to provide time off to employees who serve as election officials or to serve in an elected office.

Accordingly, employers should immediately review existing policies and practices to ensure compliance with applicable laws and be prepared to address requests for time off prior to Election Day.

The following is a sample of state requirements regarding voting time off:

Arizona – Arizona Revised Statute § 16-402 provides that an employee has the right to be absent from work if he or she has fewer than 3 consecutive hours in which to vote between the opening of the polls and the beginning of his or her work shift or between the end of his or her regular work shift and the closing of the polls. An employee may be absent for a length of time at the beginning or end of his or her work shift that, when added to the time difference between work-shift hours and the opening/closing of the polls, totals 3 consecutive hours.

  • Notice: The employee must apply for leave prior to Election Day.

  • Hours: The employer may specify the hours.

  • Paid: Leave is paid.

California – Pursuant to California Election Code § 14000, employees are entitled to an amount of time off to vote that, when added to the voting time otherwise available to him or her outside of working hours, will enable him or her to vote. Employee with sufficient non-working time to vote are not entitled to additional time off to vote.

  • Notice: Two working days’ advance notice prior to the election is required if, on the third working day prior to the election, the employee knows or has reason to believe he or she will need time off in order to vote.

  • Hours: Time may be taken only at the beginning or end of the work shift, whichever allows the greatest amount of free time for voting and least time off from work, unless otherwise mutually agreed.

  • Paid: No more than 2 hours of the time taken off for voting shall be without loss of pay.

Colorado – Colorado Revised Statute §1-7-102 provides that eligible voters are entitled to be absent from work for up to 2 hours for the purpose of voting on Election Day unless the employee has 3 or more non-working hours to vote while the polls are open.

  • Hours: The employer may specify the hours of absence, but the hours must be at the beginning or end of the work shift, if the employee so requests.

  • Paid: No more than 2 hours.

Hawaii – Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes § 11-95, employees who do not have 2 consecutive non-working hours to vote while the polls are open are entitled to take time off up to 2 hours (excluding any lunch or rest periods) to vote, so that the time taken when added to the non-working time totals 2 consecutive hours when the polls are open. Employees cannot be required to reschedule their normal work hours to avoid the needed time off.

  • Paid: Employees must be paid for time taken during working hours. If any employee fails to vote after taking time off for that purpose, the employer, upon verification of that fact, may make appropriate deductions from the salary or wages of the employee for the period during which the employee is entitled to be absent from employment.

  • Proof: Presentation of a voter’s receipt to the employer shall constitute proof of voting by the employee.

Maryland – Maryland Election Law Code §10-315 states that every employer in the state must allow employees who claim to be registered voters to be absent from work for up to 2 hours on Election Day to vote if the employee does not have 2 consecutive non-working hours to vote while the polls are open.

  • Paid: Employees must be paid for the up to 2 hours of absence.

  • Proof: Employees must provide proof of voting or attempt to vote on a form prescribed by the State Board.

New York – New York Election Law § 3-110 states that an employee is entitled to a sufficient amount of leave time that, when added to his or her available time outside of working hours, will enable him or her to vote. Four hours is considered sufficient time. An employee is excluded from leave if he or she has 4 consecutive hours in which to vote, either between the opening of the polls and the beginning of his or her work shift or the end of his or her work shift and the close of the polls.

  • Notice: The employee must provide notice of leave at least 2, but not more than 10, days prior to the election.

  • Hours: The employer may specify the hours. Leave must be given at the beginning or end of the work shift, as the employer may designate, unless otherwise agreed.

  • Paid: Not more than 2 hours may be without loss of pay.

ARTICLE BY Richard Greenberg & Daniel J. Jacobs of Jackson Lewis P.C.
Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2016

Handling Employee Attendance and Pay When the Weather Outside is Frightful

Handling Employee Attedance and Pay When the Weather Outside is FrightfulLike it or not, winter has finally arrived.  During times of snowy and icy road conditions, employers will undoubtedly be faced with tardiness, absenteeism, and the possibility of implementing office and/or plant closures.  One question that often arises during inclement weather is how to handle pay issues under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  If you find yourself in that boat snowmobile, read on!  While it’s been a while since anything new has been issued in this area, the U.S. Department of Labor has previously issued guidance to help employers administer the FLSA when bad weather affects employee attendance.  The answers to many of your questions probably depends on two factors – first, whether the employee is exempt or non-exempt, and second, whether the employer’s business remains open or closes during the inclement weather.

Must Employees be Paid When the Employer Closes its Business Due to Bad Weather? 

The DOL’s position is that employers who close their business because of weather conditions must still pay exempt employees their regular salaries for any shutdown that lasts less than one full workweek.  However, the DOL notes that no provision of the FLSA prohibits employers from requiring exempt employees to use vacation time or other accrued leave to cover the missed work.  So long as there is no state law restriction, written policy, or collective bargaining agreement which provides otherwise, employers may require employees to use their PTO to cover absences in the event of an office closure in bad weather.  Due to the negative effect on employee morale, however, many employers opt not to require employees to do this.  If you intend to require employees to use paid leave in this circumstance, you should make that clear in your written policy.  The key, for an office closure lasting less than one workweek, is to ensure that an exempt employee’s salary is not affected.

If an exempt employee is required to use PTO for an office closure but doesn’t have any leave left in his leave bank, then what?  The employee must still be paid his regular salary when the employee’s business is closed for inclement weather for less than a week, regardless of whether he has available PTO.  In cases where a weather closing leaves an employee with a negative leave balance, employers can grant the leave and allow the employee carry a negative PTO balance until he accrues additional leave to make up for the deficit in the employee’s leave bank.

The rule for non-exempt employees is much simpler – they are paid only for time worked.  Thus, if the employer’s business is closed due to bad weather, the employer is not required to pay a non-exempt employee for time that is not worked, even if the employee was scheduled to work on the day of the closure.  However, if non-exempt employees are required to report to work and asked to stay until a decision can be made whether to shut down or remain open in inclement weather, they must be paid – even if the employee is simply waiting around for his supervisor to make a decision about closing and there is no work for the employee to do. 

Must Employees be Paid When the Employer’s Business Remains Open during Bad Weather, but Employees are Either Late to Arrive, Leave Early, or Entirely Absent? 

Since non-exempt employees are paid only for the time worked, any scheduled work time that is missed due to late arrival, early departure, or absence in the event of inclement weather may be unpaid.

For exempt employees, proper pay depends on whether the employee misses a full day or only a partial day of work.  If the employer’s business remains open, but an exempt employee is unable to make it into work due to bad weather and misses an entire day, the DOL regards the absence as one for personal reasons. Thus, the employer may deduct a full day’s pay from the employee’s salary, or require the employee to use available vacation time (or accrued PTO) to cover the time off, according to the DOL.

Conversely, if the employer’s business remains open but an exempt employee shows up for only part of the day, she must be paid for a full day’s work, regardless of how long she is there.  The employee can be required to use vacation time (or other accrued PTO) to cover the hours missed due to late arrival or early departure, but the exempt employee’s salary can’t be affected.  Docking an exempt employee’s pay for partial-day absences is not permitted under the FLSA and may compromise the employee’s exempt status.

There’s no question that bad winter weather creates havoc, stress, and unpredictability for employers and employees alike.  Having clearly-communicated and consistently-followed policies about how weather-related absenteeism and tardiness will be handled can help to alleviate some of that anxiety and uncertainty, and knowing what the DOL regulations permit you to do as an employer can’t hurt either.

Article By Julie A. Moore of Steptoe & Johnson PLLC

© Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

Exercise Care When Terminating Employee Who Holds H-1B Status

If an employer doesn’t follow certain requirements when it terminates an employee holding an H-1B visa, then the employer could be surprised to learn that employee wasn’t properly terminated, and the obligation to pay that employee wages and benefits continues despite the attempted termination. As background, Department of Labor (DOL) regulations at 20 CFR §655.731 provide guidance regarding wage obligations relating to H-1B (“specialty occupation”) employees.  Employers are required to pay to H-1B visa holders the higher of the prevailing wage for the occupation, or the actual wage for the position, as confirmed in the Labor Condition Application (LCA) that the employer must file during the H-1B petition process.

This wage obligation even applies to H-1B nonimmigrants who have been “benched” or are no longer actively working for the employer.  When an employer terminates an H-1B employee prior to the expiration date of the employee’s H-1B status, DOL considers this action to be a form of benching the employee UNLESS/UNTIL the employer has taken the following steps to effectuate a “bona fide” termination:

STEP 1 – The employer must notify the USCIS that the relationship has been terminated (USCIS will then cancel the petition); and

STEP 2 – The employer must provide the employee with offer of payment for return transportation abroad [for these purposes, the term “abroad” is defined in 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(E) as the foreign national’s last place of foreign residence].

Although not required by regulation, it is also advisable for the employer to withdraw the underlying Labor Condition Application (LCA), as long as the terminated employee is the only employee who has been covered by that particular LCA.

Failure to take Steps 1 and 2 above may result in DOL’s requiring the employer to pay back wages commencing on the date of attempted dismissal and continuing until the date upon which DOL determines that the termination has been perfected.

Note that these regulations do not apply to an H-1B employee who has voluntarily terminated his/her employment prior to the H-1B expiration date. Termination by the employer launches these stringent requirements.  In reality, many terminated H-1B employees are able fairly quickly to secure new employment and to transfer their H-1B sponsorship to the new employer; however, these two simple steps should shield the original H-1B sponsor from potential back-pay obligations.Article By

ARTICLE by Nancy M. Lawrence of Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, P.C.
© 2015 Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, P.C.

Breaking News: Refusing to Allow an Employee to Rescind His Or Her Voluntary Resignation Can Get You Sued

Here is the scenario. Your employee decides to voluntarily resign. She gives plenty of notice. Before her scheduled end date, the employee provides information relevant to a sexual harassment investigation involving her supervisor. Before the scheduled end date, the employee tries to rescind her employment. The supervisor refuses. Here’s the question: Is the refusal to allow the employee the opportunity to rescind her resignation an “adverse employment action” for purposes of a retaliation claim?

It could be, at least according to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. A similar scenario played out in Porter v. Houma Terreboone Housing Authority. According to the court:

“Just as an at-will employer does not have to hire a given employee, an employer does not have to accept a given employee’s rescission. Failing to do so in either case because the employee has engaged in a protected activity is nonetheless an adverse employment action.”

This is something employers need to be aware of. Remember: thoroughly investigate all work place harassment claims. Also, separate the subject of the investigation from any decisional process regarding the employee’s employment. In a perfect world, the decision-maker would not have any knowledge regarding the employee’s “protected activity.”

Article By Peter T. Tschanz of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

© 2015 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Death Threats against Co-Workers Defeat Employee Disability Discrimination Claim, Federal Court Rules

A depressed employee who was fired for threatening to kill his co-workers was not a qualified individual entitled to protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as the employee could not perform essential job functions, with or without an accommodation, a federal appeals court in San Francisco has ruled, affirming judgment in favor of the employer. Mayo v. PCC Structurals, Inc., No. 13-35643 (9th Cir. July 28, 2015). The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.

Background

Timothy Mayo was a welder for PCC Structurals, a manufacturer of specialized aircraft parts. Mayo was diagnosed with major depressive disorder in 1999, but medication and treatment enabled him to continue working without incident until 2010, when he began to feel he was being bullied by his supervisor. Mayo told three different co-workers that he wanted to kill the supervisor. He told one co-worker that he felt like bringing a shotgun to work and “blowing off” the heads of the supervisor and another manager. He told another co-worker that he wanted to “bring a gun down and start shooting people.” Mayo said he wanted to start shooting at 1:30 p.m., because by that time all of his supervisors would be at the worksite, thereby presenting him with a maximally target-rich environment.

Mayo’s co-workers reported the threats to the employer. When questioned, Mayo told an HR representative that he “couldn’t guarantee” he would not carry out the threats. PCC immediately suspended Mayo and called the police. The police took Mayo into custody for six days on the basis that he was an imminent threat to himself and others. After his release from police custody, Mayo spent two months on Family and Medical Leave Act and Oregon Family Leave Act leave. Mayo’s psychologist and a nurse practitioner cleared him to return to work and suggested that Mayo be assigned a different supervisor. Instead, PCC terminated Mayo’s employment.

Mayo brought an Americans with Disabilities Act case against PCC, arguing that his threats were the result of his diagnosed major depressive disorder and that PCC Structurals failed to accommodate him (by following the suggestion of his doctor that he be assigned a different supervisor).

The District Court granted summary judgment to the employer, holding that Mayo could not establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination. Mayo was unable to show he could perform the essential functions of his job with or without a reasonable accommodation and, therefore, he was not a “qualified individual” under the ADA.

Expressed Homicidal Ideation in Workplace Bars ADA Discrimination Claim

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court decision. Its holding was straightforward: Mayo was not a “qualified individual” under the ADA because he could not perform the essential functions of his job:

An essential function of almost every job [including Mayo’s] is the ability to appropriately handle stress and interact with others.

The logic of our holding is that compliance with such fundamental standards is an “essential function” of almost every job.

Writing for the panel, Judge John B. Owens stated that threatening the lives of one’s co-workers “in chilling detail” on multiple occasions indicates that an employee cannot appropriately handle stress and interact with others. The Court also held that, even when the threatening comments can be traced back to a disability, such as major depressive disorder, the employee’s inability to handle stress and interact with others renders him unable to perform essential job functions and negates a claim under the ADA.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision brings it in line with several sister Circuits that have held employers cannot be forced to choose between accommodating a disability and creating an unsafe workplace for other employees. The Court said:

The [ADA] does not require an employer to retain a potentially violent employee. Such a request would place an employer on a razor’s edge — in jeopardy of violating the [ADA] if it fires such an employee, yet in jeopardy of being deemed negligent if it returned him and he hurts someone. The [ADA] protects only “qualified” employees, that is employees qualified to do the job for which they were hired; and threatening other employees disqualifies one.

While acknowledging prior cases holding that conduct resulting from a disability “is considered to be part of the disability,” the Ninth Circuit ruled that when it comes to overt threats to kill co-workers, employers have no obligation to “simply cross their fingers and hope that violent threats ring hollow …. [W]hile the ADA and Oregon disability law protect important individual rights, they do not require employers to play dice with the lives of their workforce.”

Addressing Mayo’s claim that PCC Structurals should have reasonably accommodated him by following his psychologist’s suggestion that he be assigned a different supervisor, the Ninth Circuit stated:

Giving Mayo a different supervisor would not have changed his inappropriate response to stress – it would have just removed one potential stressor and possibly added another name to the hit list.

Implications

The Court was faced with a person clearly disabled by major depression who manifested that disability through very specific threats of violence. While being sensitive to the realities of mental illness, the Court ultimately was forced to decide whether safety of the workplace must take primacy over the otherwise extant protections of the ADA for disabled employees. The Ninth Circuit came down on the side of workplace safety. Its ruling can be summarized as “Safety first. ADA second.”

The decision applies only to misconduct that takes the form of violence (or the expression of homicidal or violent ideation in the workplace). The Court did not hold that all forms of employee misconduct fall outside the ADA. Indeed, it emphasized that its holding was limited to “the extreme facts . . . of an employee who makes serious and credible threats of violence.” It stated that employees who are rude, gruff, unpleasant, or anti-social may have a “psychiatric disability” and, thus, be a “qualified individual” under the ADA. Where non-violent misconduct stems from a disability, it will continue to be deemed a part of the disability, requiring employers to attempt accommodation to mitigate future disability-driven misconduct.

ARTICLE BY Andrew L. Pepper of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2015

Employer’s Use of DNA Test to Catch Employee Engaging in Inappropriate Workplace Behavior Violates Federal Law

If someone continually, yet anonymously, defecated on the floor of your workplace, you’d probably want to use any and all legal means at your disposal to identify and discipline the perpetrator.  Your methods might include surveillance or perhaps some form of forensic or other testing to link the offensive conduct to a specific individual.  You would probably not be overly concerned that your efforts to rid the workplace of this malefactor might give rise to a discrimination claim, but is that really a safe assumption?

Background

In a case exemplifying the gentility of labor-management relations, a Georgia federal court grappled with how far an employer may go in this situation.  In Lowe v. Atlas Logistics Group Retail Services, LLC, (N.D.Ga. May 5, 2015), the employer, Atlas Logistics Group Retail Services (Atlanta), LLC, which provides long-haul transportation and storage services for the grocery industry, discovered in 2012 that one or more employees had been using a common area in one of its warehouses as a lavatory.  As part of its investigation into this matter, the company retained the services of a DNA testing lab and requested cheek swabs from two employees it considered suspects so that it could compare their DNA with that of the mystery defecator.  After Atlas determined that neither employee was responsible for the unwelcome contributions to its workplace, the employees filed a lawsuit alleging that the company violated the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) by requesting and requiring them to provide genetic information.

GINA prohibits discrimination on the basis of genetic characteristics and makes it unlawful for an employer to request, require or purchase genetic information with respect to an employee.

The Court Finds Atlas Violated GINA

The court held that Atlas’ argument that GINA only prohibited genetic testing that revealed an individual’s propensity for disease – which the test in this case did not do – was inconsistent with the statute’s text and legislative history as well as the applicable EEOC regulation.  In the court’s view, this argument “render[ed] other language in GINA superfluous.”  In particular, the court noted that the statute contained specific exceptions permitting certain testing that did not involve an individual’s propensity for disease, and if testing revealing a propensity for disease were the only prohibited testing, then those exceptions would not have been necessary.  The court further rejected Atlas’ argument that GINA’s legislative history demonstrated an intent to limit violations to testing that revealed a propensity for disease, explaining that although a group of senators favored this interpretation during the legislative debate, all of the evidence indicated that Congress chose to reject this view in favor of a broad construction.  Finally, the court held that an EEOC regulation listing eight examples of “genetic tests” did not support Atlas’ narrow definition of that term because the list included testing that also did not relate to one’s propensity for disease and, therefore, “would go beyond the scope of the statute” if the law were as narrow as Atlas claimed.

Conclusion

This case’s distasteful facts, which will undoubtedly remind many human resource specialists how coarse employee relations challenges often are in practice, should not distract employers that currently perform DNA tests from the fact that GINA may apply more broadly than some initially believed.  Although the decision should not have a significant impact on the narrow range of situations where workplace DNA testing is a legitimate practice, such as those involving health and safety concerns, it should serve as notice to employers investigating misconduct that they should find methods other than DNA testing to identify culpable employees.

ARTICLE BY George M. Patterson of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
©1994-2015 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

Vacation Policy Pitfalls for Illinois Employers

FINAL SW logo wLLP2

The Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS 115/1, et seq., governs the payment of wages—including vacation pay—in Illinois.  While most employers understand that they must pay their workers on a regular basis for the wages the employees have earned, many do not consider how vacation policies may create a heightened risk of a wage class action lawsuit.

Simply put, employers must pay the wages earned by an employee at least semi-monthly, or no more than 13 days after they are first earned.  Departing employees must be paid all earned wages by the next regular pay period.  The Act defines wages to include vacation pay.  This is where things can get tricky.  An employer is not obliged to provide any vacation time to its employees.  However, once it chooses to provide vacation, the vacation time becomes earned wages that must be paid under the Act to the employee, even if the employee terminates their employment.

Employees receive vacation time in one of two ways.  First, an employer can award vacation time without requiring employees to first work some period of time.  Such a policy is called an “inducement for future service” policy and immediately vests.  Hence, employees may take vacation time under an “inducement for future service” policy without meeting any length of service criteria (and with no obligation to repay the vacation time should the employment end).  Such “inducement for future service” policies are unusual.

The other alternative is where the vacation is earned based on service.  For example, the employer can award two weeks of vacation for each year of employment.  This is considered a “length-of-service” policy and the law requires that employees earn “length-of-service” vacation time on a pro rata basis, even where the employer’s policy says they do not.  In other words, the vacation time vests as the employee works.  Thus, an employee who would earn two weeks of vacation after completing a year of employment is entitled to be paid for one week of vacation wages if he/she leaves the employer six months into the year, regardless of what the employer’s policy says.  Most employers have “length-of-service” policies.

An employer with a “length-of-service” policy must pay a departing employee the vacation wages they earned on a pro rata basis.  This is where a vacation policy can become dangerous.  If the employer has a policy that an employee only gets their vacation if they are employed in the following year, the employer is at risk with regard to every employee who left or, in the future leaves, its employment without getting paid vacation pay on a pro rata basis.  Such policy flaws lend themselves to class action lawsuits because the employer’s liability to the class will usually turn on a single question, such as whether the vacation policy is legal or not.

A class action lawsuit can be filed by one departing employee on behalf of all employees who left the employment without getting vacation pay.  A class action lawsuit is dangerous because it aggregates all employees’ claims into a single lawsuit brought by just the class representative.  In 2010, the Illinois legislature amended the statute of limitations under the Act to allow a class representative to file on behalf of a class that goes back in time up to ten years.  Because of the large number of unnamed, but represented, employees that can be in a class, the situation can create potentially disastrous financial exposure for an employer.  And, if the representative employee prevails, she is entitled to recover from the employer her attorneys’ fees, which are usually substantial.  As if this were not enough, the 2010 amendment also permits employees to collect damages of two percent per month—of 24 percent per annum—on any unpaid wages.  Willful refusals to pay wages can also be criminal.

Even if the class action lawsuit settles for a set amount of money, the employer usually must also pay the class representative’s attorneys’ fees.  Under the 2010 amendment, a prevailing employee is entitled to recover her attorneys’ fees, even she did not file her case as a class action.

Recognizing the risk, some employers have tried to limit their exposure by requiring that employees sign an agreement that they will make any claims within a short period of time—for example, six months.  Importantly, the plaintiffs’ bar and the Illinois Department of Labor take the position that the Act prevents an employee from agreeing to limit any of the rights bestowed on the employee by the Act.  Thus, an employee’s written agreement that they will bring any claims for unpaid wages within six months is unenforceable as a matter of public policy.

Employers should be careful to ensure that their policies comply with each state law in which they have employees, including the 2010 amendments to the Act.  If an employer is unfortunately named in a class action lawsuit, they should promptly seek legal advice from a law firm with experience in defending against class action lawsuits.

Copyright 2014 Schopf & Weiss LLP
ARTICLE BY

Insurance Coverage Practice Group
OF
Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, P.C.

Employee Codes of Conduct: Really? Requiring Someone To Use Information “Fairly And Lawfully” Can Be Illegal?

Allen Matkins Law Firm

Companies have lots of very good reasons for adopting codes of conduct.  These reasons include:

  • Ensuring compliance with applicable exchange listing rules (e.g., NYSE Rule 303A.10 and NASDAQ Rule 5610);
  • Minimizing the risk of securities law violations (e.g., Regulation FD and Rule 10b-5);
  • Protecting company assets (trade secrets as well as reputational assets);
  • Complying with contractual obligations requiring confidentiality; and
  • Complying with customer and employee privacy laws and regulations.

Thus, I was amazed to see a recent decision by a panel of the National Labor Relations Board finding the following language in a code of conduct to be unlawful:

Keep customer and employee information secure.  Information must be used fairly, lawfully and only for the purpose for which it was obtained.

Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market and United Food & Commercial Works Int’l Union, Cases 31-CA-077074 and 31-CA-080734 (July 31, 2014).   The NLRB found that this language violated employees’ rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act which guarantees employees “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection”.  Reversing the administrative law judge, the panel found that employees would reasonably construe the above language “to prohibit discussion and disclosure of information about other employees, such as wages and terms and conditions of employment”.  Really?  This admonition was included at page 16 of a 20 page booklet primarily dedicated to a variety of ethical matters.  In my view, it is arbitrary and capricious, if not just plain bizarre, to interpret this language as conveying any limitation on employees’ Section 7 rights.

ARTICLE BY

Keith Paul Bishop
OF
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP