Tag: employers

Supreme Court Calls Out the EEOC for Arguing It Alone Can Determine Whether It Followed the Law

We suggested last year that if you felt paranoid that the federal agencies seemed out to get employers, perhaps it was not paranoia at all. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) spate of recent lawsuits — or at least its apparent haste to sue employers and make examples out of them over such things as wellness programs (even before issuing proposed guidance on what was permissible relative to such well-intentioned programs) — clearly did not help with this concern. However, a decision by the Supreme Court last week tightened the reins on the EEOC and reminded it that, in seeking to pursue litigation against employers for violations of law, the Commission must follow the law itself and answer to claims that it has failed to do so.

Pursuant to Title VII, the EEOC must attempt to eliminate unlawful employment practices through “informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion” before suing an employer for employment discrimination. Employers may feel this does not always happen because the EEOC has lately seemed more intent on filing suit (and getting press attention for its agenda…) than working things out. Consequently, employers assert they receive insufficient information from the EEOC and are forced to make a decision on a take-it-or-leave-it basis which, if wrong, can have costly consequences. The Commission has stood firm on its use of federal muscle by asserting the courts cannot review whether it has fulfilled its pre-suit conciliation obligation; only the EEOC can review whether the EEOC can do what the EEOC is supposed to do (which seems imminently fair, right?). The Supreme Court has just said otherwise.

The case arose from litigation filed by the EEOC in 2011 on behalf of a class of female applicants not hired by the employer as miners. The employer raised as a defense the argument that the EEOC had failed to conciliate in good faith prior to filing suit, based on two letters sent by the Commission. The first informed the employer that a finding of reasonable cause had been made and “[a] representative of this office will be in contact with each party in the near future to begin the conciliation process.” The second letter declared that conciliation had “occurred” and failed, though it appears that the EEOC’s actual conciliation efforts were thin at best.

The EEOC argued that its conciliation efforts were immune from court review and that, if the courts had the power to review such efforts, it could only review its actions based on the two letters. In response, the court noted the obvious point that without court review, “the Commission’s compliance with the law would rest in the Commission’s hands alone.” Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, also rejected the EEOC’s second argument, stating that “[c]ontrary to its intimation, those letters do not themselves fulfill the conciliation condition: The first declares only that the process will start soon, and the second only that it has concluded. . . . to treat the letters as sufficient — to take them at face value, as the Government wants — is simply to accept the EEOC’s say-so that it complied with the law.”

The court then instructed the EEOC on what it must do to follow Title VII: 1) give the employer notice of the “specific allegation,” including “what the employer has done and which employees (or class of employees) have suffered as a result”; and 2) “try to engage the employer in some form of discussion (written or oral), to give the employer an opportunity to remedy the allegedly discriminatory practice.” Justice Kagan then asserted that while judicial review is limited exclusively to whether or not the EEOC has fulfilled these requirements, if the employer provides credible evidence that the EEOC did not fulfill the requirements then a court must conduct the fact finding necessary to decide that limited dispute. If the evidence shows a failure to properly conciliate, the appropriate remedy is to order the EEOC to undertake the mandated efforts to obtain voluntary compliance. Accordingly, while stays of cases may be entered until the EEOC is given the opportunity to do what it was supposed to have done, it is unlikely that any case will be dismissed for failure to meet the pre-suit requirements.

This decision is absolutely a win for employers, as it calls the EEOC out for its improper use of federal muscle through litigation and make an example of an employer without first giving it a legitimate opportunity to assess its options. While the decision will not put employers in control, or even on equal standing, with the EEOC prior to suit, it does create leverage to insist the EEOC meet the minimum requirements. As a practical matter, this may cause the EEOC to be more forthcoming, and cooperative, at least when pressed. And employers should do exactly that if necessary and carefully document circumstances when it feels the EEOC has not done what it must.

Authored by: Gregory D Snell of Foley & Lardner LLP

© 2015 Foley & Lardner LLP

The New Illinois Secure Choice Savings Program: Considerations for Employers

On January 4, 2015, the governor of Illinois signed into law the Illinois Secure Choice Savings Program Act (S.B. 2758). This law—first of its kind in the nation—requires certain employers to provide an automatic payroll deduction for savings in a Roth IRA for employees who are over age 18 and who do not opt out. Employers who are subject to this mandate are those who have 25 or more employees in Illinois, have been in business for at least two years, and have not offered their employees tax-favored retirement benefits in the preceding two years. “Small employers” not otherwise subject to the Act may participate in the Program on an elective basis. The Program will not be activated before 2017, and affected employers must establish a payroll deposit arrangement “at most nine months” after the Program opens for enrollment.

Several interest groups promoted this legislation, and several opposed this ambitious law.

Scope of Program

The Secure Choice Savings Program will require affected employers to automatically enroll eligible employees who do not opt out and to facilitate payroll deductions for those employees. The statute provides that employers will not be treated as fiduciaries “over the Program” or liable for Program investments, design, or benefits. No employer contributions are required.

Open enrollment will occur at least once a year. Affected employers will forward the payroll deductions to a system administered by a seven-member state board that will supervise the investment of the assets, engage investment managers, and perform similar supervisory functions. Employers’ activities will also include distributing materials provided by the state board. Penalties for an employer’s violation will be $250 per employee per year, with the amount increasing to $500 for violations with respect to employees who continue to be treated as unenrolled in years after the initial assessment.

Enrollees may contribute up to the IRA maximum, with a default level of 3% of wages for those who do not elect a different percentage or amount. Enrollees will have the investment options provided by the state board.

Employers must consider various federal tax obligations. For example, the Program’s treatment of contributions to a Roth IRA as a payroll deduction implicates federal income and payroll tax obligations with respect to those funds. Contributions to Program accounts, when combined with an employee’s IRA contributions outside of the Program, may not exceed the Tax Code’s annual limit. The extent of an employer’s responsibility, if any, in connection with an employee’s compliance in this context, remains to be developed.

In addition, when disputes arise with respect to an employer’s obligations under the Act—for example, Program penalty assessments—contested matters are ultimately appealed under the Illinois Administrative Review Law (ARL) in a 35-day window (like a statute of limitations, only stricter) for challenges to agency decisions (here, the Department of Revenue). As many practitioners know, the ARL process is one that is laden with procedural landmines for parties who challenge agency decisions in state court.

From a different perspective, the Act attempts to restrict the scope of fiduciary obligations—potentially good news for employers and others involved in the Program. However, drawing lessons from the ERISA experience, contributions to 401(k) plans have sometimes resulted in the delay or failure of contributions from financially distressed employers who must forward money deducted from employee paychecks. For ERISA plans, this can result in United States Department of Labor (USDOL) enforcement in court. However, from practical perspective, the Illinois Secure Choice Savings Program raises questions as to how such non-ERISA violations will be treated.

The law specifically requires the state board to request an opinion from the USDOL regarding ERISA’s applicability to the Program. Also, the state board may not implement the Program if the Program’s IRAs fail to qualify for favorable federal tax treatment normally accorded to IRAs, or if it is determined that the Program is an employee benefit plan, or if any “employer liability is established” under ERISA. In addition, the Program may not be implemented unless there is adequate funding for its operation. Delay in satisfying these various conditions could push the start date to a later time.

Although the Act strives to create a “non-ERISA environment” in which no Program activity will constitute an ERISA plan, the fact that 50 different states may create various programs with rules different from the Illinois rules suggests that the USDOL may scrutinize not only the definition of a “plan” but also theAct itself for adequate avoidance of the patchwork of rules from which ERISA was enacted to spare multi-state employers.

The recently inaugurated federal MyRA (my retirement account) program bears some analogy to the Illinois Program; for example, its reliance on Roth IRAs. However, there are several important differences in the two models. Although the USDOL recently gave assurance that MyRAs would not constitute ERISA plans, the specter of numerous state programs could well give federal regulators pause. ERISA preemption does not extend to federal laws, but many non-federal programs promoting retirement benefits could be viewed as requiring close and time-consuming review. Assuming federal authorities conclude that ERISA is not implicated by the Illinois Program, that conclusion may be slow in coming if DOL regulators see a need to deal comprehensively with future programs of other states. On the other hand, Illinois authorities may have already coordinated informally with the USDOL, and the Program’s clearance might be fast-tracked in Washington.

Start-up of the Program will also entail definitional clarifications of certain terms used in the Act, particularly those used to define the scope of the Program.

Much commentary on this law is possible—from regulatory, fiscal, procedural, and other perspectives. But given the two-year wait, the required clearances from federal agencies, the possibility that some changes in the law may occur, and the potential challenges in Illinois for funding the Program’s operations, we will defer detailed commentary to a later date.

What Should Employers in Illinois Do Now?

Given the long period of at least two years before the Act’s implementation, and given that the law directs Illinois regulators to deal with federal agencies and secure adequate funding for Program operations, employers should monitor developments relating to the Program.

Employers who clearly or arguably employ 25 or more employees should determine whether any Illinois employees are not covered by a tax-favored retirement plan. Close questions will have to be reviewed in light of interpretations of the statute. A single eligible employee who does not opt out may require the employer’s compliance.

Effect on Employers Based in Other States

If the new law takes effect in Illinois as presently contemplated—and even if it doesn’t—other states may soon be seen enacting similar laws intended to mandate the enrollment of employees not covered by an employer’s retirement plan. Those jurisdictions should also be monitored for legislative moves like the Illinois Secure Choice Savings Program Act because the Illinois Act could be a harbinger of similar laws in other states.

The Year in Social Media: Four Big Developments from 2014

Barnes Thornburg

As social networking has become entrenched as a tool for doing business and not just a pastime of our social lives, employers, government agencies, and even academia have taken big steps in 2014 to define how social media can and cannot, or should and should not, be used. Below is a summary of some of the big developments in social media in the workplace this year.

The EEOC Turns Its Attention to Social Media

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has turned its attention toward social networking, meeting in March to gather information about social media use in the workplace. To no surprise, the EEOC recognized that although using social media sites such as LinkedIn could be a “valuable tool” for identifying employment candidates, relying on personal information found on social networks, such as age, race, gender, or ethnicity, to make employment decisions is prohibited.

More controversially, the EEOC expressed concern that employers’ efforts to access so-called “private” social media communications in the discovery phase of discrimination lawsuits might have a “chilling effect” on employees filing discrimination cases. However, it is unclear how the EEOC might prevent employers from getting this information if it is relevant to a plaintiff’s claims. It remains to be seen what steps the EEOC might take to address this “chilling effect.”

 The NLRB Continues to Refine Its Position on Social Media Policies

The National Labor Relations Board has spent the past few years attacking social media policies as overbroad, but perhaps a shift in that policy is at hand. This summer, an NLRB administrative law judge upheld a social media policy that discouraged employees from posting information on social networks about the company or their jobs that might create morale problems. The ALJ held that the policy did not prohibit job-related posts, but merely called on employees to be civil in their social media posts to avoid morale problems. The ALJ’s finding is at odds with recent NLRB decisions, which have gone much further to limit any policies that might affect employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act. While it is unclear whether this holding is an outlier or a shift in the NLRB’s approach, it brings with it some hope that the NLRB may be moving toward a more pro-employer stance.

States Continue to Limit Employers’ Access to Employees’ Social Media Accounts

State governments also are getting involved with social media regulation. In April, Wisconsin became the newest state to pass legislation aimed at protecting employees’ social media accounts, passing the Social Media Protection Act. The Act bars employers, schools, and landlords from requiring their employees, students, and tenants to produce their social media passwords. Significantly, the Act does not ban them from viewing social media posts that are publicly accessible.

Wisconsin was not alone in enacting legislation to protect social media passwords this year, as Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Tennessee enacted similar laws during 2014 and 12 other states did so in previous years. While not every state has passed such legislation, it is clear that state governments increasingly will not tolerate employers asking employees or applicants for access to their private social networking accounts. Employers should be mindful of their state laws before seeking social media information that might be protected.

Academia is Drawing Its Own Conclusions Regarding Social Media in the Workplace

Federal and state governments are not the only institutions weighing the implications of social media in the workplace. University researchers also are studying employers’ stances on social media – a North Carolina State University study concluded that applicants tend to have a lower opinion of employers that looked at their social media profiles before making a hiring decision, and a Carnegie Mellon University study concluded that employers risked claims of discrimination by reviewing applicants’ social media profiles, based on employers being more likely to screen out candidates based on their personal information such as ethnicity.

While these studies weigh against employers searching applicants’ social media before making hiring decisions, there is certainly logic to the contrary, as employers are entitled to view publicly-accessible information about their applicants, and thorough employers will want to learn as much as they can to do their due diligence in making important hiring decisions.

Laws, best practices, and public opinion regarding social media in the workplace will continue to evolve in 2015. Employers would be wise to look at the most recent developments before making any major decisions affecting their social media policies and practices.

ARTICLE BY

Douglas M. Oldham
OF
Barnes & Thornburg LLP

The Affordable Care Act—Countdown to Compliance for Employers, Week 1: Going Live with the Affordable Care Act’s Employer Shared Responsibility Rules on January 1, 2015

Mintz Levin Law Firm

Regulations implementing the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) employer shared responsibility rules including the substantive “pay-or-play” rules and the accompanying reporting rules were adopted in February.  Regulations implementing the reporting rules in newly added Internal Revenue Code Sections 6055 and 6056 came along in March. And draft reporting forms (IRS Forms 1094-B, 1094-C, 1095-B and 1095-C) and accompanying instructions followed in August.

With these regulations and forms, and a handful of other, related guidance items (e.g., a final rule governing waiting periods), the government has assembled a basic—but by no means complete—compliance infrastructure for employer shared responsibility. But challenges nevertheless remain. Set out below is a partial list of items that are unresolved, would benefit from additional guidance, or simply invite trouble.

1.  Variable Hour Status

The ability to determine an employee’s status as full-time is a key regulatory innovation. It represents a frank recognition that the statute’s month-by-month determination of full-time employee status does not work well in instances where an employee’s work schedule is by its nature erratic or unpredictable. We examined issues relating to variable hour status in previous posts dated April 14, July 20, and August 10.

An employee is a “variable hour employee” if—

Based on the facts and circumstances at the employee’s start date, the employer cannot determine whether the employee is reasonably expected to be employed on average at least 30 hours of service per week during the initial measurement period because the employee’s hours are variable or otherwise uncertain.

The final regulations prescribe a series of factors to be applied in making this call. But employers are having a good deal of difficulty applying these factors, particularly to short-tenure, high turnover positions. While there are no safe, general rules that can be applied in these cases, it is pretty easy to identify what will not work: classification based on employee-type (as opposed to position) does not satisfy the rule. Thus, it is unlikely that a restaurant that classifies all of its hourly employees, or a staffing firm that classifies all of its contract and temporary workers, as variable hour without any further analysis would be deemed to comply. But if a business applies the factors to, and applies the factors by, positions,  it stands a far greater chance of getting it right.

2.  Common Law Employees

We addressed this issue in our post of September 3, and since then, the confusion seems to have gotten worse. Clients of staffing firms have generally sought to take advantage of a special rule governing offers of group health plan coverage by unrelated employers without first analyzing whether the rule is required.

While staffing firms and clients have generally been able to reach accommodation on contractual language, there have been a series of instances where clients have sought to hire only contract and temporary workers who decline coverage in an effort to contain costs. One suspects that, should this gel into a trend, it will take the plaintiff’s class action bar little time to respond, most likely attempting to base their claims in ERISA.

3.  Penalties for “legacy” HRA and health FSA violations

A handful of promoters have, since the ACA’s enactment, offered arrangements under which employers simply provided lump sum amounts to employees for the purpose of enabling the purchase of individual market coverage. These schemes ranged from the odd to the truly bizarre. (For example, one variant claimed that the employer could offer pre-tax amounts to employees to enroll in subsidized public exchange coverage.) In a 2013 notice, the IRS made clear that these arrangements, which it referred to as “employer payment plans,” ran afoul of certain ACA insurance market requirements. (The issues and penalties are explained in our June 2 post.) Despite what seemed to us as a clear, unambiguous message, many of these schemes continued into 2014.

Employers that offered non-compliant employer-payment arrangements in 2014 are subject to penalties, which must be self-reported. For an explanation of how penalties might be abated, see our post of April 21.

4.  Mergers & Acquisitions

While the final employer shared responsibility regulations are comprehensive, they fail to address mergers, acquisitions, and other corporate transactions. There are some questions, such as the determination of an employer’s status as an applicable large employer, that don’t require separate rules. Here, one simply looks at the previous calendar year. But there are other questions, the answers to which are more difficult to discern. For example, in an asset deal where both the buyer and seller elect the look-back measurement method, are employees hired by the buyer “new” employees or must their prior service be tacked? The IRS invited comments on the issue in its Notice 2014-49.

Taking a page from the COBRA rules, the IRS could require employers to treat sales of substantial assets in a manner similar to stock sales, in which case buyers would need to carry over or reconstruct prior service. While such a result might be defensible, it would also impose costly administrative burdens. Currently, this question is being handled deal-by-deal, with the “answers” varying in direct proportion to the buyer’s appetite for risk.

5.  Reporting

That the ACA employer reporting rules are in place, and that the final forms and instructions are imminent should give employers little comfort. These rules are ghastly in their complexity. They require the collection, processing and integration of data from multiple sources—payroll, benefits admiration, and H.R., among others. What is needed are expert systems to track compliance with the ACA employer shared responsibility rules, populate and deliver employee reports, and ensure proper and timely delivery of employee notices and compliance with the employer’s transmittal obligations. These systems are under development from three principal sources: commercial payroll providers, national and regional consulting firms, and venture-based and other start-ups that see a business opportunity. Despite the credentials of the product sponsors, however—many of which are truly impressive—it is not yet clear in the absence of actual experience that any of their products will work. It is not too early for employers to contact their vendors and seek assurances about product delivery, reliability, and performance.

Amazon Settlement with NLRB a Reminder for Employers — “Confidential” Wage Policies Violate the NLRA

Barnes Thornburg

Last week in a settlement with the NLRB, online retailer Amazon agreed to allow its largely non-union workforce to discuss pay and working conditions with each other without fear of discipline. The settlement, as reported by Bloomberg News which obtained a copy, required Amazon to rescind certain work rules that prohibited workers from sharing information with one another, although Amazon did not admit any violation of the NLRA.

Amazon’s work rule was considered too broad by the NLRB because it prohibited discussion of wages and working conditions, considered quintessential “protected concerted activity” under the NLRA. In Amazon’s case, the NLRB got involved when an employee was disciplined after voicing concerns about security in the employee parking lot. The employee apparently filed a charge with the NLRB protesting his discipline and this led the NLRB to examine not only the circumstances of the employee’s discipline, but to scrutinize Amazon’s policies as well.

This settlement serves as a reminder to all employers, both union and non-union, that policies which prohibit discussion of terms and conditions of employment are on their face unlawful under the NLRA.  It is tempting for employers to require that wages or other benefits be kept “confidential” for a variety of reasons, but enforcing such policies is an easy way to draw unwanted attention from the NLRB, especially given the Board’s current focus on protected concerted activity.

ARTICLE BY

Christine Holst
OF
Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Employers in Illinois Take Note: Pregnancy Accommodation Amendments Go Into Effect January 1, 2015

Neal Gerber

As of January 1, 2015, the recently enacted pregnancy accommodation amendments to the Illinois Human Rights Act (“IHRA”) will go into effect, requiring many Illinois employers to update or change their policies and practices with regard to the expecting and new mothers in their workforce.  Read below for the highlights of the IHRA’s pregnancy-related amendments, and stay tuned for an announcement from our group about an upcoming breakfast training at which we will discuss the details of the amendments, along with other employment hot topics for 2015.

Which employers are covered by the amendments?  All private, non-religious employers in Illinois, regardless of the number of employees, will be covered by the new pregnancy-related provisions of the IHRA.  Note, most IHRA provisions generally apply only to employers with 15 or more employees in Illinois.  The Act’s pregnancy-related amendments, however, apply to all employers, regardless of size.

Which employees are protected by the amendments?  The amended IHRA prohibits discrimination based on, and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for, “pregnancy.”  “Pregnancy” is defined broadly under the Act to include “pregnancy, childbirth, or medical or common conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth.”  Thus, the amendments generally will apply to applicants and employees who are expecting and who recently gave birth.

What do the amendments require?  Broadly speaking, the amendments impose an affirmative obligation on employers to offer reasonable accommodations for pregnancy and childbirth-related conditions.  Such accommodations may include:  more frequent or longer breaks; providing time and a private, non-bathroom space to express breast milk; physical accommodations such as seating and assistance with manual labor; modified or a part-time work schedule or even “job restructuring”; time off to recover from conditions related to childbirth; and/or leave “necessitated by” pregnancy, childbirth or medical “or common conditions” resulting from pregnancy or childbirth.

Importantly, under the amended IHRA employers may not require expecting or new mothers to just take leave, or to accept an accommodation that the applicant or the employee did not request.  The individual must agree to the form of accommodation being offered.  However, prior to providing the requested accommodation, employers will have the ability to require the requesting employee to submit medical proof of the need for that accommodation, to include a description of the advisable accommodation and its probable duration.

In addition, similar to the provisions of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, the amended IHRA will not require employers to create new positions, discharge or transfer other employees, or to promote an unqualified employee in order to meet the “reasonable accommodation” requirement.  If the requested accommodation would pose an “undue hardship,” it need not be provided.  Employers should note, however, that the amended IHRA (similar to the ADA) places the burden of proving an “undue hardship” squarely on the employer, and meeting that burden is no easy task.  An “undue hardship” will be found to exist only if the requested accommodation is “prohibitively expensive or disruptive” when considered in light of certain specified factors, including the accommodation’s nature and cost, the overall financial resources of and impact on the facility or facilities involved in providing the requested accommodation, the overall financial resources of the employer, and the employer’s general operations.  Importantly, if the employer provides or would be required to provide the kind of accommodation being requested to other similarly-situated, non-pregnant employees, the amended IHRA will impose a “rebuttable presumption” that the requested accommodation would not impose an undue hardship.

Once an employee’s need for reasonable accommodation ceases and she relays an intent to return to her former position, the amended IHRA requires that the employer reinstate her to that former position or an equivalent position with equivalent pay, without loss of seniority or other benefits, unless, again, doing so would impose an undue burden.

The amended IHRA further requires that employers in Illinois post an Illinois Department of Human Rights-prepared or approved notice about the pregnancy accommodation amendments in the workplace, and also include appropriate information regarding employees’ rights under the amendments in their handbooks.

In short…  Considering that women compose nearly 50% of all workers in Illinois, it is important for employers to understand and ensure compliance with the IHRA’s new pregnancy-related amendments.  Any request for an accommodation made by an expecting or new mother must be evaluated thoughtfully, with the new statutory framework in mind.

ARTICLE BY

Sonya Rosenberg
OF
Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP

Employers: How Prepared Are You for Ebola?

Morgan Lewis logo

Rapidly changing circumstances raise workplace questions.

The Ebola epidemic in 2014 has already been confirmed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) as the worst in history. The extent of this outbreak is still unknown, as reports of Ebola transmissions continue not only in West Africa but also (for the first time in history) inside U.S. and European borders. Because of the potential risks in a globalized economy, the U.S. government, its various agencies, and employers alike are now scrambling to ensure that appropriate rules and procedures are in place to prevent any further exposure to the disease. Reactions have been swift and fluid as officials learn more about the presence of the virus in West Africa and beyond and as they develop strategies to respond. Among the federal agencies that have already taken action, the CDC has recently issued “tightened” guidance for proper personal protective equipment (PPE) in the healthcare industry, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued guidance covering a number of workplace safety issues. The situation is changing rapidly and further action is expected by the U.S. government, especially after the White House announced the appointment of an Ebola Response Coordinator (or Ebola Czar).

In the United States, employers are facing challenges and questions on how to best address a wide variety of issues, including workplace safety, travel policies, employee relations, leaves of absence, and refusal to work requests. Whether responding to Ebola or other emergencies, employers should use protocols that include emergency preparedness and response plans, such as assigning responsibilities, assessing the hazard, conveying effective communications, and implementing security measures to address those key issues. In the meantime, here is what you need to know right now.

OSHA’s Interim Guidance

OSHA quickly released interim guidance for workers within the United States that focuses on those in industries most likely to be affected by the Ebola crisis:

  • Healthcare workers

  • Airline and other travel industry personnel

  • Mortuary and death care workers

  • Laboratory workers

  • Border, customs, and quarantine workers

  • Emergency responders

  • Employers in critical infrastructure/key resource sectors, such as bus drivers and pharmacists

Employers in these key industries must evaluate how they currently respond to emergencies and if those preparedness and response plans are adequate or need modification, particularly when assessing hazards specific to their jobsites (OSHA lists industry-specific information on its website). These employers should explore ways to proactively combat and contain the virus, such as obtaining PPE, implementing cleaning and sanitation procedures, and evaluating whether engineering controls, such as pressurized glass, respirators, and decontamination devices, should be used. If an employer happens to be a hospital or similarly licensed accredited facility, state licensing and other laws as well as accreditation bodies may require those organizations to activate emergency preparedness plans. Employers should communicate with their workers and train them about sources of Ebola and any required precautions.

On its newly released website dedicated to Ebola, OSHA has asserted jurisdiction over potential worker exposure via several regulations already in place. Most notably, the Ebola virus has been classified as a “bloodborne pathogen” under OSHA’s Bloodborne Pathogens standard,[1] which explicitly covers pathogens like hepatitis B virus (HBV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The Bloodborne Pathogens standard imposes a range of requirements on employers whose workers can be reasonably anticipated to contact blood or other potentially infectious materials (OPIM), such as saliva and semen. Covered employers must train employees, prepare exposure control plans, and use “universal precautions,” engineering and work practice controls, PPE, and housekeeping measures to contain the virus. Employers must also offer medical evaluations, blood tests, and follow-up evaluations after any worker is exposed to blood or OPIM. The standard contains many other nuanced requirements, including carefully documenting compliance measures. Given the complexities of the regulation, employers are strongly encouraged to seek legal advice if workers could anticipate exposure and to seek emergency, medical, and legal advice if any work-related exposure to blood or OPIM occurs.

Beyond this standard, OSHA has reminded employers that—when undertaking precautions for contact-transmissible diseases and any bioaerosols containing the Ebola virus—they must comply with OSHA’s (1) Respiratory Protection standard[2] if respirators are used on the job and (2) PPE standard[3] wherever PPE is used as a precaution. Finally, OSHA reiterated that it may issue citations against employers under the General Duty Clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970[4]—OSHA’s “catch all” provision, which is used if no other regulation applies and where an employer allegedly fails to keep its workplace free of recognized hazards that can cause death or serious bodily harm to workers.

CDC Involvement

The primary U.S. agency embroiled in the fight against Ebola is the CDC. Of the many steps taken by the CDC in this effort, highlights of the latest guidance and advice are outlined below.

“Tightened Guidance” on PPE for U.S. Healthcare Workers

Following widespread criticism after two nurses contracted Ebola while treating a patient in Dallas, Texas, the CDC released on October 20 “tightened guidance” for PPE used by healthcare workers while caring for patients with Ebola. According to the CDC, three guiding principles control: (1) Employees must receive rigorous and repeated training to fully understand how to use PPE, (2) no skin can be exposed when PPE is worn, and (3) a trained monitor must be present to supervise all workers as they put on or take off PPE. The CDC also described “different options for combining PPE to allow a facility to select PPE for their protocols based on availability, healthcare personnel familiarity, comfort and preference while continuing to provide a standardized, high level of protection for healthcare personnel.” Among the recommendations for monitoring the safe use and removal of PPE, the CDC provides advice on step-by-step PPE removal, as well as disinfection of gloved hands.

In addition to PPE, the CDC further underscored other critical prevention activities to respond to the Ebola risk, including (1) prompt screening and triage of potential patients, (2) designating site managers who have the responsibility to ensure proper implementation of precautions, (3) limiting personnel in the isolation room, and (4) effective environmental cleaning. Employers in the healthcare industry should be aware that the CDC has highlighted management responsibility “to provide resources and support for the implementation of effective prevention precautions” and that management “should maintain a culture of worker safety in which appropriate PPE is available and correctly maintained, and workers are provided with appropriate training.” For more information and advice for healthcare workers, visit the CDC’s website.

Health and Travel Advisories

Given the severity of the risk that Ebola poses, the CDC has issued health and travel alerts, which it will continue to update as the situation develops. In the wake of various governors, particularly those from New York, New Jersey, and Illinois, having announced plans to quarantine health workers traveling from West Africa who treated Ebola patients, the CDC has also updated its guidance on October 27 regarding the monitoring and movement of persons with potential Ebola exposure. The guidance applies to anyone who recently traveled to West Africa and may have been exposed to Ebola and includes newly created tiered categories of risk, ranging from high to no risk and based on exposure to Ebola. Depending on the risk category, the CDC recommends that state and local health authorities isolate travelers who are exhibiting signs of illness or conduct “active” or “direct active” monitoring of signs and symptoms of Ebola for other at-risk individuals.

Health officials will make at least daily contact with these travelers, requiring travelers to disclose (1) temperatures and any other Ebola symptoms, such as headache, diarrhea, and vomiting, and (2) intent to travel out of state. For individuals who are under direct active monitoring, the CDC recommends that discussions with the individual include plans to work, travel, take public transportation, or go to busy public places to determine whether these activities are allowed.

Employers, and particularly employers with an international presence, should closely monitor these CDC travel advisories,[5] as well as advisories published by the World Health Organization (WHO).[6] Employers should evaluate their own travel policies and alerts against those published by the CDC and the WHO.

Protecting Employees from Impacted Regions from Harassment and Protecting the Confidentiality of Medical Information

Like the CDC, employers must respect workers’ privacy—and, particularly, the confidentiality of their medical information pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)—and they must also comply with rules and guidance from OSHA, the CDC, and other agencies. Employers should balance their need to ensure workplace safety with their obligation to avoid unnecessary or overbroad medical inquiries, which are prohibited by the ADA. Of course, if an employee is exhibiting symptoms of Ebola exposure, it is appropriate to urge him or her to see a doctor. However, the decision to send an employee for a medical exam or to request medical documentation should be based on objective information—not unfounded fears that may or may not be grounded in reality. As an example, without some reason to believe there has been Ebola exposure, it could be risky to request medical information simply because an employee visited an Ebola-impacted region.

Employers should also take caution and consult legal counsel before they send home an employee suspected of Ebola exposure. The decision to remove an employee from the workplace for medical reasons must based on objective belief that the employee may present a direct threat of significant, imminent harm to himself or herself or others. These decisions should not be based on rumor or unfounded concerns.

To address these issues, employers should train human resources employees about the CDC guidance so they can understand the medical and scientific realities of Ebola exposure and, therefore, be prepared to respond appropriately if employees express concern about a coworker believed to be at risk for Ebola exposure. Similarly, employers should take all necessary steps to ensure that employees who are, or who are perceived to be, from regions impacted by Ebola do not experience harassment based on race, national origin, or any perceived medical condition.

HIPAA

The Ebola situation has also introduced some Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) interpretation questions for employers that are Covered Entities—such as healthcare providers—but also for those that sponsor a Covered Entity group health plan. HIPAA protects an individual’s protected health information (PHI), which includes, for example, medical, demographic, and other identifying information. HIPAA restricts Covered Entities from disclosing PHI about a worker or plan participant, except in limited circumstances. To date, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has not indicated that the Ebola crisis will change its enforcement or interpretation of HIPAA. The HIPAA Privacy Rule and Security Rules, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, will still apply to Covered Entities. Although narrow exceptions exist for use or disclosure for certain public health purposes, this exception will likely only apply in limited situations for limited organizations. Covered Entities should review their policies and procedures to determine if and how infectious diseases, particularly Ebola, are addressed. They should also train their Privacy Employees—workers who act on behalf of the Covered Entity—to continue to protect an individual’s PHI. Before disclosing any PHI, Covered Entities should exercise caution and consult with legal counsel to confirm that a use or disclosure will not constitute a HIPAA violation.

Labor Relations

In light of the media furor from various healthcare and service workers’ unions regarding Ebola risks to workers, employers should also expect to receive collective bargaining demands related to training, adequate safety procedures, and protective equipment and medical services provided to exposed employees, potentially including demands for leave (whether paid or unpaid). Employers should be proactive, therefore, in reaching out to union representatives of healthcare workers to develop protocols on how best to handle these types of issues, and, given the labor laws, should not act unilaterally, even if well intentioned and even if the to-be-implemented protocols are favorable to employees. Employers should also review their current collective bargaining agreements for any clauses or language requiring the employer to implement procedures related to infectious diseases or the safety of their workers. Finally, even nonunion workers can exercise rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to engage in concerted activity for their mutual aid and protection if workers fear their safety is not adequately protected. A refusal to work because of safety concerns related to Ebola, therefore, could be protected under the NLRA, and employers should carefully consider this issue prior to implementing discipline to employees for refusing to work.

Immigration

In coordination with the CDC, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) implemented a set of travel restrictions[7] involving additional screening and protective measures for travelers from Ebola-affected countries at U.S. ports of entry. Travelers to the United States who are arriving directly or indirectly from Liberia, Sierra Leone, or Guinea will undergo enhanced screening that includes the following:

  • Identifying and interdicting travelers from the Ebola-affected countries.

  • Isolating these travelers from the rest of the traveling public while the individual completes a questionnaire and contact information form.

  • Medically trained personnel will take the traveler’s temperature. If the traveler has a fever or other symptoms, or may have been exposed to Ebola, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will refer the traveler to the CDC for a public health assessment. The CDC will then determine whether the traveler can continue to travel, should be taken to a hospital for further evaluation, or should be referred to a local health department for further monitoring.

  • Encouraging the traveler to seek healthcare at the first sign of any potential illness.

If CBP discovers that a traveler has been in one of the three countries in the prior 21 days, he or she will be referred for additional screening, and, if necessary, the CDC or other medical personnel in the area will be contacted pursuant to existing protocols. The enhanced screening is in place at the five U.S. airports that account for 94% of travelers flying to the United States from Ebola-affected countries. The airports are John F. Kennedy International, Newark Liberty International, Washington Dulles International, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International, and Chicago O’Hare International. DHS has authority under existing law to deny admission to individuals who represent a public health threat.

Given the rapidly changing circumstances, employers are faced with many labor and employment challenges to consider.

[1]. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1030.

[2]. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.134.

[3]. 29 C.F.R. 1910.132.

[4]. View the act here.

[5]. View the advisories here.

[6]. View the advisories here.

[7]. View the restrictions here.

ARTICLE BY

Jonathan L. Snare
Joyce A. Cowan
Eric S. Bord
Ross H. Friedman
Michelle Seldin Silverman
Georgina L. O’Hara
OF
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

California Class Action Suit Alleges LinkedIn Violated Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) By Providing Employers With Reference Reports

Allen Matkins Law Firm

Another interesting case filed in California recently highlights the myriad risks employers face when using social media as part of their hiring process.

A class action lawsuit was filed in the Central District of California against LinkedIn based on allegations that thereference reports LinkedIn generates for premium subscribers, including many employers, violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act(“FCRA”). According to the plaintiffs in Sweet, et. al. v. LinkedIn Corporation, an employer who is a premium subscriber can generate a report containing the names, locations, employment areas, current employers, and current positions of all persons in a user’s network who may have worked with a job applicant and also contact the applicant’s “references.” An employer, according to the allegations, can run such a “reference report” on a job applicant without the applicant receiving any notification whatsoever. Thus, as the complaint alleges, “any potential employer can anonymously dig into the employment history of any LinkedIn member, and make hiring and firing decisions based upon the information they gather, without the knowledge of the member, and without any safeguards in place as to the accuracy of the information that the potential employer has obtained.” The complaint claims this activity potentially violates both the FCRA’s purposes, which include safeguards as to the accuracy, fairness, and privacy of the information that a potential employer obtains, and the FCRA’s customer notification requirements.

This latest lawsuit against LinkedIn serves as another example of the complex legal issues and risks that an employer faces when using social media to make recruiting and hiring decisions.

© 2010-2014 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
ARTICLE BY

Alexander Nestor
Nisha Verma
OF
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

Paid Sick Leave Spreads Throughout New Jersey

Sheppard Mullin Law Firm

While the New Jersey Senate and Assembly continue to debate state-wide sick leave laws, four more New Jersey municipalities have enacted mandatory sick leave laws for private employers.  Effective January 2015, East Orange, Paterson, Irvington and Passaic will join Newark and Jersey City in requiring paid sick time for employees.

Under the recently passed ordinances of those municipalities, most employees of private employers who work a total of 80 hours or more in a covered municipality will accrue at least one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked.  For employees who are exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, employers should assume a 40 hour workweek, unless the employee’s normal workweek is less than 40 hours.  If the exempt employee’s normal workweek is less than 40 hours, accrual may be based on the employee’s normal workweek.

Employees who work for employers with 10 or more employees in the municipality may accrue up to 40 hours of paid sick time in a calendar year, while employees who work for employers with less than 10 employees in the municipality may accrue up to 24 hours of paid sick time per calendar year, with some exceptions.  For example, home health care workers and food service workers may accrue up to 40 hours per calendar year regardless of the size of the employer.

Paid sick time accrual begins upon the effective date of the applicable ordinance and thereafter upon the date of hire.  However, accrued time may not be used until after the 90th calendar day of employment.  After 90 calendar days of employment, employees must be permitted to use accrued sick time for several reasons including:

  • To care for their own or a family member’s sickness, need for medical diagnosis, care or treatment of a sickness, or need for preventative medical care; or

  • Due to a forced closing of the employee’s place of business or to care for a child whose school or place of care has a forced closing, or to care for a family member when a health authority or a health care provider has determined that the family member’s exposure to a communicable disease would jeopardize the health of other’s in the community.

The ordinances allow an employer to require reasonable advance notice where the leave is foreseeable and as soon as practicable where it is not.  The ordinances also permit an employer to request that the employee confirm in writing that the time was used for a permissible purpose, and where the employee has been out for three or more consecutive days, the employer may request reasonable supporting documentation from a health care professional.  An employer may not, however, require that the documentation explain the nature of the illness.  To the extent any health information is disclosed, such information must be treated as confidential and only disclosed to the affected employee or with the affected employee’s permission.

Once accrued, up to 40 hours of paid sick time may be carried over into the next calendar year.  An employer may, however, elect to pay its employees for unused sick time at the end of the calendar year in lieu of carry over.  Note that even where an employee does carry over accrued paid sick time, an employer is not required to permit the employee to take more than 40 hours of paid sick time in a calendar year.  The “calendar year” may be defined by the employer as any regular consecutive 12-month period.

Employers who already have paid time off policies that provide sufficient paid time to satisfy the total annual accrual requirements of the applicable ordinance, and permit such paid time off to be used for the same purposes identified in the ordinance, are not required to provide additional paid time.  Employers should be mindful, however, that if their current policy only provides paid time off to full-time employees, either their policy should be modified to extend such paid time off to all employees who work more than 80 hours in a covered municipality or a separate policy should be implemented for part-time and temporary employees that satisfies the minimum requirements of any applicable ordinance.

While none of the ordinances require an employer to pay employees for accrued but unused sick time upon separation, if an employee is rehired within six months, any accrued but unused sick time must be reinstated.  Likewise, if an employee is transferred within the municipality the employee retains any unused sick time.

Each of the ordinances provide expansive protections against retaliation and require employers to provide individual employees with notice of their rights under the law.  Notice to individual employees must be in English and in the employee’s primary language, provided the employee’s primary language is the primary language of at least 10% of the employer’s workforce.  Employers are also required to display a poster in a conspicuous and accessible place in each covered business establishment.  In addition, employers must maintain records documenting their compliance with the applicable ordinance.

Failure to comply with these ordinances may result in fines, civil penalties, or a private action by a current or former employee.  As such, employers in the covered municipalities should familiarize themselves with the applicable ordinances and take steps to ensure compliance.

ARTICLE BY

Lisa M. Harris
OF
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

Ebola and Potential Labor Relations Issues

Proskauer Law firm

The Ebola panic presently sweeping the U.S. raises a host of potential issues for employers.  We recently provided guidance to help employers ensure employee safety while also complying with legal obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar laws.  In addition, the Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) recently released a comprehensive summary of requirements, recommendations and guidelines for employers and workers.  The escalating concern over Ebola also raises potential labor relations issues.  Many of the workplaces with the potential for employees to come into contact with infected persons or material – health care providers, cleaning services, waste disposal firms, ambulance and other transportation services, to name a few – are unionized, and unions have begun to seek greater protections for their members.  Non-union employers may be affected as well, as at least one group of non-union employees has engaged in a strike to protest inadequate safety measures.

An important step all employers can take, whether unionized or not, is to share information disseminated by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and other public health agencies to educate their employees.  Indeed, a recent Washington Post article highlighted the information gap that is fueling public fears.  Sharing accurate, up to date information should help address employee concerns and avoid potential workplace disruptions based on unfounded fears.

Beyond the dissemination of information, in workplaces where employees may have some potential to come into contact with persons or material infected with the Ebola virus, employers must comply with applicable workplace health and safety laws and regulations, including making sure that effective protocols are in place, that protective equipment and clothing are available, and that employees receive appropriate training.  Not surprisingly, healthcare workers – nurses in particular – have been at the forefront in demanding increased protection and training.

National Nurses United (NNU) has been especially outspoken.  In addition to its criticism of the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, where two nurses caring for an Ebola patient became infected themselves, it has launched a multi-pronged campaign to achieve increased training and protection for nurses who may be called upon to treat Ebola patients.  As part of their campaign, they have released an Ebola Toolkit that includes a guide to state and federal whistleblower laws and a comprehensive set of collective bargaining demands.  Their demands include detailed proposals for Ebola-specific protocols, training and protective equipment, creation of a joint labor-management infectious disease task force, medical services for exposed or potentially exposed employees, and full paid time off for nurses exposed to an infectious disease.  Healthcare employers should expect to be presented with comparable demands from the unions representing their employees, if they have not done so already.

Other unions are engaging in similar activities.  As the largest union in the U.S. representing healthcare workers, cleaners, and other service employees who could potentially come into contact with a person or material infected by Ebola, the SEIU has been particularly active.  Its public efforts to date have been focused largely on educating union members and training them to use protective equipment.

In addition to union advocacy and education, there has been at least one work stoppage arising from employees’ Ebola concerns.  At LaGuardia airport, a group of more than 200 non-union aircraft cabin cleaners recently engaged in a one-day strike to protest what they claimed were inadequate protections from exposure to Ebola.  In that case, the SEIU is attempting to organize the striking cleaners, but regardless of whether non-union employees are seeking union representation, they have the right under the National Labor Relations Act to engage in concerted activity for their mutual aid and protection, such as a strike to protest working conditions related to Ebola risks.

Education and communication are critical to addressing employees’ Ebola-related concerns and avoiding workplace disruptions based on unfounded fears.  In unionized workplaces, union representatives should be included in the education and communication process. Of course, all employers must comply with applicable workplace safety and health laws and regulations.  Depending upon the circumstances, unionized employers may have bargaining obligations with respect to additional measures they seek to implement in response to Ebola concerns.  They may also be faced with bargaining demands by employees seeking greater protection.  Finally, it is important for non-union employers to understand that their employees also have the right to act in concert for their mutual aid or protection.

ARTICLE BY

Scott Faust
OF
Proskauer Rose LLP