Category: Civil Rights

Varying Maternity Leave Policies Within the Same Company

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

Is it permissible for a company to have separate maternity policies for a corporate office from that of a store location? The concern is of course that a claim of discrimination would be made if different policies were used, and it was right for the question to be asked.  However, what may be surprising is that there is no requirement that employees at different company locations all be offered the same benefits. In fact, it is common for employees in a corporate office to receive different employment packages than those at other locations, such as the company’s retail store or restaurant. In fact, an employer does not have to have the same policies for all employees in the same location in many instances. The key is that a policy not have an adverse impact on any protected groups or result in unintentional discrimination.

Maternity leave can involve a combination of sick leave, personal days, vacation days, short-term disability, and unpaid leave time. Thus, exactly how a maternity leave will be structured for any one employee will likely vary.  It is important to note that if your policy allows women to take paid leave beyond what’s considered medically necessary after childbirth (for instances, to arrange for childcare or bond with the child), then you should also allow male employees to take paternity leave for similar purposes. Not allowing a male to take leave under the same terms and conditions as females, if the leave is not related a pregnancy-related disability, can be considered sex discrimination.  So, realize that in some cases your maternity leave may also require a mirroring paternity leave.

The Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) should also always be considered. If FMLA eligible, a new parent (including foster and adoptive) may be eligible for 12 weeks of leave (unpaid or paid if the employee has earned or accrued it) that may be used for care of a new child.

Article by:
 of

10 DOs and DON’Ts for Employer Social Media Policies

Odin-Feldman-Pittleman-logo

In recent years, the National Labor Relations Board has actively applied the National Labor Relations Act to social media policies. The Act exists to protect employees’ right to act together to address their terms and conditions of employment. What many employers fail to realize is that the Act applies to union and non-unionized employers. With the Board’s increased scrutiny of social media policies, including review of non-unionized employers’ policies, the following list of dos and don’ts is meant to assist employers in drafting or reviewing their social media policies.

1. DON’T have a policy prohibiting an employee from releasing confidential information. The Board has found that such an overbroad provision would be construed by employees as prohibiting them from discussing information that could relate to their terms and conditions of employment, such as wages.

2. DO have a policy that advises employees to maintain the confidentiality of the employer’s trade secrets and private or confidential information. The Board advises employers to define and provide examples of trade secrets or confidential information. However, the Board cautions employers to consider whether their definition of trade secrets or confidential information would include information related to employees’ terms and conditions of employment.

3. DON’T have a policy prohibiting employees from commenting on any legal matters, including pending litigation. The Board found that such a policy would unlawfully prohibit discussion about potential legal claims against an employer.

4. DO have a policy prohibiting employees from posting attorney-client privileged information. The Board recognizes an employer’s interest in protecting privileged information.

5. DON’T have a policy prohibiting employees from making disparaging remarks about the employer. The Board held that such a policy would have a chilling effect on employees in the exercise of their rights to discuss their terms and conditions of employment.

6. DO have policy that prohibits employees from making defamatory statements on social media about the employer, customers, and vendors, and generally remind employees to be honest and accurate.

7. DON’T have a policy advising employees to check with the company to see if the post is acceptable, if the employee has any doubt about whether it is prohibited. The Board held that any rule that requires permission from the employer as a precondition is an unlawful restriction of the employee’s rights under the Act.

8. DO have a policy that prohibits employees from representing any opinion or statement as the policy or view of the employer without prior authorization. Advise employees to include a disclaimer such as “The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the [Employer].”

9. DON’T have a policy prohibiting negative conversations about co-workers or supervisors. The Board held that without further clarification or examples, such a policy would have a chilling effect on employees.

10. DO advise employees to avoid posts that reasonably could be viewed as malicious, obscene, threatening or intimidating, or might constitute harassment or bullying. Provide examples of such conduct such as offensive posts intentionally mean to harm someone’s reputation or posts that could contribute to a hostile work environment on the basis of a race, sex, disability, religion or any other status protected by applicable state or federal law.

Read more: http://ecommercelaw.typepad.com/ecommerce_law/2013/10/ten-dos-and-donts-of-employer-social-media-policies.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+E-commerceLaw+%28E-Commerce+Law%29#ixzz2ir3v2KvK

Article By:

 of

A Quick Reminder Regarding Complaints in the Workplace

barnes

Last year we reported on a landmark EEOC decision where the Agency concluded that discrimination against transgender individuals is actionable under Title VII. In that case, the EEOC held that Title VII prohibits an employer from taking adverse action based on the fact an employee/applicant fails to “adhere” to gender-based expectations or norms. It remains to be seen whether courts will agree with the EEOC’s position, but the decision appears to suggest that the argument may be viable in some jurisdictions.

There’s another angle to this issue, though: Can an employer be held liable for Title VII retaliation stemming from a complaint alleging transgender harassment? The biggest hurdle a Plaintiff will face in this context is whether the complaint amounts to “protected activity” under Title VII. Generally speaking, an employee can establish that she engaged in “protected activity” for purposes of a Title VII retaliation claim by demonstrating a “reasonable belief” that a violation of the statute occurred. This is true regardless of whether the underlying conduct amounts to actionable discrimination and/or harassment. A clever Plaintiffs’ attorney could conceivably point to the EEOC’s decision and argue that his or her client held a “reasonable belief” that a complaint regarding transgender-based harassment was protected activity under Title VII (and the adverse employment action was somehow linked to that complaint).

Bottom line: Even a “routine” complaint of unfair treatment can form the basis of a retaliation claim down the line. That being said, employers must be certain to thoroughly investigate all workplace complaints, regardless of how petty they may seem.

Article By:

 of

IRS Guidance on Employment and Income Tax Refunds on Same-Sex Spouse Benefits

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

Employers extending benefit coverage to employees’ same-sex spouses and partners should review their payroll procedures to ensure that such coverages are properly taxed for federal income and FICA tax purposes.  Employers also should review the options in Notice 2013-61 and consider filing claims for refunds or adjustments of FICA overpayments.

Employers that provided health and other welfare plan benefits to employees’ same-sex spouses prior to the Supreme Court of the United States’ June 2013 ruling in U.S. v. Windsor may be interested in filing claims for refunds or adjustments of overpayments in federal employment taxes on such benefits.  To reduce some of the administrative complexity of filing such claims, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently issued Notice 2013-61, which outlines several optional procedures that employers can use for overpayments in 2013 and prior years.

String of pearls and champagne glass with wedding rings

In Windsor, the Supreme Court ruled Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.  Section 3 of DOMA had provided that, for purposes of all federal laws, the word “marriage” means “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,” and the word “spouse” refers “only to a person of the opposite-sex who is a husband or wife.”

Federal Taxation of Same-Sex Spouse Benefits

The Windsor ruling thus extends favorable federal tax treatment of spousal benefit coverage to same-sex spouses.  The IRS issued guidance in July clarifying that this tax treatment would extend to all same-sex couples legally married in any jurisdiction with laws authorizing same-sex marriage, regardless of whether the couple resides in a state where same-sex marriage is recognized.  This IRS approach recognizing same-sex marriages based on the “state of celebration” took effect September 16, 2013.

Prior to the ruling, an employer that provided coverage such as medical, dental or vision to an employee’s same-sex spouse was required to impute the fair market value of the coverage as income to the employee that was subject to federal income tax (unless the same-sex spouse qualified as the employee’s “dependent” as defined by the Internal Revenue Code).  The employer was required to withhold federal payroll taxes from the imputed amount, including federal income and the employee’s Social Security and Medicare (collectively FICA) taxes.  In addition, employers paid their own share of FICA taxes on the imputed amount, as well as unemployment (FUTA).

As a result of the ruling, an employee enrolling a same-sex spouse for benefit coverage under an employer-sponsored health plan no longer has imputed income for federal income tax purposes; may pay for the spouse’s coverage using pre-tax contributions under cafeteria plans; and may take tax-free reimbursements from flexible spending accounts (FSAs), health reimbursement accounts (HRAs) and health savings accounts (HSAs) to pay for the same-sex spouse’s qualifying medical expenses.  This same favorable federal tax treatment does not extend to employer-provided benefits for an unmarried same-sex partner, unless the same-sex partner qualifies as the employee’s dependent.

Overpayments of Employment Taxes in 2013

Employers that overpaid both federal income and FICA tax in 2013 as a result of income imputed to employees for benefit coverage for a same-sex spouse may use the following optional administrative procedures for the year:

  • Employers may use the fourth quarter 2013 Form 941 (Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return) to correct overpayments of employment taxes for the first three quarters of 2013.  This option is available only if employees have been repaid or reimbursed for over-collection of FICA and federal income taxes by December 31, 2013.

Alternatively, employers may follow regular IRS procedures to correct an overpayment in FICA taxes by filing a separate Form 941-X for each quarter in 2013.  Notice 2013-61 provides detailed instructions for each of the alternative options, including how to complete the Form 941, as well as Form 941-X, which requires “WINDSOR” in dark, bold letters across the top margin of page one.

Overpayments of FICA Taxes in Prior Years

Employers that overpaid FICA taxes in prior years as a result of imputed income for same-sex spousal benefit coverage may make a claim or adjustment for all four calendar quarters of a calendar year on one Form 941-X filed for the fourth quarter of such year if the period of limitations on such refunds has not expired and, in the case of adjustments, the period of limitations will not expire within 90 days of filing the adjusted return.  Alternatively, employers may use regular procedures to make such claims or adjustments.  The regular procedures require filing a Form 941-X for each calendar quarter for which a refund claim or adjustment is made.  Note that under the alternative procedure provided by Notice 2013-61 or under the regular procedure, filing of a Form 941-X requires either employee consents, or repayment or reimbursements, as well as amended Form W-2s to reflect the correct amount of taxable wages.

Employee Overpayments of Federal Income Taxes

Employers who provided benefits to employees’ same-sex spouses in 2013 may adjust the amount of reported federally taxable income on each employee’s Form W-2 (Wage and Tax Statement) to exclude any income imputed on the fair market value of the coverage and to permit the employee to pay for the coverage on a pre-tax basis.

Employees who overpaid federal income taxes in prior years as a result of same-sex spouse benefit coverage may claim a refund by filing an amended federal tax return for any open tax year.  Refunds are available for overpayments resulting from income imputed on the fair market value of the coverage and from premiums paid on an after-tax basis for the coverage.  An amended tax return generally may be filed from the later of three years from the date the return was filed or two years from the date the tax was paid.

Employers that file Form 941-X are required to file Form W-2c (Corrected Wage and Tax Statement) to show the correct—in this case reduced—wages.  Employers that do not file Form 941-X may want to begin preparing for employee requests for a Form W-2c for each open tax year in which benefit coverage was offered to employees’ same-sex spouses.

Next Steps

Employers extending benefit coverage to employees’ same-sex spouses and partners should carefully review their payroll processes and procedures to ensure that such coverages are now properly taxed for federal income and FICA tax purposes.  In addition, employers should review the options in Notice 2013-61, and consider filing claims for refunds or adjustments of overpayments of FICA taxes for any prior open tax years and issuing Form W-2c to allow employees to claim refunds of federal income tax.  Most importantly, by acting promptly, employers can correct the 2013 over-withholdings for both FICA and federal income tax and overpayment of the employer portion of FICA tax, without the necessity and burden of filing a Form 941-X.

Article By:

of

Michigan Right to Work – What’s the Effect: A Data Point

barnes

How Michigan’s Right to Work law would ultimately impact union dues payer rolls has been a topic of some debate. Now we have a data point, but it may not tell the whole story.

Michigan’s Right to Work law became effective March 28, 2013. The law gives employees the right to choose to join and/or financially support a union. In other words, it allows employees to retain the representational benefits of their union representation without paying dues. If an employee elects not to pay dues, the employee’s union still must represent the employee with respect to grievances and arbitration. Unions refer to this as “freeloading.”

There has been much speculation about what impact the passage of Michigan’s law would have on the number of dues paying members. Today, an article in the Detroit News reported that, according to the Michigan Education Association, Michigan’s 150,000 member teachers union, only 1 percent of its members have elected to exercise their rights under the Right to Work law and stop paying dues.

Michigan

This, however, likely only tells part of the story because the law does not impact union security provisions in contracts that have not yet expired and some contracts were “rush-renewed” to ensure that they would not be impacted by Right to Work for several more years.

In addition, the Right to Work law did not impact union “check off” provisions which are often tied to a card that is signed by a union member and authorizes the employer to deduct dues from the member’s paycheck and send them to the union. Such cards can serve as an impediment to a member desiring to stop paying dues because they can be irrevocable for a period of time, even if the employee revokes his or her union membership. These agreements, which can be irrevocable for up to a year under federal law, are a hurdle that trip up many employees trying to end dues payments immediately. However, while certain restrictions on dues check off authorizations have been approved under federal law, it is unclear whether the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) will find such restrictions lawful or violative of Michigan’s Right to Work law.

The point is, MEA’s 1 percent report is only one data point; it will take a lot longer to tell the impact on the number of dues paying members in the MEA and other unions.

See all our previous Right to Work coverage here.

Article By:

 of

Shutdown Closes National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Operations

Barnes & Thornburg

As a result of the federal government shutdown, yesterday NLRB operations ground to a halt. Many practitioners and employers during the a.m. hours received contact from Board Agents and Board Lawyers indicating that pending investigations, petition processing and the like were on hold until after the shutdown ends.

The Board’s “Shutdown Plan” indicates that 1,600 of the Board’s 1,611 staff have been furloughed. All regional offices are closed and the only remaining staff are located in the Board’s main office in D.C. Even the Board’s website was shutdown and the resources posted online, including all Board cases, memos, and other guidance, became unavailable. Instead, visitors to the Board’s website were redirected to a landing page explaining “The National Labor Relations Board is currently closed due to a lapse in appropriated funds.”

government shutdown NLRB national labor relations board

The full effect of the shutdown on new and on-going NLRB cases is not completely clear.  The Federal Register Notice on the effect of the closure states that an extension of time to file any documents is granted sua sponte for all affected parties through the end of the shutdown.  However, the Board cannot grant extensions of time to the six-month statute of limitations in Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act that applies to unfair labor practice charges.  The Federal Register Notice states that “the operation of Section 10(b) during an interruption in the Board’s normal operations is uncertain” and encourages effected parties to file their charges via fax, although they will presumably not be processed until after the shutdown concludes.  The Board’s website does provide that actions necessary “to prevent an imminent threat to the safety of human life or the protection of property may be undertaken” during the shutdown, although it is not clear what NLRB actions, if any, would fall into this category.

All ALJ hearings scheduled for this week have been postponed indefinitely, as well as all elections and election hearings scheduled through October 11. The Federal Register Notice provides that if the shutdown continues, additional hearings and elections will be postponed as well. Like the rest of the country affected by the shutdown, all practitioners and employers with business in front of the Board can do now is wait it out.

Article By:

 of

Recent Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Decision Might Signal Broadening of the ADA’s Accommodation Provisions

Poyner Spruill

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are not limited to job modifications that enable an employee to perform essential job functions.  In Feist v. Louisiana, a former assistant attorney general for the Louisiana Department of Justice (LDOJ) sued the LDOJ claiming that it discriminated against her in violation of the ADA by declining to provide her with a free on-site parking space to accommodate her disability (osteoarthritis of the knee).  Siding with the employer, the trial court dismissed the case holding that the plaintiff failed to explain how the denial of on-site parking limited her ability to perform “the essential functions” of her job.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that the text of the ADA does not indicate that an accommodation must facilitate the essential functions of an employee’s position.  The court also relied on federal regulations (which the LDOJ argued were not entitled to deference) which provide that reasonable accommodations may include modifications or adjustments that enable a covered entity’s employee with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by its other employees without disabilities.  The court did not express an opinion on whether the employee’s request for a free on-site parking space was “reasonable” under the ADA, but left that determination to the trial court on remand.

This case may indicate a willingness of courts in future cases to broaden the scope of accommodations beyond what employers currently believe are required by the ADA.  Until more courts weigh in on the question, employers should tread carefully and seek legal counsel when responding to requests for accommodations that seem unrelated to an employee’s ability to perform his or her job functions.

 of

The IRS/Treasury Department Announcement & Estate Planning Ruling Re: Same-Sex Marriage

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

On August 29, 2013, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS“) issued Revenue Ruling 2013-17. The ruling establishes that the IRS will recognize same-sex marriages for all federal tax purposes regardless of where the couple lives, as long as the couple was married in a jurisdiction that recognizes such marriages. So, for example, if a couple was married in Connecticut (a recognizing state), but now live in Kentucky (a non-recognizing state), they will receive the same federal tax treatment as heterosexual couples residing in Kentucky. The ruling clarifies that a “state of celebration” approach will be used versus a “state of residence” rule. Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew says the decision “[a]ssures legally married same-sex couples that they can move freely throughout the country knowing that their federal filing status will not change.” It is important to note that, according to the ruling, “marriage” does not include a registered domestic partnership, civil union or other similar arrangement. The ruling applies to all federal tax provisions where marriage is a factor, including: filing status, estate tax exemptions, personal and dependency exemptions, the standard marriage deduction, IRA contributions, earned income tax credits and employee benefits.

The ruling came on the heels of the Supreme Court’s June 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor and is meant to address some of the confusion that Windsor left in its wake. As background, before Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA“), marital status for federal income tax purposes was defined by state law. Section 3 of DOMA banned same-sex couples from being recognized as “spouses” for all federal law purposes. Windsor ruled Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional; however, the decision did not require states to recognize same-sex marriages. Thus, since June, state and federal agencies have been wondering how to deal with same-sex marriages in non-recognizing states. With the Revenue Ruling, much-needed guidance has arrived.

From the estate planning perspective, there are now several more options that same-sex couples can use to their advantage. First, same-sex spouses are now eligible for the marital deduction, which means that they may transfer as much as they want to their spouse (in life and in death) without incurring federal estate or gift tax, provided that the recipient spouse is a U.S. citizen.

Another benefit is the use of “gift-splitting.” Any individual can give up to $14,000 each year to as many people as they choose without incurring gift tax. Heterosexual spouses, and now same-sex spouses, can combine their $14,000 to jointly give $28,000 to individuals tax-free.

Same-sex spouses will also now get to take advantage of an estate planning tool known as “portability.” Portability allows a widow or widower to use any unused estate tax exclusions (capped at $5.25 million for 2013) of their spouse who died in addition to their own. The unused exclusion must be transferred to the surviving spouse and an estate tax return must be filed (by the executor) within nine months of the spouse’s death, even if no tax is due.

The ruling also has a myriad of other implications for taxes and employee benefits that should be carefully considered by same-sex couples. There are still lingering questions about how other agencies, such as the Social Security Administration, will address benefits post-Windsor.

Article By:

 of

Who’s GINA and What Should I Know About Her? Re: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

GINA is not a who, but rather a what. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”) was passed by Congress in 2008. GINA makes it illegal for employers with 15 or more employees to discriminate against employees or applicants on the basis of genetic information. Employers cannot lawfully inquire about (1) an individual’s genetic tests; (2) the genetic tests of an individual’s family members; or, (3) the manifestation of a disease or disorder in the family members of such an individual.

At the end of 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) announced in its Strategic Enforcement Plan that genetic discrimination would be a top priority over the next four years. The EEOC stuck to their word – in May, 2013, the EEOC settled its first lawsuit alleging GINA violations. The suit involved a fabrics distributor, Fabricut, Inc., who allegedly violated the Act by asking a woman for her family medical history in a post-offer medical examination. The company refused to hire the applicant after assessing that she had carpal tunnel syndrome, which led to Americans with Disabilities Act violations as well. The suit was settled for $50,000.

Shortly thereafter, the EEOC filed its second suit against The Founders Pavilion, Inc., a nursing and rehabilitation center. According to the EEOC suit, Founders conducted post-offer medical exams of applicants, which were repeated annually if the person was hired. As part of this exam, Founders requested family medical history, which is a form of information prohibited by GINA.

Employers should ensure that their policies related to employee medical information and any conducted medical exams comply with GINA. In addition, it would be wise for employers to update employee handbooks to state that discrimination on the basis of genetic information is prohibited.

Article By:

of

Mandatory Paid Sick Leave Arrives in New York City

VedderPriceLogo

On Thursday, June 27, members of the New York City Council voted to override Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s veto of the City’s Earned Sick Time Act (the Act). New York City thus became the latest (and the most populous) of a growing number of localities – including San Francisco; Washington, DC; Seattle; Portland, ME; and the State of Connecticut – to impose mandatory sick leave obligations on employers.

The NYC Earned Sick Time Act: An Overview

Virtually all private sector employers within the geographic boundaries of New York City are covered by the Act’s provisions. Notable exceptions include a limited number of manufacturing entities, as well as employers whose workers are governed by a collective bargaining agreement that expressly waives the Act’s provisions while at the same time providing those workers with a comparable benefit.

The Act will eventually cover more than one million employees, providing each of them with up to five days of paid leave each year. In its first phase of implementation, currently scheduled to take effect on April 1, 2014, the Act will apply only to those employers that employ 20 or more workers in New York City. The second phase of implementation will begin 18 months later (currently, October 15, 2015), at which time the Act will expand to those employers with at least 15 City-based employees. The Act will require employers with fewer than 15 City-based employees to provide their employees with unpaid, rather than paid, sick time.

New York City-based employees (regardless of whether they are employed on a full- or part-time, temporary or seasonal basis) who work more than 80 hours during a calendar year will accrue paid sick time at a minimum rate of one hour for each 30 hours worked. The Act caps mandatory accrual of paid sick time at 40 hours per calendar year (the equivalent of one five-day workweek). Although the Act provides only for a statutory minimum, employers are free to provide their employees with additional paid time if they so desire. Accrual of paid leave time begins on the first day of employment, but employers may require employees to first work as many as 120 days before permitting them to make use of the time they have accrued.

The Act specifies that employees will be able to use their accrued time for absences from work that occur because of: (1) the employee’s own mental or physical illness, injury or health condition, or the need for the employee to seek preventive medical care; (2) care of a family member in need of such diagnosis, care, treatment or preventive medical care; or (3) closure of the place of business because of a public health emergency, as declared by a public health official, or the employee’s need to care for a child whose school or childcare provider has been closed because of such a declared emergency.

Although the Act allows employees to carry over accrued but unused leave time from year to year, it does not require employers to permit the use of more than 40 hours of paid leave each year. Likewise, it does not require employers to pay out accrued, but unused, sick leave upon an employee’s separation from employment.

Employers that have already implemented paid leave policies – such as policies that provide for paid time off (PTO), personal days and/or vacation – that provide employees with an amount of paid leave time sufficient to meet the Act’s accrual requirements may not be required to provide their employees with anything more once the Act takes effect. As long as an employer’s current policy or policies allow the paid leave in question to be used “for the same purposes and under the same conditions as paid sick leave,” nothing more is necessary.

The Act Requires Proper Notice to Both Employees and Employers

Once the Act is implemented, employers will be required to inform new employees of their rights when they are hired, and will have to post additional notices in the workplace (suitable notices will be made available for download on the Department of Consumer Affairs website). In addition to providing information about the Act’s substantive provisions, employees must also be informed of the Act’s provision against retaliation and how they may lodge a complaint.

Likewise, an employer may require reasonable notice from employees who plan to make use of their accrued time. The Act defines such notice as seven days in the case of a foreseeable situation, and as soon as is practicable when the need for leave could not have been foreseen.

Penalties and Enforcement

The Act will be enforced by the City’s Department of Consumer Affairs. Because the Act contains no private right of action, an employee’s only avenue for redress will be through the Consumer Affairs complaint process. Employees alleging such a violation have 270 days within which to file a complaint. Penalties for its violation are potentially steep; they include: (1) the greater of $250 or three times the wages that should have been paid for each instance of sick time taken; (2) $500 for each instance of paid sick time unlawfully denied to an employee, or for which an employee is unlawfully required to work additional hours without mutual consent; (3) full compensation, including lost wages and benefits, for each instance of unlawful retaliation other than discharge from employment, along with $500 and equitable relief; and (4) $2,500 for each instance of unlawful termination of employment, along with equitable relief (including potential reinstatement).

Employers found to have violated the Act may also face fines from the City of up to $500 for the first violation, $750 for a second violation within two years of the first, and $1,000 for any subsequent violation within two years of the one before. Additionally, employers that willfully fail to provide the required notice of the Act’s substantive provisions will be fined $50 for each employee who did not receive such notice.

The Act, meanwhile, does not prohibit employers from requiring that such an employee provide documentation from a licensed health care professional to demonstrate the necessity for the amount of sick leave taken. Employers are free under the Act to discipline employees, up to and including termination, who take sick leave for an improper purpose. They are prohibited, however, from inquiring as to the nature of an employee’s injury, illness or condition.