Category: Labor & Employment

Vacation Policy Pitfalls for Illinois Employers

FINAL SW logo wLLP2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright 2014 Schopf & Weiss LLP
ARTICLE BY

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

Department of State Releases December 2014 Visa Bulletin

Morgan Lewis

The Bulletin shows that cutoff dates in the EB-2 India category remain severely backlogged, cutoff dates in EB-3 for the Rest of the World and China advance by five months, and EB-3 China is now ahead of EB-2 China.

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) has released its December 2014 Visa Bulletin. The Visa Bulletin sets out per-country priority date cutoffs that regulate the flow of adjustment of status (AOS) and consular immigrant visa applications. Foreign nationals may file applications to adjust their statuses to that of permanent residents or to obtain approval of immigrant visas at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad, provided that their priority dates are prior to the respective cutoff dates specified by the DOS.

What Does the December 2014 Visa Bulletin Say?

The December Visa Bulletin shows no change in the cutoff date for the EB-2 India category. EB-3 cutoff dates for the Rest of the World and China will advance by five months.

The cutoff date for F2A applicants from all countries will advance slightly in December.

EB-1: All EB-1 categories will remain current.

EB-2: The cutoff date for applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to India will remain at February 15, 2005. The cutoff date for applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to China will advance to January 1, 2010. The EB-2 category for all other countries will remain current.

EB-3: The cutoff date for applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to India will advance by seven days to December 1, 2003. The cutoff date for applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to China will advance by five months to June 1, 2010, which is now ahead of the cutoff date for EB-2 China. The cutoff date for applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to the Philippines, Mexico, and the Rest of the World will advance by five months to November 1, 2012.

The relevant priority date cutoffs for foreign nationals in the EB-3 category are as follows:

China: June 1, 2010 (forward movement of 152 days)

India: December 1, 2003 (forward movement of 7 days)

Mexico: November 1, 2012 (forward movement of 153 days)

Philippines: November 1, 2012 (forward movement of 153 days)

Rest of the World: November 1, 2012 (forward movement of 153 days)

Developments Affecting the EB-2 Employment-Based Category

Mexico, the Philippines, and the Rest of the World

The EB-2 category for applicants chargeable to all countries other than China and India has been current since November 2012. The December Visa Bulletin indicates no change to this trend. This means that applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to all countries other than China and India may continue to file AOS applications or have applications approved through December 2014.

China

The November Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of December 8, 2009 for EB-2 applicants chargeable to China. The December Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of January 1, 2010, reflecting forward movement of 23 days. This means that applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to China with a priority date prior to January 1, 2010 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in December 2014.

India

The cutoff date for EB-2 applicants chargeable to India remains at February 15, 2005. This means that only applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to India with a priority date prior to February 15, 2005 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in December 2014.

Developments Affecting the EB-3 Employment-Based Category

China

The November Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of January 1, 2010. The December Visa Bulletin remains unchanged, with a cutoff date of June 1, 2010. This means that applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to China with a priority date prior to June 1, 2010 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in December 2014.

India

The November Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of November 22, 2003. The December Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of December 1, 2003, reflecting forward movement of seven days. This means that EB-3 applicants chargeable to India with a priority date prior to December 1, 2003 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in December 2014.

Rest of the World

The November Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of June 1, 2012 for EB-3 applicants chargeable to the Rest of the World. The December Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of November 1, 2012, reflecting forward movement of 153 days. This means that applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to the Rest of the World with a priority date prior to November 1, 2012 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in December 2014.

Developments Affecting the F2A Family-Sponsored Category

The November Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of September 22, 2012 for F2A applicants from Mexico. The December Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of January 1, 2013, reflecting forward movement of 75 days. This means that applicants from Mexico with a priority date prior to January 1, 2013 will be able to file AOS applications or have applications approved in December 2014.

The November Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of March 1, 2013 for F2A applicants from all other countries. The December Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of March 22, 2013, reflecting forward movement of 21 days. This means that F2A applicants from all other countries with a priority date prior to March 22, 2013 will be able to file AOS applications or have applications approved in December 2014.

Developments in the Coming Months

As noted in last month’s alert, the DOS Visa Office predicts the following movement in the next three months:

F2A Family-Sponsored Category

  • The cutoff date in the F2A category will likely advance by three to five weeks per month.

Employment-Based Second Preference Category

  • The worldwide category will likely remain current.
  • The cutoff date in the EB-2 China category will likely advance by three to five weeks per month.
  • The cutoff date in the EB-2 India category will likely remain unchanged.

Employment-Based Third Preference Category

  • The cutoff date in the EB-3 worldwide category will continue to advance rapidly for the next several months. Demand is expected to increase significantly, at which point, the cutoff dates will be adjusted accordingly.
  • The cutoff date in the EB-3 China category is expected to advance rapidly in the next few months. Demand is expected to increase and may result in adjustments to the cutoff date by February 2015.
  • The cutoff date in the EB-3 India category will advance little, if at all.
  • The cutoff date in the EB-3 Mexico category will remain at the worldwide date.
  • The cutoff date in the EB-3 Philippines category will remain at the worldwide date. Increased demand in this category may result in adjustments to the cutoff date later in the fiscal year.

How This Affects You

Priority date cutoffs are assessed on a monthly basis by the DOS, based on anticipated demand. Cutoff dates can move forward or backward or remain static. Employers and employees should take the immigrant visa backlogs into account in their long-term planning and take measures to mitigate their effects. To see the December 2014 Visa Bulletin in its entirety, please visit the DOS website.

ARTICLE BY

Eric S. Bord
Lisa Stephanian Burton
Tracy Evlogidis
Malcolm K. Goeschl
Eleanor Pelta
A. James Vázquez-Azpiri
OF
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Risks of Running a Brewery & How to Avoid Them

Poyner Spruill Law firm

Beware of These Risks

Underage Drinkers, Intoxicated Patrons & Employee Restrictions

Restrictions on Employees

  • Employees are prohibited from drinking while on the job.

  • Employees who sell or serve alcoholic beverages must be at least 18 years old.

  • Employees under 21 years old are not permitted to mix drinks containing liquor.

  • Minors who are 16 or 17 years old are permitted to work at the brewery only if they do   not serve or sell any alcoholic beverages.

Sales to Underage Drinkers

It is unlawful to sell or serve alcohol to persons under 21 years old.

What should you do to protect yourself?

  • Train employees to request proper identification from customers.

  • Create a written policy for checking identification and have employees acknowledge that they have read and understand the policy.

  • Diligently supervise employees and their age verification practices.

How much might it cost you?

  • There is a cap on damages of $500,000 per occurrence.

Sales to Intoxicated Patrons

It is unlawful for a brewery or an employee of the brewery to knowingly sell alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated person.

What should you do to protect yourself?

  • Train employees on warning signs that a customer may have had too much to drink.

  • Be cautious in your assessment of a customer’s condition.

How much might it cost you?

  • There is no cap on damages for sales to intoxicated persons.

  • A court may even impose punitive damages against you.

ARTICLE BY

Amanda L Sherin
Deborah E. Sperati
OF
Poyner Spruill LLP
© 2014 Poyner Spruill LLP. All rights reserved.

What ERISA Plans Should Know about Money Market Reform

Drinker Biddle Law Firm

Most U.S. money market funds will begin restructuring their operations beginning in 2014 and throughout 2015 and 2016 as a result of the SEC’s adoption of wide ranging changes to the rules regulating these funds.  Since many plan participants invest in money market funds, ERISA plan sponsors, recordkeepers and investment consultants and other advisers will need to plan for operational, contractual, disclosure and other changes in connection with these new rules.

Floating and Stable NAV Funds

One of the biggest rule changes involves how money market funds will be allowed to value their shares.  Currently, money market funds generally offer shares at a stable net asset value (“NAV’) of $1.00.  Under the SEC’s new money market rules, only government and “retail” money market funds can offer their shares at a stable NAV.  Government money market funds are those funds that hold at least 99.5% of their investments in government securities, cash or repurchase agreements collateralized by government securities.  Money market funds that don’t qualify to offer shares at a stable NAV because of the nature of their shareholder base (i.e., institutional money market funds) will have to float their NAVs, meaning the share price will fluctuate from day to day.

Retail money market funds are funds that restrict investors only to beneficial owners that are natural persons.  A beneficial owner is any person who has direct or indirect, sole or shared voting and/or investment power.  Under the new rules, retail money market funds will be required to reasonably conclude that beneficial owners of intermediaries are natural persons.  The SEC stated that tax-advantaged savings accounts and trusts, such as (i) participant-directed defined contribution plans; (ii) individual retirement accounts; (iii) simplified employee pension arrangements, and other similar types of arrangements, would qualify for the natural person test.  On the other hand, defined benefit plans, endowments and small businesses are not considered “natural persons” and would not be eligible to invest in a retail money market fund.

It is widely expected that the SEC’s new money market rules will result in many changes in fund offerings.  For example:

  • Money market funds that currently have both institutional and natural persons as holders may spin off the institutional holders into separate floating NAV funds;

  • Some institutional funds may decide to liquidate or merge with other funds;

  • Some advisers may begin offering new money fund-“like” products that only hold short term securities (60 days or less maturity) and therefore value fund holdings at amortized cost; and

  • Some prime money market funds may change their investment strategies to operate as a government money market fund in order to steer clear of the floating NAV and liquidity fee and gate rules (discussed below).

Effect on ERISA Plans.  The SEC provided examples of how funds could satisfy the natural person definition with intermediaries, including through: contractual arrangements, periodic certifications and representations or other verification methods.  Accordingly, ERISA service providers who hold fund shares in omnibus accounts may expect to be contacted by retail money market funds to provide these certifications or representations and/or to enter into new agreements with funds for this purpose.

ERISA plan sponsors and investment consultants and advisers will also need to be alert to potential changes to existing money market funds currently offered in plans to which they provide services and/or new fund offerings that may be appealing to and/or better serve the best interests of participants.

Liquidity Fees and Redemption Gates

All money market funds, except government money market funds, will be subject to the SEC’s new rules with respect to the imposition of liquidity (or redemption) fees and redemption gates during periods when a money market fund’s weekly liquid assets dip below certain thresholds.  Under these new rules a fund board may impose up to a 2% liquidity fee and a gate on fund redemptions if weekly liquid assets fall below 30% of total assets.  The fund board must impose a 1% liquidity fee if weekly liquid assets fall below 10% of total assets, unless the board decides otherwise.  Of course, if 10% of a money market fund’s assets are below 10% of a fund’s total assets, it would be unlikely that a board would not impose liquidity fees and redemption gates.  The redemption gates can last no longer than 10 days and cannot be imposed more than once in a 90-day period.

Effect on ERISA Plans.  The liquidity fee and gate requirements will usually only be triggered in times of extreme market stress.  But they are features that many ERISA participants and ERISA service providers will not find appealing.  For that reason, there may be more demand from participants for government money market funds, which may, but are not required to, comply with the fee and gate rules.  It is not expected that government money market funds will opt to become subject to these fee and gate rules.

The liquidity fee and redemption gate rules will require recordkeepers to make technical changes in their operations.  These operational changes could be expensive and time consuming to implement especially for smaller plans.  In particular, it should be noted that liquidity fees may vary in amount depending on a fund board’s determination and redemption gates may vary in the amount of days and will need to be removed quickly upon notice by a fund board.  Additionally, there may be contractual impediments to implementation of liquidity fees and gates, which are discussed below.

Many commenters on the proposed money market rules raised questions with the SEC regarding possible conflicts caused by the application of the fee and gate rules to funds in ERISA and other tax-exempt plans.  Specifically, commenters mentioned the following issues with the fee and/or gate rules:

  • possible violations of certain minimum distribution rules that could be interfered with by the gate rule;

  • potential taxation as a result of the inability to process certain mandatory refunds on a timely basis;

  • delays in plan conversions or rollovers;

  • possible conflicts with the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) qualified default investment (“QDIA”) rules; and

  • conflicts with plan fiduciaries’ duties regarding maintenance of adequate liquidity in their plans.

The SEC’s response generally was that these concerns either were unlikely to materialize or could be mitigated by ERISA plan sponsors or service providers.  For example, with respect to QDIAs, the SEC suggested that a plan sponsor or service provider could (i) loan funds to a plan for operating expenses to avoid the effects of a gate, or (ii) pay a liquidity fee on behalf of a redeeming participant.  In connection with rollovers or conversions, the SEC likewise pointed out that if the liquidity fee caused a hardship on a participant, then the ERISA fiduciary or its affiliate could simply pay the liquidity fee; failing that, the SEC suggested that the fiduciary consider a government money market fund for investment purposes, which is not required to comply with the fee and gate rules.

The SEC continues to work with the DOL on these and other ERISA-and tax exempt specific issues but thus far has not provided any relief from its fee and gate rules for these types of plans and accounts.  Thus, ERISA fiduciaries and plan sponsors may need to consider money market fund offerings in their plans in light of these issues.

Contractual Issues

As noted above, the “natural person” requirements for retail money market funds will require these funds to ascertain information regarding beneficial ownership of fund shares from ERISA intermediaries.  Retail money market funds may ask ERISA intermediaries to make representations about their customers through revised service agreements containing representations about the nature of the intermediaries’ customers.  These funds may also use periodic certifications or questionnaires to obtain this information.

In addition, many existing contracts between money market funds and intermediaries have restrictions in them regarding the imposition of redemption fees and may restrict a fund’s right to delay effecting redemptions thereby putting them in conflict with the new liquidity fee and redemption gate rules.  Recordkeepers who contract with retail or institutional money market funds may therefore be asked by these funds to amend or otherwise revise their servicing agreements with the funds to provide for liquidity fees and redemption gates.

Pricing Changes

The new money market rules will require all floating NAV money market funds to price their shares to four decimal places (e.g., $1.0000).  Recordkeepers will need to adjust their systems to accommodate the four-decimal place pricing system.

Disclosure and Education/Training

ERISA service providers will need to train and educate their personnel on the new money market rules and fund options so that they can answer participants’ questions.  ERISA service providers will need to develop disclosure for ERISA participants that clearly describes the risks and differences in money market funds and new fund options.

Compliance Dates

The new money market rules take effect in various stages over the next two years.  Importantly, the floating NAV, decimal pricing, and liquidity fee and gate rules become effective on October 14, 2016.  That said, the mutual fund industry appears to be moving quickly to prepare to comply, and it is probable that investment advisers to money market funds will begin to make some changes, for example, creating new funds and separating retail and institutional shareholders into different funds well ahead of the 2016 compliance date.  Therefore, ERISA service providers will need to be alert to the possibility that their operations may need to be adjusted as these changes occur.

The SEC’s new money market rules will usher in many changes to money market funds over the next 18-24 months that will affect ERISA and tax-exempt participants who invest in these vehicles and ERISA service providers.  ERISA service providers should begin preparing for these changes by assessing their systems, as applicable, to evaluate whether they can comply with the new rules and, if not, what other investment options might be available to address participants’ short-term investment needs.  ERISA service providers may also want to consider whether non-government money market funds or other short-term liquidity vehicles should be offered to ERISA participants in light of the new fee and gate rules.

ARTICLE BY

Diana E. McCarthy
OF
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Employers: How Prepared Are You for Ebola?

Morgan Lewis logo

Rapidly changing circumstances raise workplace questions.

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

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

OSHA’s Interim Guidance

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

  • Healthcare workers

  • Airline and other travel industry personnel

  • Mortuary and death care workers

  • Laboratory workers

  • Border, customs, and quarantine workers

  • Emergency responders

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

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

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

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

CDC Involvement

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

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

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

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

Health and Travel Advisories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HIPAA

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

Labor Relations

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

Immigration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1]. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1030.

[2]. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.134.

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

[4]. View the act here.

[5]. View the advisories here.

[6]. View the advisories here.

[7]. View the restrictions here.

ARTICLE BY

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

NLRB Shows Some Restraint in its Protection of Employee Social Media Communications: Employee Termination Arising From “Egregious” and “Insubordinate” Facebook Posts Was Legal Under the NLRA

Mintz Levin Law Firm

In the wake of the NLRB’s aggressive crackdown on social media policies, many employers have asked: “Is there any limit to what employees can post on social media about their employers?”  It appears that there is.  Just last week, a former employee of the Richmond District Neighborhood Teen Center in San Francisco learned this the hard way when the Board dismissed his complaint that the Center violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act after it pulled a rehire offer after it discovered that he particpated in an inappropriate Facebook exchange.

During the 2011-2012 school year, Ian Callaghan and Kenya Moore both worked for the Center’s afterschool program—Callaghan as a teen activity leader and Moore as the teen center program leader.  In May 2012, the Center held a staff meeting during which it solicited and received both positive and negative feedback from its staff, including Callaghan and Moore.  In July 2012, Callaghan and Moore received letters inviting them to return to the Center for the 2012-2013 school year; this time both as activity leaders.

The following month, Callaghan and Moore communicated over Facebook about (i) refusing to obtain permission before organizing youth activities (“ordering sh*t, having crazy events at the Beacon all the time.  I don’t want to ask permission…”; “Let’s do some cool sh*t and let them figure out the money”; “field trips all the time to wherever the f#@! we want!”), (ii) disregarding specific school district rules (“play music loud”; “teach the kids how to graffiti up the walls…”), (iii) undermining leadership (“we’ll take advantage”), (iv) neglecting their duties (“I ain’t go[]never be there”), and (v) jeopardizing the safety of participating youth and the program overall (“they start loosn kids I aint helpin”; “Let’s f#@! it up”).  When the Center’s administration became aware of the postings, it revoked the offers to rehire, and Callaghan filed a charge with the Board.

Under Section 7 of the Act, employees have the right to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection, including complaining to one another about the terms and conditions of their employment.  In that vein, an employer may not take adverse action against employees for exercising their Section 7 rights without violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.  That said, employees can take it too far and lose the protection of Section 7 when their conduct is particularly egregious or of such a character as to render the employees unfit for further service.

Here, although Callaghan and Moore previously had engaged in protected activity during the May 2012 staff meeting when they offered negative feedback about the Center, and although neither Callaghan nor Moore had ever engaged in any acts of insubordination, the Board held that they lost the Act’s protection because “[t]he magnitude and detail of insubordinate acts advocated in the [Facebook] posts reasonably gave [the Center] concern that Callaghan and Moore would act on their plans, a risk a reasonable employer would refuse to take.”

Several years ago, the Richmond District Neighborhood Center decision may have been a foregone conclusion.  But in light of the current Board’s aggressive approach to Section 7 protections, the decision provides employers with reassurance that Section 7 has retained at least some outer bounds.  The decision provides some guidance for defining “insubordination” in social media policies, for example, to include communications pervaded by detailed plans to jeopardize the employer’s very existence, violate legally enforceable employer policies, or neglect job duties.

For a full discussion of the Board’s recent approach to social media policies, see George Patterson’s September 3, 2014 posting “NLRB Continues Aggressive Crackdown on Social Media Polices.”

ARTICLE BY

Erin Cornell Horton
OF
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

EEOC Part of Increasing Focus On LGBT Issues

Barnes Thornburg

We seem clearly to be in the midst of a shift towards greater employment protections for LGBT employees, evidenced both by discrimination legislation largely at a state and local level and less directly in the legal environment by developments such as greater acceptance of gay marriage including the Supreme Court’s recent refusal to consider lower court decisions invalidating state statutes prohibiting gay marriage.

EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum recently released thisinteresting summary of the EEOC’s activities and positions on LGBT issues. Highlights include:

  • Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.  The EEOC interprets the law to provide protection on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.  This has not always been the case – in the 1970s the EEOC held that discrimination on the basis of gender identity (1974) and sexual orientation (1976) were not prohibited under Title VII.
  • Courts have not yet developed a clear position on this.  (And for lawyer readers, there are numerous case cites that provide a useful reference.)
  • The EEOC has accepted discrimination charges from LGBT individuals since January 2013 and reports that it is has received and resolved hundreds of them.
  • Commissioner Feldblum states that strong laws at all levels of government explicitly protecting LGBT workers are still necessary.

Anecdotally, more and more employers seem to be voluntarily extending to LGBT employees the protection they extend to employees in generally accepted protected classes.  In many cases, the employer is required to do so under the laws of some places it does business, and simply implements the protection uniformly.  Employers who choose not to do so voluntarily and are not yet required to do so in places where they do business should at least be thinking ahead on administering what seem like inevitable changes.

As always, regardless of what classes are protected in what jurisdictions, the best defense against discrimination liability are making good business decisions and being able to document that you have done so.

ARTICLE BY

William A. Nolan
OF
Barnes & Thornburg LLP

NLRB Finds Facebook Posts Go Too Far for the Act's Protection

Neal Gerber

As we reported previously, social media issues are troublesome for employers who must navigate unsettled or even conflicting federal and state laws and decisions.  A recent ruling from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) demonstrates that employers can still protect their business against inappropriate online activity by employees.  Specifically, the NLRB ruled that an Employer acted lawfully in rescinding two employees’ rehire offers, finding that the Facebook conversations between the two were so egregious as to lose protection under the National Labor Relations Act and render the two individuals unfit for further service with the Employer.

The Employer operates a Teen Center that provides afterschool activities to students.  During a period between school sessions, just before the employees would have been rehired for the coming school year, the two individuals engaged in a series of Facebook conversations during which they repeatedly talked, in profane terms, about what they intended to do when they returned to work. The messages contained numerous indications that the two would refuse to follow the rules and policies of the Employer, would refuse to work with management or get required permissions, would engage in various acts to undermine the school’s leadership, and they detailed specific acts of intended insubordination.

The NLRB agreed that the exchange of messages (which certainly discussed their displeasure over working conditions) was “protected concerted activity” under the Act. Normally, such protected activity cannot be the basis of any adverse employment action. However, the Board determined that the conduct constituted “pervasive advocacy of insubordination which, on an objective basis, was so egregious as to lose the Act’s protection.”

In finding the conduct unprotected, the Board relied on the fact that the individuals repeatedly described a wide variety of planned insubordinations in specific detail. According to the Board, these acts were beyond brief comments that might be explained away as a joke or hyperbole divorced from any likelihood of implementation. Rather, the Board concluded that the magnitude and detail of insubordinate conduct advocated in the posts reasonably gave the Employer concern that the two individuals would act on their plans, a risk that a reasonable employer would refuse to take by returning the individuals to the workforce. The Board concluded that the Employer was not required to wait for the employees to follow through on the misconduct they advocated.

This decision gives employers some relief that there are limits to what employees can say on social media, even if the subject of their conversations or postings is “protected” and “concerted”. However, before an employer can take adverse employment action against an employee who engages in such activity, the employer must be able to demonstrate that, on an objective basis, the activity is egregious and pervasive and is of such magnitude and of such detail that it is reasonably likely to be acted upon rather than being mere hyperbole.

[Richmond District Neighborhood Center, 361 NLRB No. 74 — October 28, 2014]

ARTICLE BY

Howard L. Bernstein
OF
Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP

Uber’s Decision To “Deactivate” Driver Over Retweet of Article Goes Viral in Minutes

Allen Matkins Law Firm

It all started with a retweet. A recent story regarding the “deactivation” and subsequent reinstatement of an Uber driver in Albuquerque is a useful reminder for employers that, given the widespread use by employees of social media, employment decisions should not only be well thought out, but also should take into account potential negative publicity.

During a period while he was on hiatus from driving for Uber, Christopher Ortiz merely retweeted an article referenced as “Driving for Uber, not much safer than driving a taxi,” without commenting on the article. When he sought to resume driving for Uber a couple of months later, Ortiz received an email from Uber stating that his driver account had been “permanently deactivated due to hateful statements regarding Uber through social media.” The e-mail referenced the title of the article that Ortiz had retweeted. Ortiz immediately tweeted a screenshot of Uber’s email, and the story was picked up by websites such as Forbes and BuzzFeed.

Twitter Feed for Christopher J. Ortiz

Within hours, Uber reversed its decision and reactivated Ortiz’s driver account. Ortiz then tweeted a screenshot of Uber’s message reinstating him, which subsequently was retweeted numerous times.

In this situation, each of Uber’s communications with Ortiz was made public and broadcast within seconds of its transmission to Ortiz. It took only minutes for Uber’s termination decision to get attention from national media outlets. The fact that information regarding employers’ hiring and firing decisions can become subject to public scrutiny at such a rapid pace should serve as a reminder to employers to carefully assess how they approach these decisions and how they react to the decisions’ aftermath. For example, retracting an employment decision, particularly if it is publicized, could embolden other employees to publicize negative employment decisions affecting them in the hope those decisions too will be retracted.

As noted at the outset, employers should contemplate, as part of their decision-making process, that any employment decisions they make, and particularly those they may e-mail to their employees, potentially could be broadcast publicly and be subject to the court of public opinion through various forms of social media. As demonstrated by this incident, once a story gains traction on social media, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to control the ramifications.

ARTICLE BY

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

How Should IME (Independent Medical Examination) Doctors Apportion for Pre-Existing Impairment Using the AMA Guides and Rule 20 Guidelines?

Steptoe Johnson PLLC Law Firm

In West Virginia, Workers’ Compensation statutes provide that an employee who has a definitely ascertainable impairment resulting from an occupational or non-occupational injury, disease, or any other cause, whether or not disabling, and the employee thereafter receives an injury in the course of and resulting from his employment, the prior injury and the effect of the prior injury and aggravation shall not be taken into consideration in fixing the amount of compensation or impairment allowed by reason of the subsequent injury.  The statute provides that compensation, i.e., a permanent partial disability impairment rating, shall be awarded only in the amount that would have been allowable had the employee not had the pre-existing impairment.

No provision in this particular code section requires that the degree of pre-existing impairment be definitely ascertained or rated prior to the injury received in the course of and resulting from the employment or that the benefits must have been specifically granted or paid for the pre-existing impairment.  Additionally, the degree of pre-existing impairment may be established at any time by competent medical evidence.  It is not clear in the rules or statutes whether a reduction of an award for a pre-existing degenerative impairment should be calculated after the application of the tables in Rule 20 for determining impairment in regard to the lumbar, thoracic, or cervical spine or before the application of these tables.

In West Virginia, with regard to permanent partial disability evaluations and awards, such assessments shall be determined based upon the range of motion model contained in the AMA Guides, 4th Edition.  Once an impairment level has been determined by range of motion assessment in regard to a claimant’s spine injury, that level will be compared with the ranges set forth in the corresponding tables for permanent impairment as found in Rule 20, W. Va. C.S.R. § 85-20 et seq.  Permanent partial disabilities in excess of the range provided in the appropriate category as identified by the rating physician are reduced to within the ranges set forth in these tables found in Rule 20.  A single injury or cumulative injuries that lead to permanent impairment to the lumbar, thoracic, or cervical spine area of one’s person shall cause an injured worker to be eligible to receive a permanent partial disability award within the ranges identified in the tables found in Rule 20.

The rating physician must identify the appropriate impairment category and then assign impairment within the appropriate range designated for that category.  Rule 20 provides that all evaluations, examinations, reports, and opinions with regard to the degree of permanent whole body medical impairment which an injured worker has suffered shall be conducted and imposed in accordance with the AMA Guides, 4th Edition.  Rule 20 does not specifically address allocation of physical impairment at any time but does dictate that degenerative conditions are not compensable.  Also, Rule 20 allows for an evaluating physician to deviate from the rule with sufficient explanation for the deviation.

In a memorandum decision issued by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals on June 11, 2014, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded a decision of the Office of Judges and Board of Review based on an employer’s appeal and found that the Office of Judges inappropriately concluded that the reviewing doctor did not correctly apportion for the claimant’s pre-existing condition when she did so after applying the table for impairment found in Rule 20.  The Supreme Court specifically noted that the physician correctly and appropriately apportioned for a pre-existing impairment after applying the tables found in Rule 20.  Even though this is a memorandum decision that does not have any specific syllabus points, it certainly is the only decision we have from the high court which shows that apportionment for a pre-existing condition should be made after applying the tables of impairment for the lumbar, thoracic, or cervical spine found in Rule 20.

ARTICLE BY

Alyssa A Sloan
OF
Steptoe & Johnson PLLC