Category: Labor & Employment

EEOC Sues Wal-Mart Stores East for Disability Discrimination – Equal Opportunity Employment Commission

EEOCSeal

Cockeysville Store Refused to Accommodate Applicant With End-Stage Renal Disease, Federal Agency Says

Wal-Mart Stores East, LP violated federal law when it refused to employ an individual with end-stage renal disease as a store associate because she needed a reasonable accommodation during the hiring process, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a federal lawsuit it announced today.

The EEOC charges that following a successful interview, the assistant store manager at the Walmart store in Cockeysville, Md., offered Laura Jones a job as an evening sales associate, contingent on passing a urinalysis test for illegal drugs.  When Jones said that she cannot produce urine because she has end-stage renal disease, the assistant store manager told her to ask the designated drug testing company about alternate tests.

That day, Jones went to the drug testing facility as directed and was told that while the facility did offer other drug tests, such as a mouth swab/saliva test, the employer had to order the alternate drug test.  Jones then called the assistant store manager, relayed this information and even offered to pay for an alternate test if Wal-Mart would order it.  Instead of ordering an alternative drug test as a reasonable accommodation to Jones’s disability, the EEOC charges that the assistant store manager replied that she had “called the corporate office” and that Jones could not be hired if she did not pass a urinalysis test.  Jones’s application was closed for failing to take a urinalysis within 24 hours.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires employers to provide a reasonable accommodation, including during the application and hiring process, unless it can show it would be an undue hardship.  The ADA also prohibits employers from refusing to hire individuals because of their disability.

The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00862-JKB) in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division, after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.  The EEOC seeks injunctive relief prohibiting Wal-Mart from discriminating based on disability, equitable relief that provides equal employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities, and lost wages, compensatory and punitive damages and other affirmative relief for Jones.

EEOC Philadelphia Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence pointed out that this is the third lawsuit the EEOC has filed in the last year against employers who refused to provide alternative drug tests, such as a saliva test or blood test, to applicants who requested and needed that reasonable accommodation.  The other lawsuits involving this issue are EEOC v. Kmart Corporation; Sears Holdings Management Corporation; Sears Holding Corporation, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Civil Action No. 13-cv-02576) and EEOC v. Fort Worth Center of Rehabilitation, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-1736).

“While an employer may require applicants to undergo a drug test, these lawsuits should send a strong message to all employers that they simply cannot have a blanket, inflexible policy or practice of requiring only a urinalysis test, regardless of the circumstances,” said Lawrence.  “Paying attention to federal disability law and making a minimal effort to accommodate this applicant would have saved everyone a lot of trouble.”

EEOC Philadelphia District Director Spencer H. Lewis, Jr. added, “Wal-Mart evidently thought Ms. Jones was qualified for the position because it made her a job offer.  When it refused to permit her to take an alternative drug screening test and revoked the job offer, the company lost the talent and services of a qualified employee as well as violating federal law.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.  Further information about the Commission is available at its website, www.eeoc.gov.  The Philadelphia District Office of the EEOC oversees Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia and parts of New Jersey and Ohio.

Article by:

U.S. EEOC

 

EEOC & FTC Issue Joint Background Check Guidance

Jackson Lewis Logo

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued joint informal guidance concerning the legal pitfalls employers may face when consulting background checks into a worker’s criminal record, financial history, medical history or use of social media.  The FTC enforces the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the law that protects the privacy and accuracy of the information in credit reports. The EEOC enforces laws against employment discrimination.

The two short guides, Background Checks: What Employers Need to Know andBackground Checks: What Job Applicants and Employees Should Know, explain the rights and responsibilities of both employers and employees.

The agency press releases state that the FTC and the EEOC want employers to know that they need written permission from job applicants before getting background reports about them from a company in the business of compiling background information. Employers also should know that it’s illegal to discriminate based on a person’s race, national origin, sex, religion, disability, or age (40 or older) when requesting or using background information for employment.

Additionally, the agencies want job applicants to know that it’s not illegal for potential employers to ask someone about their background as long as the employer does not unlawfully discriminate. Job applicants also should know that if they’ve been turned down for a job or denied a promotion based on information in a background report, they have a right to review the report for accuracy.

According to EEOC Legal Counsel Peggy Mastroianni, “The No. 1 goal here is to ensure that people on both sides of the desk understand their rights and responsibilities.”

Article by:

Jason C. Gavejian

Of:

Jackson Lewis P.C.

Does March Madness = Workplace Madness? Some Thoughts on the Legality of NCAA Bracket Pools and the Tournament’s Effect on the Workplace

MintzLogo2010_Black

With the Olympics now behind us (were they ever in front of us?), this time of year usually marks the sports netherworld between the Super Bowl and the NCAA Men’s Division I Basketball Tournament, which is better known as March Madness. This lull provides employers with an excellent opportunity to contemplate the issues that March Madness creates in their workplace. We explore some of those issues below.

Participating in a NCAA Bracket Pool: Everyone Else Does It, So Why Can’t We?

Nothing presages the coming of spring like the NCAA Tournament, and concurrently, perhaps nothing is as ubiquitous in the American workplace during this time period as NCAA bracket pools. Estimates of participating Americans are in the 50-60 million range and we can totally understand why. Even President Obama completes a bracket each year (he even picked last year’s winner correctly). And we expect those numbers to go up because of contests like these: Quicken Loans is offering a $1 billion prize to anyone who completes the perfect bracket. The chances of doing that: 1 in 9.2 quintillion (9 with about eighteen zeroes after it, or the same odds of the Knicks winning the NBA Championship this year. Please come to New York Phil Jackson. Please.).

The typical workplace bracket pool scenario involves an email attaching a bracket or an embedded link to a website that requires you to sign up for and complete an online bracket; think: ESPN.com or cbsports.com (whose home page even promotes “co-worker” participation). Sometimes these e-mails are sent office-wide, other times they are limited to a select group of employees. The typical entry fee can range from $5 to $20 per bracket, with the winner collecting the biggest payout and the second and third place finishers collecting more moderate sums. Some brackets also return the last place “winner” his or her entry fee (see: probably you at least once in the last 10 years). The pool “manager” may also take a cut for dealing with the administrative burden (including having to stop by your cubicle at least twice a day for your entry fee). Of course, all this varies from pool to pool. We’ve heard of pools where the winner gets to donate the collected entry fees to the charity of his or her choice (awwww). We’ve heard of pools going in the opposing direction: $1,000 per entry, winner takes all (grrrrrr). Overall, close to $2.5 billion is wagered on the tournament.

But is any of this legal? The results are mixed. On the federal level, probably not; on the state level, it depends on the state. Participation in a bracket pool may violate at least two federal laws. NCAA bracket pools that are conducted across state lines (i.e. a company pool involving offices from several states) or which are managed online (the vast majority), could violate the Interstate Wire Act of 1961. There is a “fantasy sports” exception to that law, but bracket pools don’t seem to fit within that exception since they require the individual to bet on the outcomes of the games. Participation in these bracket pools may also violate the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which prohibits wagers on sports anywhere, except in certain grandfathered states (Nevada, Delaware, Oregon and Montana).

On the state level, while most states ban gambling, their gaming laws provide exceptions for so-called “social” or “recreational” gambling. While the particulars vary, to qualify for these exceptions: (1) all of the money in a pool must go to a winner or a charitable organization (i.e. the “house” does not receive any of the proceeds); (2) there must be a maximum amount a person can wager (like a $20 entry fee), and (3) the pool must be limited to a certain number of people with pre-existing relationships (like co-workers). Thus, in certain states, NCAA bracket pools that meet these requirements may be permissible. In Wisconsin, by contrast, NCAA bracket pools are illegal without exception. Sad, considering the Badgers are set to make a serious run at the NCAA Championship this year.

Based on the above, especially because of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, the simplest and safest approach for (non-Nevada, Delaware, Oregon and Montana) employers would be to prohibit NCAA bracket pools in the office. But realizing that this will likely not be the majority approach, if you are an employer comfortable enough to allow your employees to run an NCAA bracket pool, we would recommend setting certain parameters, including: (1) requiring employees to complete paper brackets instead of participating online, (2) prohibiting bracket pools that will result in employees participating in offices located across multiple states; (3) prohibiting employees from using company e-mail or printers to administer the pool; (4) limiting the entry fees (i.e. $20 or less), (5) ensuring that the collected entry fees are distributed to the winner(s) (or charitable organization) and no portion goes to the house; and (6) threatening discipline if any employee pressures any other employee to participate in a bracket pool. Another option altogether is to allow your workers to participate in a bracket pool for free, with the winner collecting a prize.

Watching the Games: Everybody Else is Watching, So Why Can’t We?

Completing a bracket is one thing, but watching the games is where the fun really begins. You wake up Thursday morning annoyed that there’s still five hours before the first game tips off. Wait, this is 2014, not 2000; the tournament now boasts of 68 teams and starts on Tuesday with the “First Four” play-in games. But in reality, the tournament “starts” on Thursday, and in anticipation, your employees (and maybe even you) have probably done the following:

(a) downloaded the CBS Sports app onto their computer, tablet or mobile device that will allow them to stream the games into their workspaces

(b) arranged to watch some games at an “extended” lunch with some co-workers

(c) called in “sick” (or did the honorable thing and took a preapproved vacation/PTO day) so they can watch games

(d) All of the Above

(e) None of the Above (because, instead, they are busy binge-watching the first three seasons of Game of Thrones before the April 6 Season 4 premier)

Regardless of how your employees (or you) would answer that question, the point is that come Thursday (and Friday) they will probably be focused on something unrelated to their job. And when their focus is elsewhere, job productivity suffers. And boy does it suffer. According Challenger Gray & Christmas, an outplacement firm, this equates to $134 million in lost productivity on just the first two days of the Tournament alone where at least 3 million employees will spend between 1-3 hours watching games at work and2/3rds of all workers will track games during the workday. We wouldn’t be surprised if this number climbs again this year as CBS continues to make it easier to stream games live. (And if it really wants that number to climb, it needs to offer a better “boss button” than the one it offered last year. And on that front, when are we going to see a lawyer-friendly boss button – maybe one that clicks away to a draft brief or a redlined employment agreement? C’mon already. But we digress.)

So we know that lost productivity is an issue. But what about the related issue of employee morale? A survey conducted last year by OfficeTeam found that 20% of managers believe that the NCAA tournament has a positive effect on employee morale. Only 4% believed it had a negative effect and 1% didn’t know what effect it had. Perhaps the most shocking statistic is that 75% of the managers surveyed believed that it had no effect whatsoever.

To us, the result of the productivity-morale equation is employer-specific and depends on the nature of your workplace and your business goals. For example, we can certainly see how management at an accounting firm may grow uneasy at a lack of focus from its employees as their clients’ tax filing deadline nears. At the same time, we can also see how management at this firm (perhaps if it’s located by Syracuse or Kentucky) may want to convert this into an employee appreciation moment, gather its employees in a conference room for an extended lunch and game-viewing session and take a breather from their overwhelming workloads (and maybe be lucky enough to catch a top-5 all time buzzer beater.)

Employees in downtown Richmond, Viriginia probably had trouble focusing on their work in 2011.Only you can best gauge what will motivate your workforce against how it will affect your bottom line. If you could care less about employee morale or don’t think it’s a factor, then consider blocking access to the streaming site or mobile app, remind employees of your acceptable computer use policy, and threaten disciplinary action as necessary. If you are concerned about lost productivity, but want to maintain or enhance employee morale, consider allowing employees to wear or display items related to their favorite college teams that day (whether it is Villanova, Wichita St. or “Anyone but Duke”). Consider designating certain times where employees are “free” to check scores, or consider going further and allowing employees a time and place to watch games. By tuning break-room television sets to the NCAA tournament and possibly adding pizza or popcorn to the mix, it represents a cheap investment that may boost employee morale and reduce some of the short-term productivity losses while producing long-term productivity gains.

All right, that is all. We hope this helps you prepare your workplace for the upcoming NCAA tournament so that when it’s over you can proudly belt out One Shining Moment, including…

And when it’s done

win or lose

you always did your best

cuz inside you knew…

(that) ONE SHINING MOMENT, YOU REACHED FOR THE SKY

ONE SHINING MOMENT, YOU KNEW

ONE SHINING MOMENT, YOU WERE WILLING TO TRY

ONE SHINING MOMENT….

Article by:

Of:

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

EEOC Sues Wal-Mart for Age and Disability Discrimination – Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

EEOCSeal

 

Keller Store Manager Harassed and Then Fired Because of His Age; Also Denied a Reasonable Accommodation for His Diabetes, Federal Agency Charges

Wal-Mart Stores of Texas, LLC discriminated against a store manager by subjecting him to harassment, unequal treatment and discharge because of his age, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed in federal court today. The EEOC’s suit also alleges that Wal-Mart violated federal anti-discrimination law when it refused the manager’s request for a reasonable accommodation for his disability.

The EEOC charges in its suit that David Moorman, the manager of a Keller, Texas Walmart store, who was 54 at the time, was ridiculed with frequent taunts from his direct supervisor including “old man” and the “old food guy.” The supervisor also derided Moorman with ageist comments such as, “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks.” The EEOC further alleges that, after enduring the abusive behavior for several months, Moorman reported the harassment to Wal-Mart’s human resources department. The EEOC contends that not only did Wal-Mart fail to take any corrective action, but the harassment, in fact, increased, and the store ultimately fired Moorman because of his age.

The suit also alleges that Wal-Mart unlawfully refused Moorman’s request for a reasonable accommodation for his disability. Following his diagnosis and on the advice of his doctor, Moorman, a diabetic, requested reassignment to a store co-manager or assistant manager position. Wal-Mart refused to consider his request for reassignment, eventually rejecting his request without any dialogue or consideration.

Such alleged conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age 40 or older, including age-based harassment. It also violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which protects employees from discrimination based on their disabilities and requires employers to provide disabled employees with reasonable accommodations. The EEOC filed suit, Case No. 3:14-CV-00908-M, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

The EEOC seeks injunctive relief, including the formulation of policies to prevent and correct age and disability discrimination. The suit also seeks damages for Moorman, including lost wages and an equal amount of liquidated damages for Wal-Mart’s willful conduct. The EEOC will also seek damages for harms suffered as a result of the non-accommodation.

“Employers should be diligent about preventing and correcting conduct that can amount to bullying at the workplace,” said EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Joel Clark. “They have an obligation to stop ageist harassment after it is reported. The company’s failure to take remedial action to stop the harassment, as well as the denial of a reasonable accommodation for a disability, and the ultimate termination of the discrimination victim demonstrate a disregard for equal opportunity laws. The EEOC is here to fight for the rights of people like Mr. Moorman.”

Robert A. Canino, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Dallas District Office, added, “The open mockery and insulting of experienced employees who have committed themselves to work for a company are totally unacceptable. It’s unfortunate when supervisors and managers lose sight of the importance of valuing employees. But we are hopeful that a constructive resolution which promotes the common goal of achieving a respectful work environment will emerge from this process.”

Article by:

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Of:

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Keeping Current – Recent Changes in Employment Laws

vonBriesen

Is your FMLA policy up to date?

The federal Family Medical Leave Act regulations were revised in 2013, primarily to expand the circumstances under which employees can take military leaves. For example, leave is now available to care for covered veterans and for service members or veterans who aggravated an existing illness or injury while on active duty (as opposed to suffering a new injury while on duty). Qualifying exigency leave is now also available to care for a covered service member’s parent.

The Department of Labor is increasing the number of complaint-driven on-site audits it conducts under the FMLA. Auditors will come in with a checklist of updates they expect to see in an employer’s FMLA policy to comply with the 2008 and 2013 regulatory changes, as well as the DOL’s informal guidance. Having updated policies will show an auditor or investigator that you are up to speed on the latest changes in the law and may lend credibility to your FMLA practices.

If you are a federal contractor, are you preparing to comply with the new OFCCP regulations regarding veterans and individuals with disabilities?

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance (“OFCCP”) issued regulations in 2013 substantially increasing the obligations of federal contractors relating to veterans and individuals with disabilities. Many of these new requirements, including language to be included in all job postings and subcontracts, go into effect March 24, 2014. Additional requirements go into effect at the start of an employer’s next plan year after March 24, 2014, but may require substantial planning in advance. For example, federal contractors will now be required to conduct statistical analysis of the number of veterans and disabled individuals in their workforce, much like what was already required for race and gender. This requires inviting individuals to self-identify as a veteran or disabled. The regulations require this invitation be made to all applicants and again to those offered jobs. It also requires that an employer’s existing work force be invited to self-identify as disabled every five years. Tracking this information can be complicated, as it must be kept separate from general personnel files and treated as confidential. This is not only required by the regulations but is also essential to avoid increased risk of discrimination claims on the basis of disability.

Companies that provide products or services under contracts with the federal government should review their obligations to ensure they are complying with these new OFCCP regulations.

Was your employee terminated for misconduct or “substantial fault” on the job?

Wisconsin’s 2013 Budget Bill made changes to the statutes governing unemployment insurance, which took effect January 5, 2014. Even before these changes, employees would be ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits if they were terminated for misconduct. The definition of misconduct previously came from case law. The new statute defines misconduct and includes examples, which include:

  • Two or more absences (without notice or without valid reason) in 120 days, unless employer policy is more generous
  • Falsifying business records

The statute also adds a second basis under which employees may be disqualified for benefits, if they are terminated for “substantial fault” in their performance. This still does not disqualify an employee from unemployment benefits for minor infractions or inadvertent errors, but on its face it would disqualify an employee who was terminated for major failures. This basis is largely undefined and untested, so we will have to monitor the decisions of administrative law judges and the courts to determine how it will be defined in practice. The updated statutes also narrow the circumstances in which an employee can quit his/her job and still qualify for unemployment benefits.

These changes may mean that employers are more likely to prevail if they challenge a former employee’s unemployment compensation claims. This may be of particular benefit to non-profit employers who participate in the unemployment insurance system as reimbursing employers, and therefore pay dollar-for-dollar on each unemployment claim.

Article by:

Sarah J. Platt

Of:

von Briesen & Roper, S.C.

Do Your Plans Include a Time Limit on a Participant’s Right to Sue?

Poyner Spruill

 

Some, but far from all, employee benefit plans set a limit on the amount of time a participant has to file a lawsuit claiming benefits under the plan.  Until recently, however, not all courts would recognize these plan imposed lawsuit filing deadlines.  The Supreme Court case of Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life, decided in December 2013, changed that by ruling that employee benefit plan contractual provisions that limit the time to file a lawsuit to recover benefits are enforceable, provided the time limitations are not unreasonably short or contrary to a controlling statute.

The Heimeshoff decision involved a plan that provided a participant must file a lawsuit to recover benefits within three years from the date proof of loss was due.  The Supreme Court decision found that the three year limitation period was not too short, noting the plan’s internal claims review process would be concluded in plenty of time for a participant to file a lawsuit to recover benefits. Based on the court’s reasoning, it appears likely that a shorter limitation on filing claims might also be upheld as long as there is sufficient time for the participant to file a lawsuit once the claims procedure period has ended.

While Heimeshoff involved a disability plan, the decision applies equally to all ERISA covered health and welfare plans, retirement plans, and top hat plans.

So, do your employee benefit plans include a limitation on the time a participant has to file a lawsuit to recover benefits?  Don’t assume that they do.  Many plans do not provide a time limit for filing a lawsuit, and now would be a great time to amend those plans to add the limitation.

Article by:

Of:

Poyner Spruill LLP

United Auto Workers (UAW) and Volkswagen (VW) Efforts to Establish First Works Council in the U.S. Fails

Michael Best Logo

 

The United Auto Workers (UAW), which already represents most of the largest carmakers in the United States, was unsuccessful in its efforts to unionizeVolkswagen’s (VW) plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee. What makes this noteworthy is that leading up to the February 14th representation election, the German company was actually campaigning for the UAW not against it in an employer-union alliance seldom seen in this country.

While the “big three” American carmakers (General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler) are all unionized, foreign carmakers have avoided unionization by locating their plants in Southern states with strong Right to Work laws. Volkswagen, however, considers the creation of a so-called “works council” a crucial element of its business. Works councils are common under German law, and Volkswagen has established works councils at all its foreign plants, with the exception of Chattanooga and China.

Under these works councils, all workers in a factory regardless of position and whether they are unionized or not, help decide things like staffing schedules and working conditions, while the union bargains on wages and benefits. They also have the right to review certain types of information about how the company is doing financially, which means that they tend to be more sympathetic towards management’s desire to make cutbacks during tough financial times. Each Volkswagen plant throughout the world sends its delegates to a global works council that influences which products the company makes and where. This arrangement would have represented a new experience for the UAW, unlike its relationship with Chrysler, General Motors and Ford, which would have involved sharing control with the works council.

A tough question for Volkswagen and the UAW is whether a works council would be legal in the United States without a union. There is no provision in the NLRA for the kind of German-style works council Volkswagen seeks. Volkswagen’s best option for creating a works council would have been for its workers to accept UAW representation. Volkswagen must now rethink its options in seeking a way to create a works council. Options include talking with a different union that might be more popular with its workers or encouraging workers to organize their own independent union. Another option would be moving ahead without a union and risking an NLRB challenge.

After the UAW was defeated by a 712-626 vote in its bid to represent workers at the Volkswagen plant, the UAW promptly requested a new election claiming Tennessee politicians and outside organizations coordinated and vigorously promoted a coercive campaign to sow fear and deprive Volkswagen workers of their right to join a union. Senior state officials including United States Senator Bob Corker, TennesseeGovernor William Haslam, State House Speaker Beth Harwell, and State House Majority Leader Gerald McCormick, made statements in an effort to convince the workers to reject the UAW. The UAW’s alleges this was part of an unlawful campaign which included publicly announced and widely disseminated threats by elected officials that state-financed incentives would be withheld if workers exercised their right to join the UAW’s ranks. However, on February 25, 2014, a group of Volkswagen workers sought to intervene in the UAW‘s bid, and argued that the election results should stand.

Article by:

Of:

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Facebook Post Breaches Confidentiality Provision of Settlement Agreement

Jackson Lewis Logo

 

A Florida appellate court has ruled that a teenaged daughter’s post on Facebookmentioning her father’s confidential settlement of an age discrimination claim breached a confidentiality provision in the settlement agreement, barring the father from collecting an $80,000 settlement. Gulliver Schools, Inc. v. Snay, No. 3D13-1952 (Fla 3d DCA Feb. 26, 2014).

The plaintiff, Patrick Snay, was a headmaster of Gulliver, a private school in the Miami area. After his contract was not renewed, he sued for age discrimination. The parties reached a settlement pursuant to a written agreement, which included a detailed confidentiality provision. The provision stated in part:

13. Confidentiality . . . [T]he plaintiff shall not either directly or indirectly, disclose, discuss or communicate to any entity or person, except his attorneys or other professional advisors or spouse any information whatsoever regarding the existence or terms of this Agreement. . . A breach . . . will result in disgorgement of the Plaintiff’s portion of the Settlement Payments.

A couple of days after the agreement was signed, Snay’s daughter, who had recently been a student at Gulliver, posted the following on her Facebook page:

Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver. Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT.

Snay’s daughter had about 1,200 Facebook friends, many of whom were current or former Gulliver students. Gulliver notified Snay of the breach and refused to tender the $80,000 to Snay under the terms of the settlement. (Snay’s attorneys received their portion). Snay moved to enforce the agreement. Limited discovery revealed that Snay and his wife notified their daughter “that the case was settled and they were happy with the result.” Snay denied ever discussing a trip to Europe. The district court held that Snay’s actions did not violate the terms of the agreement, but the appellate court reversed, noting that Snay was prohibited from “directly or indirectly” disclosing even the “existence” of the settlement.

The decision offers lessons for counsel, litigants, and parents. Counsel and litigants need to remember that these types of confidentiality provisions with disgorgement penalties are taken seriously by the courts and can be enforced. Parents need to remind their children to be mindful of what they post on social media, because it might have adult consequences.

Article by:

V. John Ella

Of:

Jackson Lewis P.C.

“Dual” Employment Contracts for US Executives Working in the UK

VedderPriceLogo

 

Background

February 2014

Individuals, whether of British or foreign nationality, who reside in the UK are, in principle, taxable on their worldwide employment income. Many US executives who are “seconded” by their US employer to work in the UK may therefore become UK tax resident.

Such US executives who have not been UK resident in the three previous tax years and are not UK domiciled need not pay UK tax on their overseas earnings if they do not bring the income to the UK. Other US executives resident in the UK over the longer term may incur liability for UK tax on their overseas income unless their employer structures their employment duties under separate employment contracts, one with the UK subsidiary for their UK duties and another with the US parent for their overseas duties. These have become known as “dual contracts”. If the non-UK domiciled executive keeps the income earned under the overseas contract outside the UK, no UK income tax should arise on that income. He or she will pay UK income tax on the income earned in the UK under his or her UK contract.

“All Change”

In December 2013 HM Government announced that it would be clamping down on the artificial use of dual contracts for longer-term UK residents and has now published draft legislation that makes offshore employment income in a dual-contract arrangement taxable in the UK in certain cases.

The New Rules

Under the new anti-avoidance rules, which come into force on 6 April 2014, the dual-contract overseas income of US executives resident in the UK will be taxed in the UK if:

  • the executive has a UK employment and one or more foreign employments,
  • the UK employer and the offshore employer either are the same entity or are in the same group,
  • the UK employment and the offshore employment are “related”, and
  • the foreign tax rate that applies to the remuneration from the offshore employment is less than 75 percent of the applicable rate of UK tax. The current top rate of UK income tax is 45 percent, and 75 percent of this rate is 33.75 percent.

The UK employment and the offshore employment will be “related” where, by way of non-exhaustive example:

  • one employment operates by reference to the other employment,
  • the duties performed in both employments are essentially the same (regardless of where those duties are performed),
  • the performance of duties under one contract is dependent on the performance of duties under the other,
  • the executive is a director of either employer, or is otherwise a senior employee or one of the highest earning employees of either employer, or
  • the duties under the dual contracts involve, wholly or partly, the provision of goods or services to the same customers or clients.

Action

US corporations should urgently review the use of dual contracts for their non-UK domiciled executives seconded to their UK subsidiaries before the 6 April 2014 start date. The proposed legislation is widely drafted and has the potential to catch even genuine dual-contract arrangements. If one of the dual contracts is with a group employer in a low-tax jurisdiction, that contract may be especially vulnerable. Dual contracts will not necessarily become extinct, but in the future, careful cross-border tax advice should be sought in their structuring.

Article by:

Of:

Vedder Price

Illinois Federal Court Issues Reminder That "100% Healed" Requirements Violate ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)

vonBriesen

 

On February 11, 2014, an Illinois Federal District Court issued a decision reminding employers that “100% healed” return-to-work requirements violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). In EEOC v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed a lawsuit alleging that United Parcel Service’s (“UPS”) “100% healed” requirement violated the ADA. UPS moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming that the EEOC could not state a claim that there was a violation of the ADA. The Court denied UPS’s motion and permitted the EEOC lawsuit to proceed.

UPS maintained a leave policy requiring employees to be “administratively separated from employment” after 12 months of leave. In 2007, an employee returned from a 12-month medical leave. After returning, the employee requested certain accommodations, including a hand cart. UPS refused to provide any accommodation. Shortly thereafter, the employee injured herself and needed additional medical leave. Instead of granting leave, UPS terminated the employee under its 12-month leave policy.

The EEOC alleged that UPS’s 12-month leave policy acted as a “100% healed” requirement because it functioned as a “qualification standard” under the ADA. UPS argued that the ability to regularly attend work was an essential job function and not an impermissible “qualification standard” and, therefore, not in violation of the ADA.

Although the Court conceded that regular job attendance is an essential job requirement, the court found that the lawsuit was not based on attendance requirements, but rather on the “100% healed” requirement that an employee must satisfy before returning to work. As a prerequisite to returning to work, the 12-month policy was a “qualification standard” and not an essential job function subject to accommodation. A “qualification standard” is “the personal and professional attributes, including the skill, experience, educational, physical, medical, safety and other requirements established by a covered entity as requirements an individual must meet in order to be eligible for the position held or desired.”

The court relied on the Seventh Circuit’s previous determination that a “100% healed” policy is per se impermissible because it “prevents individualized assessments” and “necessarily operates to exclude disabled people that are qualified to work.” A “100% healed” requirement limits the ability of qualified individuals with a disability to return to work. Thus, a “100% healed” acts as a prohibited “qualification standard” because it removes the opportunity for the employee to pursue reasonable accommodation, in violation of the ADA. Accordingly, the court denied UPS’s motion to dismiss and permitted the EEOC’s lawsuit to proceed.

Although this case does not provide a definitive answer to the EEOC’s lawsuit, it does provide a strong reminder to employers that “100% healed” policies violate the ADA. Employers should review their return to work policies to ensure that they do not contain “100% healed” requirements. When dealing with leave issues, employers also should remember to enter into the interactive process when necessary and balance obligations under federal, state and local disability and leave requirements, in addition to those created by contract or agreement.

Article by:

Geoffrey S. Trotier

Of:

von Briesen & Roper, S.C.