Wage Deductions in West Virginia

Steptoe Johnson PLLC Law Firm

Most West Virginia employers must comply with two wage and hour laws: the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act (“WPCA”).  Both laws restrict the ability of employers to make deductions from employees’ wages.

The FLSA

When an employer makes impermissible deductions from an exempt employee’s pay, the employer risks losing the exemption from the FLSA’s overtime requirement.  Generally, to be exempt, the employee must perform certain exempt duties and must be paid at least $455 per week on a salary basis.  A salary is a predetermined, fixed amount of compensation that does not fluctuate because of changes in the amount of hours worked from week to week.  The general rule is that employers must pay exempt employees the full salary amount for any week in which the employee performs any work regardless of the number of hours worked.

However, there are some exceptions that allow for an employer to make deductions:

  1. If the employee is absent from work for one full day or more because of personal reasons other than sickness or disability;

  2. For absences caused by sickness or disability if the deduction is made in accordance with a bona fide plan that provides compensation for the lost time;

  3. As penalties for violating safety rules of major significance;

  4. For unpaid, disciplinary suspension; and,

  5. To offset amounts an employee receives as a jury or witness fee, or for military pay.

  6. Employers are also permitted to make deductions from an employee’s paid time off as long as the employee receives his or her standard weekly salary.  If the employee performs no work in a given workweek, then the FLSA does not require that the exempt employee be paid for that week.  Similarly, an employer is not required to pay the full salary in the first and last weeks of employment or when the employee takes unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

The FLSA also contains a provision that allows employers to correct an impermissible deduction and thereby preserve the exempt status of the employee.  To take advantage of this “window of correction,” the employer must have a policy that is clearly communicated to employees that prohibits improper deductions.  The policy should be in writing and must provide a mechanism by which employees can file complaints.  Once a violation is found, the employer must reimburse the employee and make a good faith commitment to comply in the future.

The WPCA

The WPCA limits an employer’s ability to make deductions from an employee’s wages after the wages have been earned, unless the employer and employee have completed a statutorily-required authorization.  This includes situations where the employee owes the employer a debt, such as when the employee has charged a purchase to an employee account.  Unlike the FLSA, the WPCA restrictions apply to both salary and hourly employees.

An authorization is not required if the deduction is for union or club dues, pension plans, payroll savings plans, credit unions, charities, hospitalization and medical insurance.  In addition, deductions without an authorization are permitted when the deduction is for “an amount required by law to be withheld.”  This exception is very narrow.  Wages that must be garnished pursuant to a court order, such as child support obligations, would meet the exception.

If the deduction is for any reason other than those listed above, then the employer must use a wage assignment form.  The West Virginia Division of Labor has posted a sample form on its website, and employers should use this form.  The assignment cannot exceed one year.  It must be signed by the employer, acknowledged by the employee, and notarized.  It must also specify the total amount due and collectible by virtue of the assignment and state that three fourths of the employee’s periodical wages are exempt from the assignment.

© Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

ARTICLE BY

OF

New Jersey Employers: $8.38 Minimum Wage Effective January 1

Giordano Halleran Ciesla Logo

As you may remember, in November 2013, voters approved an amendment to the New Jersey Constitution increasing the state minimum wage to $8.25.  The amendment also created annual cost of living increases, tied to the Consumer Price Index, to be added to the minimum wage each year.  The increases are calculated each September and take effect on the following January.  Therefore, effective January 1, 2015, New Jersey minimum wage will rise from $8.25 to $8.38.  Employers must ensure that all work performed by employees on and after January 1, 2015 is compensated at the increased rate.  Employers should be especially mindful of this change if January 1 falls in the middle of a pay period.

© 2014 Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C. All Rights Reserved

ARTICLE BY

OF

Where do Social Security Payments Made by Undocumented Workers Go?

Greenberg Traurig Law firm

Many employers are familiar with the following scenario: You hire someone, put them on payroll and deduct taxes from their checks automatically – just like you do with all employees. You then find out through an audit by U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) or by the employee coming clean that he or she is using a fake social security number. You consequently terminate employment on the grounds that they violated the company’s “honesty policy” or simply because he or she is not authorized to work in the United States. So what does Social Security do with the payments that the employee has made?

According to the Social Security Administration (SSA) unauthorized workers are paying an estimated $13 billion per year in social security taxes and are receiving about $1 billion in return. During an interview, Stephen Goss, the chief actuary of the SSA, estimated that there are approximately 11 million undocumented people in the United States and about 7 million of these people are working illegally. Further, out of these 7 million undocumented workers, approximately 3.1 million people are using fake or expired social security numbers. Goss noted that undocumented workers have paid around $100 billion in social security taxes over the last decade, which the SSA has treated as a positive cash flow without a home. Goss indicated that the $100 billion in unclaimed social security created by undocumented workers has been a key factor in allowing the SSA “to be paying benefits for as long as it now can.”

So, and in answering the headline question, the SSA puts all of these “homeless” contributions into the Social Security Trust Fund for Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OSAI). This fund is used to ultimately pay out social security benefits to U.S. workers and retirees.

ARTICLE BY

OF

Employers’ Immigration Law Update – September 2014

Jackson Lewis Law firm

ICE Levies $2M Fine against Hotel for I-9 Related Violations

A Salt Lake City-based hotel will have to pay nearly $2 million for hiring unauthorized workers, including illegal aliens. The hotel will avoid criminal prosecution in exchange for its full cooperation with a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigation and for taking action to correct its hiring practices. According to the non-prosecution agreement, several lower-level employees and mid-level managers conspired to rehire unauthorized workers amidst an administrative audit of I-9 employee verification forms that began in September 2010. The hotel was notified that 133 employees were not authorized to work in the United States; however, the conspirators created three temporary employment agencies, essentially shell companies, to rehire 43 of the unauthorized, and most of the workers returned under different names using fraudulent identity documents.

$300K for H-2B Violations

According to a Department of Labor announcement, the agency has charged a landscaping company with violating federal law by failing to hire U.S. workers, and for underpaying temporary foreign workers. The company will pay $280,000 in back wages to 80 workers and nine job applicants and $20,000 in civil money penalties.

Immigration Reform Update

With comprehensive immigration reform legislation no longer a realistic possibility for the foreseeable future, advocates for reform have shifted their focus to executive actions the President may take unilaterally to implement changes in immigration policy.

The President reportedly is considering broad use of executive action, granting relief potentially to up to 6 million undocumented individuals, similar to what has been provided under the administration’s Deferred Action to Childhood Arrivals program (DACA).

Building off of DACA, the President has directed the Department of Homeland Security to review the administration’s immigration enforcement policies and recommend additional changes, possibly expanding the deferred action and work authorization to family members of U.S. citizens and lawful U.S. residents. The administration reportedly also is looking at possible changes to current law and regulation that could benefit employers.

Any unilateral action by the administration likely will be controversial.

Owner Liable for H-1B, J-1 Costs

The owner of several medical clinics is personally liable for back wages and the costs of physicians’ H-1B visas and J-1 waivers, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled. Kutty v. DOL, No. 11-6120 (6th Cir. Aug. 20, 2014). The Court held Dr. Mohan Kutty and his medical clinics violated H-1B provisions by having physicians cover the costs of their own H-1B visa petitions and related J-1 visa waivers.

NLRB Says There Is Such Thing as a Free Lunch

Checkered Tablecloth with Fork and Knife

The free lunch at issue in this case consisted of a meat sandwich and a side provided to each employee during each shift that he or she worked, a $6 to $10 value. This lunch benefit was provided to employees at the Main Stree location (the only location, out of eight total locations, at issue) from at least 2011 until the end of July 2013.  Other benefits received by employees during this time included the right to make purchases on a “tab,” to be deducted from future paychecks, and qualification for monthly bonuses tied to the location’s performance.

In July 2013, some of the employees of the Main Street location took part in a campaign, organized by the Workers’ Organizing Committee of Kansas City (the WOC), to obtain higher wages for food workers. Prior to the planned 1-day strike organized by the WOC, the Main Street location manager met with a group of employees that had previously met with a WOC organizer and made various threats intended to stop them from striking. In spite of the threats, nine out of the thirty Main Street employees participated in the 1-day strike. The workers that struck were all allowed to return to work, but the Main Street location supervisors announced the following week, via posted notices and word of mouth, that they were discontinuing certain employee benefits, incluing the free employee meals and the right to buy food on a tab.

Despite the testimony of one of the Main Street location’s supervisors that the free lunch was taken away from the workers because of customer complaints and poor performance, the ALJ found that the taking away of the free lunch and other benefits was a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act because it was in retaliation for the employees’ participation in the 1-day strike. Gates & Sons was ordered to make their employees whole for the lost meal benefit.

OF
© 2014 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

CBP Announces Optimized Processing for First-Time Canadian TN and L Applicants

Greenberg Traurig Law firm

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has announced optimized processing procedures at fourteen ports-of-entry, including four pre-clearance locations, for Canadian citizens seeking TN or L status for the first time. This initiative is designed to increase customer satisfaction, decrease wait times and allow CBP to effectively deal with increased volume of Canadian TN and L applicants. Although first-time Canadian TN and L applicants may go to other ports for processing, CBP is encouraging applicants to go through one of the designated ports below for optimized processing:

Pre-Flight Inspection Locations

  • Pearson International Airport, Toronto, Ontario

  • Trudeau International Airport, Dorval, Quebec

  • Vancouver International Airport, Richmond, British Columbia

  • Calgary International Airport, Calgary, Alberta

Land Port Locations

  • Highgate Springs Port of Entry, Highgate Springs, Vermont

  • Derby Line Port of Entry, Derby Line, Vermont

  • Alexandria Bay Port of Entry, Alexandria, New York

  • Peace Bridge Port of Entry, Buffalo, New York

  • Rainbow Bridge Port of Entry, Niagara Falls, New York

  • Champlain Port of Entry, Champlain, New York

  • Detroit Canada Tunnel Port of Entry, Detroit, Michigan

  • Detroit Ambassador Bridge Port of Entry, Detroit, Michigan

  • Blaine Peace Arch Port of Entry, Blaine, Washington

  • Sweetgrass Port of Entry,  Sweetgrass Montana

ARTICLE BY

OF

Department of State Releases October 2014 Visa Bulletin

The bulletin shows slight forward movement in all employment-based preference categories, with the exception of the EB-2 India category, which will remain unchanged.

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) has released its October 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 October 2014 Visa Bulletin Say?

The October Visa Bulletin shows moderate advancement of the cutoff dates in all of the employment-based categories other than EB-2 India, which will remain unchanged from September because of significant demand in this category.

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

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 unchanged at May 1, 2009. The cutoff date for applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to China will advance by 38 days to November 15, 2009. 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 November 15, 2003. The cutoff date for applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to China will advance by 151 days to April 1, 2009. The cutoff date for applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to the Philippines, Mexico, and the worldwide category will advance by six months to October 1, 2011.

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

China: April 1, 2009 (forward movement of 151 days)
India: November 15, 2003 (forward movement of seven days)
Mexico: October 1, 2011 (forward movement of 183 days)
Philippines: October 1, 2011 (forward movement of 183 days)
Rest of the World: October 1, 2011 (forward movement of 183 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 October 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 October 2014.

China

The September Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of October 8, 2009 for EB-2 applicants chargeable to China. The October Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of November 15, 2009, reflecting forward movement of 38 days. This means that applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to China with a priority date prior to November 15, 2009 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in October 2014.

India

The September Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of May 1, 2009 for EB-2 applicants chargeable to India. The October Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of May 1, 2009, reflecting no movement. This means that applicants in the EB-2 category chargeable to India with a priority date prior to May 1, 2009 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in October 2014.

The September Visa Bulletin indicated that the use of potentially “otherwise unused” employment-based visa numbers prescribed by section 202(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act had allowed the cutoff date in the EB-2 India category to advance rapidly in recent months. The September Bulletin warned that continued forward movement of this cutoff date could not be guaranteed. The October Visa Bulletin indicates no movement of the cutoff date in the EB-2 India category in October in order to regulate demand. It further notes that increased demand will require the retrogression of the cutoff date, possibly in November, to hold number use within the fiscal year 2015 annual limit.

Developments Affecting the EB-3 Employment-Based Category

China

The September Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of November 1, 2008 for EB-3 applicants chargeable to China. The October Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of April 1, 2009 reflecting forward movement of 151 days. This means that applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to China with a priority date prior to April 1, 2009 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in October 2014.

India

The September Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of November 8, 2003 for EB-2 applicants chargeable to India. The October Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of November 15, 2003, reflecting forward movement of seven days. This means that EB-3 applicants chargeable to India with a priority date prior to November 15, 2003 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in October 2014.

Rest of the World

The September Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of April 1, 2011 for EB-3 applicants chargeable to the worldwide category. The October Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of October 1, 2011, reflecting forward movement of 183 days. This means that applicants in the EB-3 category chargeable to the worldwide category with a priority date prior to October 1, 2011 may file AOS applications or have applications approved in October 2014.

Developments Affecting the F2A Family-Sponsored Category

The September Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of April 22, 2012 for F2A applicants from Mexico. The October Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of July 22, 2012, reflecting forward movement of 91 days. This means that applicants from Mexico with a priority date prior to July 22, 2012 will be able to file AOS applications or have applications approved in October 2014.

The September Visa Bulletin indicated a cutoff date of January 1, 2013 for F2A applicants from all other countries. The October Visa Bulletin indicates a cutoff date of February 1, 2013, reflecting forward movement of 31 days. This means that F2A applicants from all other countries with a priority date prior to February 1, 2013 will be able to file AOS applications or have applications approved in October 2014.

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. See the October 2014 Visa Bulletin in its entirety at the DOS website.

ARTICLE BY

OF

Can You Prove the Mail Was Delivered? If You Are Sending An FMLA Notice, the Answer Must Be Yes

Poyner Spruill Law firm

A recent case emphasizes the importance of implementing procedures that establish strict compliance with the employer notice obligations under the FMLA. In Lupyan v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., the Third Circuit held that Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (the College) could not avoid a jury trial because it did not send the mandatory individual FMLA notice to the plaintiff via a mailing that produced proof of receipt. Ms. Lupyan applied for leave due to depression in December 2007. Her physician completed a  Certification of Health Care Provider form, stating that she needed leave through April 1, 2008. The College verbally advised Lupyan that her leave was being designated as Family Medical Leave and allegedly mailed her a letter explaining her rights and responsibilities under the FMLA, including the fact that her FMLA leave ran out at the end of March. Lupyan did not return to work by the end of March, and the College terminated her employment. She sued, claiming that she never received the letter, and that if she had known that her leave was limited to 12 weeks, she would have returned to work and avoided termination. The lower court granted summary judgment to the College based on its affidavits stating that a letter satisfying the notice requirements of 29 CFR § 825.208 was mailed through regular snail mail to Lupyan. The Third Circuit reversed, holding that the presumption of receipt usually given to the U.S Postal Service mail was insufficient in light of Lupyan’s denial that she ever got the letter. Because the FMLA regulations are silent on the type of mail required for delivery of mandatory FMLA notice, many employers may use regular mail. Best practice in light of the Lupyan decision is to use certified or overnight mail so that proof of delivery exists when sending the Notice of Rights and Responsibilities and the Notice of Eligibility required under the FMLA and to obtain a personal email address from employees as part of the leave application and approval process. An email, with a receipt that shows it was opened, would also likely suffice for proof of delivery.

OF

Madison, WI Resolution Targets “Ban the Box” Legislation For City Contractors and Vendors

Proskauer Law firm

The Common Council of Madison, Wisconsin passed a resolution that prohibits the city (i) from asking questions concerning an applicant’s criminal history on the city’s initial employment applications (i.e., “banning the box”), and (ii) from conducting a criminal background check before making a conditional offer of employment to the applicant.  The resolution provides exceptions for the city’s police department and commissioned fire personnel.

While the resolution does not extend these prohibitions to city contractors and vendors at the present time, it does instruct the city to “introduce an ordinance [within the next six months] prohibiting City vendors and contractors from asking applicants about their arrest and conviction history until after a conditional offer of employment has been made.”

Given the national momentum behind the “ban the box” movement, Madison contractors and vendors should monitor the proposed ordinance as it makes its way through the Council.  To date, about a dozen cities—including Compton (CA), Richmond (CA), Hartford (CT), New Haven (CT), Indianapolis (IN)Louisville (KY), Boston (MA), Cambridge (MA), Worcester, (MA), Detroit (MI), Atlantic City (NJ), New York City (NY), and Pittsburgh (PA)—have required vendors and contractors to ban the box on their employment applications.  The State of Delaware has “encouraged” the same. Stay tuned to see if Madison is next.

ARTICLE BY

 
OF

October Visa Bulletin – Some Gains in the EB-3 Category, but Near Future Bleak for EB-2 India

Greenberg Traurig Law firm

The Department of State released its October Visa Bulletin today.  On a positive note, the EB-2 category for Chinese nationals has made a five week gain, from October 8, 2009 to November 15, 2009; and the EB-3 category for skilled workers/professionals for Chinese nationals has jumped five months, from November 1, 2008 to April 1, 2009.  The EB-3 category will advance six months for nationals of “all other countries” from April 1, 2011 to October 1, 2011; whereas it will only move forward a week for Indian nationals from November 8, 2003 to November 15, 2003.  Elsewhere, the EB-2 category for Indian nationals remains at May 1, 2009 and, unfortunately, this category is likely to retrogress over the next several months because of a spike in demand.  This is grim reading for Indian nationals who account for a large percentage of highly-skilled workers seeking permanent residence in the United States.  Indeed, based on current retrogression dates for Indians in the EB-3 category, priority dates are moving forward one week every month, which translates to a wait time of more than forty years.

Employment Based Category

All Other Countries

China

India

Mexico

Philippines

EB-1

Current

Current

Current

Current

Current

EB-2

Current

10/08/2009

05/01/2009

Current

Current

EB-3 Skilled Workers/Professionals

04/01/2011

11/01/2008

11/08/2003

04/01/2011

04/01/2011

EB-3 Other Workers

04/01/2011

07/22/2005

11/08/2003

04/01/2011

04/01/2011

 

ARTICLE BY

 
OF