Labor & Employment Archives - Page 106 of 155

Senator McCain Renews Focus on Ending Cost-Plus Contracts

A longtime and well-known proponent of defense acquisition reform, Senator John McCain assumed the chairmanship of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee (“SASC”) on January 6. Sen. McCain has been particularly outspoken concerning cost overruns on major systems procurement projects. He has characterized the “cost-plus” contract structure as among the key causes of these overruns, and has described implementing a ban on “cost-plus” contracts as among his top three priorities for the 114th Congress (along with countering cyber-threats and addressing sequestration).

Sen. McCain’s antipathy toward cost-plus contracts is nothing new: during the 2008 presidential campaign, he made waves in the contracting community by declaring during a debate with then-Senator Barack Obama that “particularly in defense spending, which is the largest part of our appropriations – we have to do away with cost-plus contracts. We now have defense systems [in which] the costs are completely out of control. So we need to have fixed-cost contracts.”

Sen. McCain renewed his criticism of cost-plus contracts in a recent public appearance: “I’m continuing to try to ban them [a]ll. . . If you don’t ban them, here’s what happens: [contractors] come in with a lowball contract, so they can get the contract, and then . . . the costs mount.” By way of analogy, the veteran lawmaker highlighted the faulty incentives he believes are created by such an arrangement: “If you had a roof that leaked would you ask a guy to come and fix it with a cost-plus contract?!”

At the time of Sen. McCain’s 2008 high-profile criticism of cost-plus contracts, many experts in the contracting community expressed skepticism that an outright ban was desirable or even possible. They posited, for example, that cost-plus contracts can be the best tool for the job in certain circumstances, such as high-risk research and development projects where the requirements (and thus the expected costs) are ill-defined. A prominent contracting official even contended, as summed up by one think tank’s analysis of the issue, that “contractors would simply not bid on high-risk endeavors . . . if they were operated under fixed-priced contract structures.”

While the merits of cost-plus contracts remain a subject of vigorous debate, the Arizona senator’s SASC chairmanship and his party’s control of the Senate better position him to pursue this issue in 2015. In addition, other key stakeholders appear favorably disposed toward defense acquisition reform. Representative William “Mac” Thornberry, the new chairman of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, has been studying the issue and collaborating with industry on recommendations. Additionally, Ashton Carter, President Obama’s pending nominee to be the next Secretary of Defense, is a former chief acquisitions official at the Pentagon and a proponent of reform.

Acquisition reform figures to play a prominent role in Carter’s upcoming confirmation hearing, although the most likely forum for a specific proposal on cost-plus contracts is the FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”). One factor to watch as the NDAA process gets underway is whether Sen. McCain is able to build bipartisan support in Congress – and identify key allies across the aisle, and across the Hill – for the reform or elimination of cost-plus contracts. Outgoing SASC Chairman Carl Levin, who co-authored a symposium-style report on defense acquisition reform with Sen. McCain in October 2014, has retired from Congress. Also recently departed from the Hill is Representative Henry Waxman, whose proposal to require agencies to minimize cost-plus contracts passed the House in 2008.

It thus remains uncertain how Sen. McCain plans to realize his vision of ending cost-plus defense contracting. However, given the emphasis that the new SASC chairman has consistently placed on the issue, cost-plus contracts will likely remain a prominent topic within the broader and seemingly dynamic context of acquisition reform in the 114th Congress.

ARTICLE BY

Scott L. Glabe

Jennifer L. Plitsch

Kathy Brown

Covington & Burling LLP

Recent Trends in ESOP Litigation — Employee Stock Ownership Plan

There has been a lot of attention in the world of employee ownership plans to the 2014 Supreme Court Decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer. In that case, the Court ruled that “the law does not create a special presumption favoring ESOP (Employee Stock Ownership Plan) fiduciaries. Rather, the same standard of prudence applies to all ERISA fiduciaries, including ESOP fiduciaries, except that an ESOP fiduciary is under no duty to diversify the ESOP’s holdings.” This ruling overturns the so-called Moench rule that has been applied to plan fiduciaries for certain 401(k) plans investing in company stock and ESOPs. Moench gave a presumption of prudence to plan fiduciaries unless they knew or should have known the company was in dire financial circumstances.

As important as this ruling is, it actually has very little if any impact on the vast majority of ESOPs, over 95% of which are in closely held companies. The ruling is far more important for public companies with 401(k) plans or ESOPs that offer company stock as an investment choice.

First, it is important to distinguish between a statutory ESOP and what courts came, by a rather tortured logic, to call ESOPs—namely any defined contribution plan that had company stock in it. ESOPs were created as part of ERISA in 1974 and given not just the right but the requirement to invest primarily in employer securities. ESOPs were specifically created to encourage employers to share ownership with employees, and over the years Congress has given these plans a number of special tax benefits. Because fiduciaries are required to invest primarily in employer stock, standard fiduciary obligations concerning diversification in retirement plans would be impractical. The Moench presumption was created in a case involving a statutory ESOP.

The large majority of “stock drop” cases, however, have not involved statutory ESOPs, but 401(k) plans that either allowed employees to invest in company stock and/or matched in company stock. Some of these plans required fiduciaries to offer company stock; others made it optional. Defense attorneys argued that these plans were actually “ESOPs” too and were subject to the Moench presumption. Most district and circuit courts bought that argument, although some applied it only when company stock was required. That, I think, was unfortunate and inappropriate. 401(k) plans were never meant to be vehicles for sharing corporate ownership. They are intended to be safe, cost-effective retirement plans. ESOPs are a specific statutory creation with a specific set of rules and purposes.

When reading the Supreme Court decision, as well as the arguments made before the Court, it is also clear that the justices were thinking entirely of public companies. There is virtually no discussion of ESOPs in closely held companies, and the key tests that the Court now requires plaintiffs to meet in stock drop cases largely do not apply to privately held companies. Since the original Moench decision in 1995, we at the National Center for Employee Ownership have only found two cases in closely held companies that were decided even in part based on that presumption.

The Court’s decision in the Fifth Third case laid out three key hurdles for plaintiffs to overcome to prevail. The first states that it is insufficient to argue that fiduciaries should be able to outguess the market based on publicly available information. The second issue is whether decisions to sell company stock in light of inside information could be prudently taken in light of their potential impact on the prices of company stock. Fiduciaries are also not obligated to violate securities laws. Finally, the Court said plaintiffs must allege a reasonable alternative course of action.

In ESOPs in closely held companies, fiduciaries have few options that could form the basis for plaintiffs arguing a plausible course of action. First, the law requires that ESOPs be primarily invested in company stock. Second, the only liquidity options are a company buy-back of shares, which is probably impractical if the company is already in financial distress, or a sale of the company. But a fire sale like that would mean an even lower price for plan participants. As noted in more detail below, none of the presumption of prudence cases has concerned closely held companies, probably because of these issues. Also note that Dudenhoeffer distinguished between relying on inside information to sell company stock (which it classified as illegal insider trading and thus not required by the duty of prudence) and refraining from buying more company stock (which might be a fiduciary violation). The purchase of shares by an ESOP is already subject to substantial statutory and case law requirements, and this decision is unlikely to change the way these cases are contested.

As a result of all this, the prudence presumption has so far not been an issue for closely held ESOP companies in court, and it is likely to continue not to be as plaintiffs would have a hard time indicating what fiduciaries should have done. Instead, cases will continue to focus, as they have been before where there are alleged problems, on the initial sale price of the shares of the ESOP, which is determined by the trustee and relies on an outside appraiser. It is possible that the Dudenhoeffer decision may embolden the plaintiffs’ bar to initiate more lawsuits, but we would expect that to continue to be primarily in public companies.

Beyond ***Fifth Third*—ESOPs Law for the 97%**

Valuations

The 97% of ESOP companies that are closely held will not be much affected by the Supreme Court decision, but the last 25 years of litigation on ESOPs reveals some important trends that should be considered.

In an analysis by the NCEO of the 224 decisions courts have made on ESOPs in closely held companies between 1990 and 2014, we found that many of the suits involved plan management issues, such as failing to make distributions. The most significant issues, however, concerned valuation, indemnification, and fiduciary duties.

The valuation decisions are mixed. Courts have focused more on process than outcome. Some processes are clearly unacceptable, such as not hiring an independent appraiser or influencing an appraiser’s report. Several key best practices have emerged. A recent settlement between the Department of Labor and GreatBanc Trust in a valuation case (Perez v. GreatBanc Trust Co., 5:12-cv-01648-R-DTB (C.D. Cal., proposed settlement agreement filed June 2, 2014) set out terms for GreatBanc to follow in future engagements that does a good job of summarizing the trends in the courts.

Key points in the settlement included:

Trustees must be able to show that they vetted the independence and qualifications of appraisers carefully.
Trustees must show that they have assessed the reasonableness of financial projections given to the appraiser. Some valuation advisors include disclaimers in their engagement agreements that the DOL reads as too broad, in that read literally the valuation advisor can rely on any information it receives from the plan sponsor company without inquiring as to its reasonableness, no matter how unreasonable the information. The use of these disclaimers will not absolve the trustee of responsibility and the trustee should document how the appraisal firm has analyzed just how reliable projections are.
The trustee should consider how plan provisions, such as those relating to puts, diversification, and distribution policies, might affect the plan sponsor’s repurchase obligation.
The trustee should consider the company’s ability to service the debt if projections are not met.

Documentation should be detailed. While documentation of the valuation analysis may appear to be burdensome, making the effort to document the valuation review process at the time of the transaction can only benefit the valuation advisor and the trustee in later years.

Indemnification

The other significant legal development for closely held company ESOPs in recent years concerns indemnification, ironically also in the case involving Sierra Aluminum and GrratBanc. In Harris v. GreatBanc Trust Co., Sierra Aluminum Co., & Sierra Aluminum ESOP, No. 5:12-cv-01648-R (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2013), a district court ruled that GreatBanc could be indemnified for its role as the ESOP fiduciary. The decision is significant in that it occurred in the one circuit (the Ninth) that has taken the position that indemnification should not be allowed, especially in a 100% ESOP. In Johnson v. Couturier, 572 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2009), the court ruled that ESOP plan assets were not distinguishable from company assets. If plaintiffs prevailed but the company’s indemnification had paid out millions in legal fees to defendants (as was the case here), the plaintiffs would have a very hollow victory. In that same circuit, in Fernandez et al. v. K-M Industries Holding Co., No. C 06-7339 CW (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2009), a court that an indemnification agreement did not apply in the case of a 42% ESOP because if alleged ERISA violations concerning an improper valuation were sustained, the indemnification would harm the value of participant stock.

These decisions seemed to make indemnification largely moot, but in the GreatBanc case the court ruled that regulations (29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-101(h)(3)) of ERISA Section 410 state that in the case of an ESOP, the plan’s assets and the company assets are treated as separate. In Couturier, the Harris court said, the company had already been liquidated and was thus no longer an operating company. The court also distinguished this case from Couturier in that in Couturier, plaintiffs had already shown likelihood to prevail on fiduciary charges, something that could not be said of this case. Finally, the Couturier case involved no exceptions for breaches of fiduciary duty, as was the case here, but only for “gross negligence” and “willful misconduct.”

Other courts in other circuits have not weighed in on this issue. Certainly a good argument can be made that if indemnification means that plaintiffs will lose a substantial amount of a settlement agreement because there is no money to pay, it seems compelling indemnification should not apply. That would not be the case if the company had other available assets. In any event, ESOP advisors now caution clients that indemnification may have limited value and that they should rely primarily on adequate fiduciary insurance.

Conclusion

In recent years, the Department of Labor has been more aggressive in pursuing what it perceives as valuation abuses in ESOP companies. While there have been a few more court cases and settlements per year than normal, a typical year finds only a handful of these out of the 6,500 or so ESOPs in closely held companies. A comprehensive study by the NCEO found that the default rate on leveraged ESOPs (those that borrow money to buy stock, which most do) is just .2% per year, way below other LBOs. If valuations really were routinely excessive, this number would be higher as the debt burden would be unrealistic.

Other ESOP litigation has been relatively mundane, focusing either on administrative errors or the occasional fraudulent behavior. Indemnification could become a more important issue, but companies can (and should) resolve that with proper fiduciary insurance.

The future for company stock in public company retirement plans, mostly 401(k) plan, is far less certain. There has been a steady decline in how many companies offer this and how much those that do rely on it. Even for advocates of employee ownership, however, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Good ESOP companies have secondary diversified retirement plans—in fact, ESOP companies are more likely to have a diversified retirement plan than other companies are to have any plan. That is a best practice we strongly encourage.

ARTICLE BY

Corey Rosen

The National Center for Employee Ownership

California Labor Laws for the New Year

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

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

Shared Liability for Employers Who Use Labor Contractors

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wage and Hour Changes

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

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

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

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

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

Paid Sick Days Now Required

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discrimination Law and Training Requirements Expanded

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Child Labor Laws Enhanced

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

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

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

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

Immigration and Retaliation

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

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

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

What’s Next?

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

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

ARTICLE BY

Mark E. Terman

Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Minimum Wage Surges in 2015 and Beyond

Multi-state employers take note: changes in the minimum wage will take effect this year. At the state level, advocates pushing for an increase in the minimum wage saw significant victories in 2014 and many increases will take effect in the coming weeks.

Minimum Wage Surges

A comprehensive list of past, current and future wage increases is available here. Employers should also ensure they comply with applicable notice requirements and update their postings, which are generally available on the respective agency websites.

Employers should note the following state and local minimum wage increases in 2015, with additional increases occurring in 2016 and beyond. Furthermore, several states, including New York and New Jersey, will see annual cost-of-living increases to their minimum wage.

- Alaska: Effective February 24, 2015, the minimum wage will increase to $8.75/hour and $9.75/hour on January 1, 2016.
- Arkansas: Effective January 1, 2015, the minimum wage will increase to $7.50/hour. Subsequent increases will bring the minimum wage to $8.00 in 2016 and $8.50 in 2017.
- California: In July 2014, California employees saw an increase in the minimum wage to $9.00/hour. Effective January 1, 2016, this rate will rise to $10.00/hour.

Oakland, California: Effective March 2, 2015, the minimum wage will increase to $12.25/hour and will increase in subsequent years based on cost-of-living increases.
San Francisco, California: Over the next four years, San Francisco employees will see a gradual rise in the minimum wage to $15.00/hour. In addition, effective January 1, 2015, employers in San Francisco must pay employees who work at least two hours a week (with limited exceptions) at least $11.05/hour. OnMay 1, 2015, the minimum wage will increase to $12.25/hour. The next bump, to $13.00/hour, will take place on July 1, 2016. On July 1, 2017, the minimum wage will increase to $14.00/hour, and, finally, on July 1, 2018, the minimum wage will increase to $15.00/hour.

Delaware: Effective June 1, 2015, the minimum wage will increase to $8.25/hour.
Illinois: Chicago employees will see a gradual increase in the minimum wage over the next five years. Chicago’s employees will receive their first increase on July 1, 2015, when the rate goes to $10.00/hour. The rate will increase to $10.50/hour in 2016, to $11.00/hour in 2017, to $12.00/hour in 2018, and to $13.00/hour in 2019.
Maryland: Effective January 1, 2015, the minimum wage will increase to $8.00/hour and to $8.25/hour onJuly 1, 2015. Subsequent increases will bring the minimum wage to $8.75 in 2016, $8.25 in 2017, and $10.10 in 2018.
Minnesota: Large employers (annual gross revenue of $500,000 or more) will see an increase in the minimum wage to $9.00/hour on August 1, 2015 and $9.50/hour on August 1, 2016. Small employers (annual gross revenue of $500,000 or less) will see an increase in the minimum wage to $7.25/hour on August 1, 2015 and $7.75/hour on August 1, 2016. Minnesota employers should take note that if the combined amount of its gross revenue is more than $500,000, starting August 1, 2014, it must pay the “large” Minnesota employer minimum wage rate. In addition, for those employees who are under the age of 20, Minnesota will increase the 90 day training wage to $7.75/hour on August 1, 2015 and $7.75/hour on August 1, 2016.
Nebraska: Effective January 1, 2015, the minimum wage will increase to $8.00/hour and to $9.00/hour on January 1, 2016.
New York: Effective December 31, 2015, the minimum wage will increase to $9.00/hour.
South Dakota: Effective January 1, 2015, the minimum wage will increase to $8.50/hour.
Washington, D.C.: Effective July 1, 2015, the minimum wage will increase to $10.50/hour and to $11.50/hour on July 1, 2016.
West Virginia: Effective January 1, 2015, the minimum wage will increase to $8.00/hour and to $8.75/hour on January 1, 2016.

Locally, Milwaukee County voters strongly supported a ballot referendum in November endorsing a statewide increase of the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour; however, it is unlikely that the Wisconsin Legislature will vote to increase the minimum wage during the next term.

At the national level, President Obama will face an uphill battle in passing a higher federal minimum wage under the next Congressional term. Given the outcome in the 2014 elections, any additional increases in the minimum wage over the next two years will likely be dependent upon further changes to state and local laws.

ARTICLE BY

Rebeca M. Lopez

Deborah Rehorst

Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

Four States and Two Major Cities Approve Minimum Wage Increases

Voters in the states of Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota voted in favor of ballot initiatives that will increase the state minimum wage. Alaska’s minimum wage will increase from $7.75 to $9.75 an hour by 2016, Arkansas’s from $6.25 to $8.50 by 2017, Nebraska’s from $7.25 to $9.00 by 2016, and South Dakota’s from $7.25 to $8.50 next year.

Those four states join 12 others and Washington, D.C., all of which have increased their minimum wage in the past two years. For example, New Jersey’s 2013 ballot initiative to raise the state minimum to $8.25 passed by more than 60 %, and in 2006, state initiatives to raise the minimum wage passed by large majorities in Arizona (65.6%), Missouri (75.6 %), Montana (74.2 %), Nevada (68.4 %), and Ohio (56.5 %).

Voters in San Francisco overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative to raise the city’s minimum wage to $15 an hour, the highest level in the nation, on the heels of Seattle’s June decision to raise its minimum wage to $15. As with Seattle’s minimum wage, San Francisco’s will be phased in gradually, from its current rate of $10.74 an hour to $11.05 on January1 and $12.25 in May before increasing every year until reaching $15 in 2018.

On December 2, 2014, the Chicago City Council overwhelmingly approved raising the City’s minimum wage from the current state-wide rate of $8.25 an hour to $13 by mid-2019. Chicago workers will see their first increase next July, when the minimum wage will increase to $10, then increase by 50 cents each of the two years after that, and $1 the next two years.

This minimum wage initiative has also received some pushback. For example, Hotel industry groups on December 16 sued the city of Los Angeles in federal court over the city’s enactment of a minimum wage ordinance requiring large non-union hotels to pay their workers $15.37 an hour. In their lawsuit, the American Hotel & Lodging Association and the Asian-American Hotel Owners Association allege the city ordinance violates federal labor, contract and equal protection laws.

The hotel minimum wage ordinance, which passed the City Council in October on an 11-2 vote, is estimated to cover about 80 large hotels in the city. Starting in July, hotels with more than 300 rooms must pay workers the higher minimum wage; in July 2016 the measure kicks in for hotels with as few as 125 rooms. Hotel Industry groups contend that by allowing exemptions for hotels with union collective bargaining agreements, the ordinance creates an economic disadvantage for non-union hotels, thus forcing their hand to permit union organizing.

These minimum wage increases are not expected to make it more likely that Congress will pass President Obama’s proposed federal minimum wage increase to $10.10, particularly given the results of this past November’s mid-term elections. However, the minimum wage will certainly remain a hot-button issue for the next two years, and a campaign issue during the 2016 Presidential campaign.

ARTICLE BY

Robert W. Mulcahy

Carlos R. Pastrana-Torres

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

The Year in Social Media: Four Big Developments from 2014

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

Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Employer Liability for Employees’ Privacy Violations: What Your Organization Should Learn from Walgreens’ Expensive Lesson (Hint: It Has Little To Do with HIPAA)

You may already have read the scintillating facts surrounding a jury award of $1.44 million (recently challenged unsuccessfully on appeal) against Walgreen Co. following its pharmacist’s alleged inappropriate review and disclosure of patient records. What caught our attention was not so much the lurid details (the pharmacist was alleged to have looked up her boyfriend’s ex in Walgreens’ patient records, apparently to determine whether the ex might have passed an STD to her boyfriend). The more notable development was an employer footing the bill for a large jury verdict even though the employee violated the company’s policies as well as the law. This alert describes how Walgreens was put on the hook for its employees’ misdeeds, and examines whether a similar rationale could be applied in other privacy contexts (not just HIPAA) to create a new trend in employer liability for employee privacy violations. The implications are significant given the relative lack of success plaintiffs have encountered to-date when attempting to prosecute perceived privacy violations in court.

Employer Liability

Against the pharmacist, the patient pursued state-law claims of negligence/professional malpractice, invasion of privacy/public disclosure of private facts, and invasion of privacy/intrusion. She sought to hold Walgreens liable through respondeat superior (vicarious liability), and also included direct claims for negligent training, negligent supervision, negligent retention, and negligence/professional malpractice. While the trial judge dismissed the negligent training claim against Walgreens and the invasion of privacy by intrusion claim against the pharmacist, he allowed the other claims to proceed. The jury returned a general verdict for the patient, finding the pharmacist and Walgreens jointly liable for $1.44 million in damages.

The linchpin of respondeat superior is that an employer can only be held vicariously liable for damage caused by an employee if the employee was acting “within the scope of employment” when the injury occurred. When it appealed the jury verdict, Walgreens seized on this factor and argued that the pharmacist’s actions were outside the scope of employment because she clearly violated Walgreens policy. The appellate court disagreed, citing case law holding an employee’s actions are within the scope of employment if those actions are of the same “general nature” as the actions authorized by the employer, even when the employee’s specific actions are against company policy. The court reasoned that the pharmacist’s improper access of the patient’s records was of the same “general nature” as the actions authorized by Walgreens because the pharmacist took the same steps to access the patient’s records as she would have in properly accessing records of other patients. The pharmacist was authorized to use the Walgreens computer system and printer, handle prescriptions for Walgreens customers, look up customer information on the Walgreens computer system, review patient prescription histories, and make prescription-related printouts. The court found that the pharmacist’s conduct in accessing this patient’s records for personal reasons, while against company policy, was of the same “general nature” as the conduct authorized by Walgreens, and therefore at least some of her actions were within the scope of her employment. Since the pharmacist was acting within the scope of employment, the court affirmed that Walgreens could be held liable under respondeat superior.

Acknowledging Walgreens could not be held vicariously liable unless the pharmacist was also liable, the court turned next to the issue of the jury’s verdict concerning the pharmacist. As the jury returned only a general verdict (which does not indicate the specific grounds on which it made its decision), the court speculated on the theory of liability for the pharmacist, and held that the jury could have properly found the pharmacist liable under a general negligence theory. The key factors in a negligence claim are a duty owed to the plaintiff by the defendant, a breach of that duty by the defendant, causation, and damages. To establish the pharmacist owed a duty to the patient, the court looked to a state law requiring pharmacists to hold patient records and information in the strictest of confidences. Finding this statute to clearly establish that the pharmacist owed a duty of confidentiality the patient, the court found it unquestionable that the pharmacist’s actions breached that duty, and that the patient sustained at least some damages as a result. Therefore, the court concluded the jury could properly have found the pharmacist directly liable for the breach of confidentiality, and Walgreens vicariously liable for the breach.

Potential Impact

Commentary on this case has largely focused on HIPAA implications, and sometimes the more specific prospect of employer liability for employee HIPAA violations. Importantly, HIPAA was not a factor in the appellate court’s reasoning. Rather, the court looked primarily to state law for privacy expectations and a duty of confidentiality. That distinction creates broader implications for employer liability beyond HIPAA or health care generally.

A multitude of state laws now impose confidentiality, privacy and security obligations. Some are limited to certain professional occupations (e.g., pharmacists, physicians, even <<gasp>> lawyers), but many are more general. For example, many states have enacted requirements to maintain general or specific security measures without regard to industry. In fact, states increasingly read privacy and security obligations into their application of unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes, imposing a duty to maintain privacy and security across sectors and without regard to types of personal information affected.

The Indiana appellate court’s reasoning in the Walgreens’ case clearly suggests that employees owing a statutory duty of confidentiality under state law could be liable for a breach of such duties, and their employers may be vicariously liable for the reasons noted. While some state laws specifically enumerate such duties at the employee level (particularly where a license is held by the individual), it is not clear that distinction made a difference to the court’s rationale, meaning courts applying general privacy or security laws may consider following suit, even if the law does not create duties specifically aimed at employees.

Further, the Indiana appellate court’s broad characterization of what constitutes actions “within the scope of employment” could leave many employers on the hook for large damage awards, even if the underlying employee violation is indisputably against company policy.

While the Walgreens outcome alone may not establish a trend toward more frequent employer liability, it is important to recognize the case may be novel only in the size of the verdict awarded. For example, in 2006, the North Carolina Court of Appeals used similar reasoning to overturn the dismissal of a plaintiff’s negligent infliction of emotional distress claim against a doctor who allegedly allowed his office manager to improperly access the plaintiff’s medical records (Acosta v. Byrum).

What Should You Do?

The Walgreens outcome makes clear that policies, training and other compliance efforts may not indemnify employers against an employee’s breach of confidentiality or privacy. In addition to keeping an eye on further developments that either support or erode this potential liability trend, employers should consider whether broad technical access to systems is necessary and justified. Flat access rights can be necessary, particularly in health care settings where care often trumps privacy as a consideration. However, technical access limitations are the most effective way to demonstrate that employee misdeeds, when orchestrated in violation of systems-based (rather than merely policy-based) access controls, should not be held against the employer because they are clearly outside the scope of employment. Interestingly, the same approach can strengthen employer’s Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claims and can reduce the risk of HIPAA enforcement that may arise from similar facts.

ARTICLE BY

Jacob A. Lopes

Elizabeth H. Johnson

Poyner Spruill LLP

Background Checks Headline in 2014

In 2014, background checks were a hot topic in state and local legislatures. Before this year, only 8 jurisdictions in the country had passed laws preventing private employers from asking job candidates about their criminal histories on an employment application (i.e., “banning the box”). This year alone, however, 9 jurisdictions enacted ban-the-box laws covering private employers—Baltimore, Columbia (MO), Illinois, Montgomery County (MD), New Jersey, Prince George’s County (MD), Rochester (NY), San Francisco, and Washington D.C. Louisville, Indianapolis, and Syracuse also banned the box for private employers with city contracts, while Delaware and Madison (WI) “encouraged” the same.

Man Sitting Alone in a Row of Empty Chairs

Several of these so-called “ban the box” laws also restricted the types of arrests or convictions about which employers may inquire or consider when hiring. For example, the new San Francisco law bans inquiries about convictions that are more than seven (7) years old; the new Washington D.C. law prohibits questions about arrests and criminal accusations that are not pending or did not result in conviction; and New Jersey’s new law bars queries about expunged records. Some of the new laws, such as those in San Francisco, Washington D.C., and Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties also imposed certain notice obligations on employers.

In addition to this state and local legislative activity, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) continued to scrutinize employer background check procedures, though without much success. In EEOC v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp., 748 F.3d 749 (6th Cir. 2014), the Sixth Circuit affirmed an award of summary judgment against the EEOC in its suit alleging that Kaplan’s use of credit checks disparately impacted African-American applicants in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Despite setbacks in litigation, the agency issued guidance on the use of background checks in hiring and personnel decisions. The brochure—Background Checks: What Employers Need to Know—advises employers on their existing legal obligations under federal nondiscrimination laws and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) when obtaining, using, and disposing of background information. The Federal Trade Commission also issued two brochures—Background Checks: What Job Applicants and Employees Should Know & Tips for Job Applicants and Employees—that walk applicants and employees through their rights under FCRA.

Though the primary focus on background checks this year concerned credit and criminal history, there were other noteworthy developments. The governors of California and New Jersey vetoed bills that would have greatly limited employers from considering an applicant’s unemployment status in hiring decisions. And, Louisiana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wisconsin prohibited employers from requesting or requiring prospective and current employees to provide their passwords to their personal social media accounts.

If trends are any guide, we expect more developments in 2015. Stay tuned.

ARTICLE BY

Katharine H Parker

Daniel L. Saperstein

Proskauer Rose 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

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.

Uber Argues That Its Drivers Are Not Employees

In a case pending in California federal court, Uber is arguing that its drivers are not employees. O’Connor et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 3:13-cv-03826 (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 16, 2013). Uber drivers have sued the company in a putative class action that alleges that they were short-changed because they received only a portion of the 20 percent gratuity paid by passengers.

In response, Uber recently filed a motion for summary judgment that argued that its drivers are not employees because they do not provide services to Uber. Rather, Uber provides a service to its drivers, because drivers pay for access to “leads,” or potential passengers, through the Uber application, and therefore, like passengers, drivers are customers who receive a service from the company. Uber also argued that even if drivers are deemed to provide services to Uber, they do so as independent contractors, not employees. This is because, Uber contends, the company provides drivers with a lead generation service but does not control the manner or means of how they work, and therefore, Uber is in a commercial rather than an employment relationship with its drivers.

This is not the first and likely not the last of Uber’s legal troubles in California. Passengers have also filed a proposed class action over the 20 percent gratuity, and last week, San Francisco and Los Angeles District Attorneys have hit Uber with a consumer safety suit over how it screens its drivers. There will surely be more to come as we watch what happens with Uber in California.

ARTICLE BY

Rachel T. Segal

Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Category: Labor & Employment

Senator McCain Renews Focus on Ending Cost-Plus Contracts

Like this:

Recent Trends in ESOP Litigation — Employee Stock Ownership Plan