Labor & Employment Archives - Page 18 of 155

NLRB Determines Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement Provisions to be Unlawful in Severance Agreements

The National Labor Relations Board (the NLRB or the Board) issued a decision earlier this week that purports to ban confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions from most employee severance agreements.

In McLaren Macomb, the Board scrutinized severance agreements an employer gave to 11 employees who had recently been laid off. The confidentiality provision stated that the terms of the severance agreement were confidential and must not be disclosed to anyone with few exceptions (e.g., the employees’ spouses). The non-disparagement provision barred the employees from making statements to anyone that could disparage or harm the image of the employer or its officers, directors, employees, etc. These provisions are obviously common in severance agreements.

Among other things, the Board determined that both provisions unlawfully prevented the former employees from speaking out about working conditions and compensation (including the severance) offered by the employer and assisting with NLRB and other government investigations. Historically, the NLRB has gone back and forth on whether such provisions are lawful. However, the position taken this week is the NLRB’s most aggressive position to date. Specifically, the Board determined that the mere inclusion of such provisions in a severance agreement is unlawful because they have a deterrent and chilling effect on worker’s rights, even if the employee does not sign the agreement or the employer does not enforce the provisions against an employee who breaches confidentiality or disparages the company after signing.

It is important to note that this decision has some limitations:

First, it does not apply to “supervisors” (as defined by the NLRA) or to independent contractors. Who is a “supervisor” under the NLRA involves several factors, including whether the employee has the authority to hire, fire, discipline, or direct the work of another employee. Therefore, it is clear that executives and upper-level management are not covered by this ruling, and, depending on the circumstances, middle and even lower level managers may not be covered either.

Second, some have questioned whether a smartly worded disclaimer may permit employers to include limited confidentiality and limited non-disparagement provisions in severance agreements given to rank-and-file employees. For instance, in the past, employers often included a broad statement that the severance agreement is not intended to and in fact does not infringe upon any rights the employee may have under the NLRA. Unfortunately, the Board did not specifically address this issue, but, given the aggressive position taken in the Board’s decision this week, there is definitely some risk of liability even with such disclaimers. That determination should be made based on the employer’s risk-tolerance, along with the circumstances of the individual severance agreement, and is best determined by speaking with legal counsel.

The NLRB General Counsel is expected to release additional guidance on this issue in the coming months. Until that happens, employers should seriously consider this decision when drafting severance agreements.

For more Labor Law news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

The NLRB Curtails the Scope of Nondisparagement and Confidentiality Provisions in Severance Agreements

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) issued McLaren Macomb, a decision that curtails the permissible scope of confidentiality agreements and non-disclosure provisions in severance agreements. See McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (2023). Analyzing the broad provisions in the agreements at issue in this case, the Board held that simply offering employees severance agreements that require employees to broadly waive their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or “the Act”) was unlawful. The Board held:

Where an agreement unlawfully conditions receipt of severance benefits on the forfeiture of statutory rights, the mere proffer of the agreement itself violates the Act, because it has a reasonable tendency to interfere with or restrain the prospective exercise of Section 7 rights, both by the separating employee and those who remain. Whether the employee accepts the agreement is immaterial.

The Board’s decision is part of a broader trend by courts and administrative agencies applying heightened scrutiny to contractual provisions that limit employees’ rights. The decision also provides a crucial reminder to union and nonunion workers alike of the relevance of federal labor law in providing legal protections for most private-sector workers.

Case Background

The case arose when Michigan hospital operator McLaren Macomb permanently furloughed eleven employees, all bargaining unit members of Local 40 RN Staff Council, Office of Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU), AFL-CIO, because it had terminated outpatient services during the COVID-19 pandemic in June 2020. After McLaren Macomb furloughed these employees, it presented them with a “Severance Agreement, Waiver and Release” that offered severance amounts to the employees if they signed the agreement. All eleven employees signed.

The agreements provided broad language regarding confidentiality and nondisparagement. The confidentiality provision stated, “The Employee acknowledges that the terms of this Agreement are confidential and agrees not to disclose them to any third person, other than spouse, or as necessary to professional advisors for the purposes of obtaining legal counsel or tax advice, or unless legally compelled to do so by a court or administrative agency of competent jurisdiction.” (emphasis added). The non-disclosure provision provided, in relevant part, “At all times hereafter, the Employee agrees not to make statements to Employer’s employees or to the general public which could disparage or harm the image of Employer…” The employees faced substantial financial penalties if they violated the provisions. The Employer conditioned the payment of severance on Employees’ entering into this agreement.

The NLRB’s Decision

In McLaren Macomb, the Board held that simply offering employees severance agreements that contain these broad confidentiality and nondisparagement provisions violates the NLRA.

The NLRA provides broad protections of employees’ rights to engage in collective action. Section 7 of the NLRA vests employees with a number of rights, including the right “to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” Section 8(a)(1) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice (ULP) for an employer to “interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7.” As the Supreme Court, federal courts, and the NLRB have repeatedly held and reaffirmed, Section 7 provides broad rights for employees and former employees—union and nonunion alike—to engage in collective action, including discussing terms and conditions of employment and workplace issues with coworkers, a union, and the Board. As the Supreme Court has stated in elaborating on the broad construction of Section 7, “labor’s cause often is advanced on fronts other than collective bargaining and grievance settlement within the immediate employment context.” Eastex, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 437 U.S. 556, 565 (1978).

Applying these foundational principles to the severance agreements at hand, the Board reversed Trump-era NLRB precedent and concluded that the employer’s proffer of these broad nondisparagement and confidentiality provisions contravened the employees’ exercise of Section 7 rights, which is an unfair labor practice under Section 8(a)(1). Notably, the Board held that an employer’s merely offering such broad provisions violates the Act—it does not matter whether the employee signs the agreement or not.

The Board determined that the nondisparagement provision substantially interfered with employees’ Section 7 rights on its face. That provision prohibits the furloughed employee from making any “statements to [the] Employer’s employees or the general public which could disparage or harm the image of [the] Employer.” Analyzing this language, the Board reasoned that the provision would encompass employee conduct or critiques of the employer regarding any labor issue, dispute, or term and condition of employment. Accordingly, this proscription sweeps far too broadly—it prohibits employees from exercising their right to publicize labor disputes, a right which is protected by the Act. Moreover, the nondisparagement provision chills employees from exercising Section 7 rights, including efforts to assist fellow employees, cooperate with the Board’s investigation and litigation of unfair labor practices, and raise or assist in making workplace complaints to coworkers, their union, the Board, the media, or “almost anyone else.” As the Board underscored, “Public statements by employees about the workplace are central to the exercise of employee rights under the Act.”

The Board then concluded that the confidentiality provision also interfered with employees’ Section 7 rights in at least two ways. First, the Board explained that because the confidentiality provision prohibits the employee from disclosing the terms of the agreement “to any third person,” the agreement would reasonably tend to coerce the employee not to file a ULP charge with the Board or assist in a Board investigation. (emphasis added). Second, the same language would also prohibit the furloughed employee from discussing the terms of the agreement with former coworkers in similar situations, which would frustrate the mutual support between employees at the heart of the Act. As the Board summarized, “A severance agreement is unlawful if it precludes an employee from assisting coworkers with workplace issues concerning their employer, and from communicating with others, including a union, and the Board, about his employment.”

Takeaways for Employment Lawyers and Plaintiffs

First, while one might assume that labor law is exclusively the province of unions, their members, and their lawyers, McLaren Macomb demonstrates the relevance of the NLRA for employees regardless of union status. Although the workers in this case were unionized, the Section 7 rights at the heart of the NLRA apply to most private-sector employees, including nonunion employees. Indeed, because nonunion workers often have fewer workplace protections than their unionized counterparts, Section 7’s protections are critically important for nonunion employees. Employees who are asked to sign confidentiality and nondisparagement provisions and their attorneys should be aware that broad restrictions on employees’ concerted activity may be illegal.

Second, this decision is part of a broader effort to protect workers from being muzzled by their employers. For instance, the recent federal Speak Out Act establishes that predispute nondisclosure clauses and nondisparagement clauses—often included in employment contracts—are unenforceable in disputes involving sexual assault or sexual harassment. These recent developments in the law should be on the radar of workers and their attorneys who are navigating employer’s contracts, policies, handbooks, and proposed severance agreements.

Article By Kyle Bigley of Katz Banks Kumin LLP

For more labor law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

DOL Issues Guidance on Handling Telework Under FLSA, FMLA

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has issued guidance on the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to employees who telework from home or from another location away from the employer’s facility.

The Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) 2023-1, released on February 9, 2023, is directed to agency officials responsible for enforcement and provides employers a glimpse into how the DOL applies existing law and regulations to common remote-work scenarios. FAB 2023-1 addresses FLSA regulations governing “hours worked,” rules related to break time and privacy for nursing employees, and FMLA eligibility factors.

Hours Worked

In the FAB, the DOL reviews the rules governing compensability of work time, explaining that, regardless of work location, short breaks (typically, 20 minutes or less) generally are counted as compensable hours worked, whereas, longer breaks “during which an employee is completely relieved from duty, and which are long enough to enable [the employee] to use the time effectively for [their] own purposes[,] are not hours worked.” Examples of short breaks, whether at home or in the office, include when an employee takes a bathroom or coffee break or gets up to stretch their legs.

Longer rest breaks and periods of time, when employees are completely relieved from duty and able to use the time for their own purposes, are not considered work time. Just as would be the case when an employee is working in the office, if during remote work an employee’s 30-minute lunch break is interrupted by several work-related phone calls, that 30-minute period would be counted as hours worked. Conversely, if an employee working from home takes a three-hour break to pick up their child or to perform household chores, that time does not count as work time under the FLSA. In short, the FAB reiterates the telework guidance set forth by the DOL in a Q&A series published during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The FAB emphasizes that, regardless of whether an employee performs duties at home, at the worksite, or at some other location, if the employer knows or has reason to believe that work is being performed, the time must be counted as hours worked. Importantly, the FAB notes that an employer may satisfy its obligation to exercise reasonable diligence to acquire knowledge regarding employees’ unscheduled hours of work by providing a reasonable reporting procedure for employees to use when they work non-scheduled time and paying employees for all hours worked. This guidance was addressed in greater detail in FAB 2020-5.

Guidelines for Nursing Employees

The FAB further clarifies that, under the FLSA, an employer’s obligation to provide employees “reasonable break time,” as well as an appropriate place to express breast milk, extends to employees who are teleworking or working at an off-site location. Just as an employer has an obligation to provide an “appropriate place” for an employee to express milk while working at a client site, the employer should ensure a teleworking employee has privacy from a “computer camera, security camera, or web conferencing platform” to express milk.

Employers are not required to pay employees for otherwise unpaid breaks simply because the employee is expressing breast milk during the break, but if an employee is working while pumping (or if the pumping occurs during an otherwise paid break), they must be paid for that time. For example, in most cases, if a remote employee attends a call or videoconference off camera while pumping, that employee would be considered on duty and must be paid for that time.

The recently enacted PUMP Act expanded existing employer obligations under the FLSA to cover exempt employees, as well as non-exempt employees. The DOL has published more guidance on breast milk pumping during work.

Eligibility Under FMLA

The DOL also addresses FMLA eligibility requirements for remote employees both in terms of hours worked (employee must work 1,250 hours in the previously 12 months) and the small worksite exception (employee must work at a worksite with at least 50 employees in a 75-mile radius).

As with the FLSA, it is important for employers to have a system to track their remote workers’ hours. With respect to hours worked, the FAB reiterates that the 1,250 hours determination for remote worker is based on compensable hours of work under FLSA principles.

With respect to the worksite size determination, the FMLA regulations explain that an employee’s personal residence is not a worksite. Instead, whether a remote employee is FMLA-eligible is based on the size of the worksite from which “they report to” or “their assignments are made.” If a remote employee reports into or receives assignments from a site with 50 or more employees working at that site (or reporting to or receiving assignments from that site) or within 75 miles, then that employee would meet that eligibility factor.

The DOL provided two examples of this rule:

When both a store employee and their supervisor are working from their homes temporarily due to a weather emergency, for FMLA eligibility purposes, the store remains their worksite.
When remote employees are working in various cities more than 75 miles away from the company headquarters but receiving assignments from a manager working at the headquarters, for FMLA-eligibility determination, the company’s headquarters would be considered the workplace for the remote employees.

Employers are reminded to review state and local wage and hour laws, paid and unpaid leave laws, and lactation accommodation laws.

Article By Jenifer M. Bologna, Justin R. Barnes, and Jeffrey W. Brecher of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Non-Negotiable Arbitration Agreements May Be Required as a Condition of Employment

On February 15, 2023, the Ninth Circuit struck down AB 51, a California statute that imposed criminal and civil penalties against employers who required employees to enter into an arbitration agreement as a condition of employment, finding the statute to be an “unacceptable obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives” of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. v. Bonta, et al., No. 20-15291 (9th Cir. 2023).

As discussed in our prior post and articles (link here), in August 2022 the Ninth Circuit withdrew its prior decision, which had upheld portions of AB 51, following the United States Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana.

AB 51, embodied in California Labor Code §432.6 effective January 1, 2020, prohibited an employer from entering into a non-negotiable agreement that required the employee to waive “any right, forum, or procedure” for a violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act or the California Labor Code, including “the right to file and pursue a civil action.” Further, AB 51 imposed harsh penalties for employers who violated the statute, including a fine of up to $1,000 and up to six months’ imprisonment, as well as the potential for civil litigation by the State of California or by private individuals. In an effort to avoid Supreme Court decisions striking down state laws that improperly targeted arbitration agreements, the California legislature also created the confusing outcome that potentially criminalized the formation of non-negotiable arbitration agreements, but permitted their enforcement once executed.

Noting that arbitration agreements by their very nature require parties to waive their rights to bring disputes in court, and crediting the plaintiffs’ evidence that the possible imposition of civil and criminal penalties deterred employers from attempting to enter into non-negotiable agreements with employees, the court affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction in favor of several trade associations and business groups who sought to block the implementation of the statute. Relying on principles of preemption and judicial precedent striking down similar state laws or judge-made rules that singled out executed arbitration agreements, the Court found AB 51 improperly “burden[s]” the formation of arbitration agreements in violation of the FAA.

Having written the previous 2-1 decision upholding AB 51, Judge Lucero now found himself dissenting. Arguing that the majority “misconstrue[d] the jurisprudence” of the Supreme Court, the dissent claimed that arbitration was permissible only if consensual and that AB 51 only applied to conduct occurring prior to the formation of the contract and thus was not an obstacle to the objectives of the FAA.

Employers may require their California employees to sign non-negotiable arbitration agreements to obtain or maintain their employment. Arbitration agreements may still be unenforceable however if they are procedurally and substantively unconscionable, if the agreement lacks mutual consent because a party was forced to sign by threats or physical coercion or “upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” Thus, employers should review their agreements to ensure they are in compliance with other California requirements, that the terms are not unfair or one-sided, and, the agreement presented is not unfair, surprising or oppressive.

Article By Sheryl L. Skibbe of Vedder Price

For more arbitration legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Biden Administration Sets New Course on ESG Investing in Retirement Plans

In late 2022, the Department of Labor finalized a new rule titled “Prudence in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights,” largely reversing Trump-era guidance that had strictly limited the ability of plan fiduciaries to consider “environmental, social, and governance” (ESG) factors in selecting retirement plan investments and generally discouraged the exercise of proxy voting. In short, the new rule allows a fiduciary to consider ESG factors in selecting investment options, provided that the selection serves the financial interests of the plan and its participants over an appropriate time horizon, and encourages fiduciaries to engage in proxy voting.

The final rule moves away from 2020 Trump-era rulemaking by allowing more leeway for fiduciaries to consider ESG factors in selecting investment options. Specifically, the rule states that a “fiduciary’s duty of prudence must be based on factors that the fiduciary reasonably determines are relevant to a risk and return analysis and that such factors may include the economic effects of climate change and other ESG considerations on the particular investment or investment course of action.” The rule makes clear, however, that there is no requirement to affirmatively consider ESG factors, effectively limiting its scope and effect and putting the onus on fiduciaries to determine whether they want to incorporate ESG factors into their assessments of competing investments.

Overview

Similar to the Trump-era guidance, there is no definition of “ESG” or an “ESG”-style fund. Debate continues over what kinds of funds can be considered ESG investments, especially in light of the fact that some companies in industries traditionally thought to be inconsistent with ESG conscious investing are now trying to attract ESG investors (e.g. industrials, energy).

Fiduciaries are not required to consider ESG factors in selecting investment options. However, the consideration of such factors is not a presumed violation of a fiduciary’s duty of loyalty or prudence. Unlike the prior rule, which suggested that consideration of ESG factors could only be considered if all other pecuniary factors between competing investments were equal (the “tiebreaker” approach), the new rule allows a fiduciary to consider potential financial benefits of ESG investing in all circumstances.

Plan fiduciaries may take into account participant preferences in constructing a fund lineup. Therefore, if participants express a desire for ESG investment options, then it may be reasonable for plan fiduciaries to add ESG funds or to consider ESG factors in crafting the fund lineup.

ESG-centric funds may be used as qualified default investments (QDIAs) within retirement plans, reversing the prior outright prohibition on use of such funds as QDIAs.

In some situations, fiduciaries may be required to exercise shareholder rights when required to protect participant interests. It is unclear whether the exercise of such rights is only limited to situations that have an economic impact on the plan, or applies to additional situations. The clarification suggests that the exercise of proxy voting is not disfavored as an inefficient use of fiduciaries’ time and resources, as the prior iteration of the rule suggested.

Effective Date and Challenges to the Regulation

The new rule became effective in January 2023, except for delayed applicability of proxy voting provisions. However, twenty five state attorneys general have joined a lawsuit in federal court in Texas that seeks to overturn the regulation. The court is in the Fifth Circuit, which historically has been hostile to past Department of Labor regulations (including Obama-era fiduciary rules overturned in 2018, though the ESG rule is less far-reaching than the fiduciary rule and may survive a challenge even in the Fifth Circuit). Congressional Republicans have also introduced a Congressional Review Act (CRA) review proposal to repeal the regulation that has gained the support of Joe Manchin (D-WV). Although CRA actions are not subject to Senate filibuster rules, they are subject to presidential veto, which President Biden is sure to do if the repeal reaches his desk.

Action Steps

Employers should assume that the ESG rules will remain in effect and engage with plan fiduciaries, advisors, and employees and determine the extent to which ESG considerations should (or should not) enter into fiduciary deliberations when considering plan investment alternatives. Some investment advisors have already begun to include separate ESG scorecards for mutual funds and other investments in their regular plan investment reviews. Fiduciaries should also consider whether and how the approach that is ultimately taken should be reflected in the plan’s investment policy statement. Plans that delegate full control over investments to an independent fiduciary (an ERISA 3(38) advisor) should engage with their advisor to determine whether and the extent to which ESG considerations will be part of that fiduciary’s process, and whether that is consistent with the desires of the plan fiduciaries and participants.

Article By Alex H. Glaser and Timothy Brechtel of Jones Walker LLP

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Passport Entry Date Stamps to Be Eliminated

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) plans to eliminate passport entry date stamps in the passports of foreign nationals arriving in the U.S. The new policy measures are already in effect in some ports of entry and CBP will continue to expand the policy at additional ports.

The Form I-94 record of admission will continue to be used as a proof of a foreign national’s travel history and immigration status, which are accessible online. Foreign nationals are strongly encouraged to access and review their I-94 online as soon as they are inspected and admitted. Checking for errors in their I-94 online admission status before they leave the inspection area can help to avoid mistakes that may not be easily fixed after entry.

Since the I-94 governs the foreign national’s immigration status and work authorization for I-9 purposes, employers should also carefully monitor their foreign national employees’ status for Form I-9 employment verification.

For more Immigration Law News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Available Options for Completing Form I-9 in Remote-Work Scenarios

The American Immigration Lawyer’s Association (AILA), through its Verification and Documentation Liaison Committee (“Verification Committee”) recently issued an FAQ compiling updated information related to employment verification (I-9) compliance requirements during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The FAQ addresses the viable options for completing the Form I-9 in remote-work scenarios and the most current developments in each type of process. Below are the main takeaways:

Process 1: In-person New Employee and HR/Admin Document Review: HR/Admin timely reviews the employee’s identity and employment authorization documents in the employee’s physical presence. Where employers have fully returned to in-office operations, or where they are no longer maintaining COVID-19 precautions, they must complete an in-person review of Form I-9.

Process 2: “Remote Hire” In-Person New Employee & Employer Authorized Representative Document Review: This is the so-called “Remote Hire” process, typically used in situations of on-boarding and new remote employee. Note that this is still an in-person document review conducted by a third party designated by the employer who acts as the agent. Also note that this process is not restricted only to employees based at remote locations but can also be used in any situation. Since the employer bears the liability for the agent’s errors it is best practice for the employer to train and/or provide instructions to the agents as well as perform a detailed review upon receipt of the completed Form I-9.

Process 3: Limited Temporary Option: HR/Adm’s Electronic Document Review: The virtual review option was first implemented March 20, 2020, and has been extended multiple times. The current extension expires July 31, 2023. With this process, HR/Adm timely reviews the employee’s identity and employment authorization documents electronically, not in the employee’s physical presence, but via video link, fax, email, etc.

Who can benefit from this option? The U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) confirmed to the Verification Committee the general rule in applying this option:

Before April 1, 2021, the temporary I-9 option was available if a business was operating 100% remotely as a result of the pandemic. If it was not, the in-person verification for Form I-9 was required. ICE acknowledged, however, that the Agency will handle audits and future enforcement on a case-by-case basis. Employers do not need to have 100% of their workforce working remotely to take advantage of the virtual option if the employer has a record supporting that the virtual review option was necessitated by the pandemic.
On or after April 1, 2021, the temporary virtual document review option is available, but only where the remote employment is a result of COVID-19-related precautions. Employers hiring “true remote” employees should conduct in-person reviews as they would have prior to the COVID-19 virtual review option being offered.

While virtual review provides a practical alternative to the in-person review, there are additional requirements in this process in order to maintain compliance:

Create and retain a written document that captures the remote onboarding and telework policy in place when this option is used for any Form I-9 created under this process;
Retain copies of the documents presented, as per the original guidance issued by ICE Note that security of sensitive personal information must be maintained, and the company should work with its information-security team regarding the transmission and/or capture of personal information in these situations;
Add “COVID-19” in the Additional Information field/box on Section 2 of the Form I-9;
Tell the employee that no later than three business days of cessation of this temporary electronic document review option or once the employee commences non-remote employment on a regular, consistent, or predictable basis (whichever is earlier), an in-person meeting and physical inspection of the document(s) will occur;
Within three business days of such a date, coordinate the in-person meeting and physical inspection of the document(s); and,
Add “documents physically examined,” date and initial in Section 2 Additional Information field/box, or to Section 3 of Form I-9, as appropriate.

Importantly, the virtual review process requires the employer to “perfect” the Form I-9 with an in-person meeting at a future date.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is currently reviewing the regulatory framework for document review in considering making virtual review a permanent option for I-9 compliance. DHS published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register and, since November 2022, has been reviewing comments. Simultaneously, ICE has ramped up audits and investigations as the pandemic has waned. Therefore, employers should maintain a fluid line of communication with their attorneys and employees to avoid any compliance issues.

Article By Caterina Cappellari of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

For more immigration legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

EEOC Announces Enforcement Priorities for 2023-2027

On Tuesday January 10, 2023, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) publicly released its Draft Strategic Enforcement Plan (“SEP”) for fiscal years 2023-2027. The SEP describes the EEOC’s top enforcement priorities, making it critical information for employers around the country.

The Draft SEP sets out the EEOC’s six subject matter priorities for fiscal years 2023-2027:

Eliminating Barriers in Recruitment and Hiring;
Protecting Vulnerable Workers and Persons From Underserved Communities From Employment Discrimination;
Addressing Emerging and Developing Issues;
Enforcing Equal Pay Laws;
Preserving Access to the Legal System; and
Preventing Harassment Through Systemic Enforcement and Targeted Outreach.

With respect to the first category, “Eliminating Barriers in Recruitment and Hiring,” the Draft SEP states the EEOC will focus on “the use of automatic systems, including artificial intelligence or machine learning, to target advertisements, recruit applicants, or make or assist in hiring decisions where such systems intentionally exclude or adversely impact protected groups.” The Draft SEP also expressly emphasizes the “lack of diversity” in both the construction and tech industries, noting the EEOC’s priority will typically involve systemic cases, though claims by an individual or small group may qualify for enforcement focus if it raises a policy, practice, or pattern of discrimination. Employers should note the EEOC’s decision to focus on AI and the tech industry demonstrates a heightened priority on remedying and preventing discrimination from automated and electronic screening tools used in hiring practices and employment decisions.

On January 31, 2023, the EEOC held a public hearing titled “Navigating Employment Discrimination in AI and Automated Systems: A New Civil Rights Frontier” where higher education professors, nonprofit organization representatives, attorneys, and workforce consultants prepared statements regarding the EEOC’s new focus.

The Draft SEP includes specific details regarding the types of hiring practices and policies that the agency seeks to scrutinize. For example, the EEOC aims to prevent employers from isolating and separating workers in certain jobs or job duties based on membership in a protected class. The EEOC plans to achieve this goal by identifying vulnerable workers for more focused attention. In addition, the EEOC will scrutinize practices which limit access to work opportunities, such as (1) job postings which either exclude or discourage some protected groups from applying, and (2) denying training, internships, or apprenticeships based on protected status. The Draft SEP also prioritizes preventing employers from denying opportunities to move from temporary to permanent roles.

As for the second category, “Protecting Vulnerable Workers and Persons From Underserved Communities From Employment Discrimination,” the Draft SEP expands the ”vulnerable worker priority” to include categories of workers who, according to the EEOC, “may be unaware of their rights . . . or reluctant or unable to exercise their legally protected rights.” These categories include workers with intellectual and developmental disabilities, individuals with arrest or conviction records, LGBTQI+ individuals, pregnant workers, individuals with pregnancy-related medical conditions, temporary workers, older workers, individuals employed in low-wage jobs, and persons with limited literacy or English proficiency. The Draft SEP proposes that district EEOC offices and the agency’s federal sector program will identify vulnerable workers and underserved communities in their districts or within the federal sector for focused attention. Employers should be aware that the “vulnerable workers” focused on under this category may vary based on location.

The Draft SEP’s third category, “Addressing Emerging and Developing Issues,” includes a focus on (1) qualification standards and inflexible policies or practices that discriminate against individuals with disabilities, (2) protecting individuals affected by pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the newly enacted Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, (3) employment issues relating to backlash in response to local, national, or global events, and (4) “employment discrimination associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.” The priorities for the EEOC’s COVID-19-related enforcement in this category include:

pandemic related harassment, particularly against individuals of Asian descent;
unlawful denials of accommodations to individuals with disabilities;
unlawful medical inquiries, improper direct threat determinations, or other discrimination related to disabilities that arose during or were exacerbated by the pandemic; and
discrimination against persons who have an actual disability or are regarded as having a disability related to COVID–19, including individuals with long COVID, and pandemic-related caregiver discrimination based on a protected characteristic

With respect to the fourth category, “Enforcing Equal Pay Laws,” the Draft SEP sets out a focus on pay discrimination based on any protected category. The Draft SEP also states the EEOC may use “Commissioner Charges and directed investigations” to enforce equal pay. Notably, the EEOC has been hesitant to use Commissioner Charges in the past, as they comprise of less than 1% of annual charge volume since 2015. However, Commissioner Charges may become necessary to identify and remedy discrimination based on artificial intelligence or machine learning, as outlined in the first category.

The fifth and sixth categories remain largely unchanged from prior EEOC SEPs. The focus for the fifth category, preserving access to the legal system, will continue to identify and target (1) overly broad waivers, releases, non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements; (2) improper mandatory arbitration provisions; (3) employers failure to keep proper records; and (4) improper retaliatory practices. As for the final category, the EEOC will continue to focus on promoting comprehensive anti-harassment programs and practices.

The EEOC will vote on a final version of the SEP following the public notice and comment period, which concludes on February 9, 2023.

Article By Dan Syed of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

DHS Guidelines Give Protection from Deportation to Undocumented Workers Who Report Labor Violations

If an employer hires undocumented workers, are they covered under the U.S. employment laws? Initially, employers must complete Form I-9s for all new employees and cannot hire workers who are unable to establish that they’re authorized to work. But once hired, the script flips and undocumented workers generally enjoy the same legal protections as the rest of the workforce (e.g., Title VII, FLSA, etc.). Undocumented workers, however, are often reluctant to make complaints to or cooperate in investigations with the EEOC, the Department of Labor, or other labor agencies, even when they have a legitimate beef with their employer. Why? It may be at least in part because they fear that they’ll be hauled into immigration court and deported. But now, the Biden administration has given those workers a possible safety valve.

Last month, the Department of Homeland Security released guidelines providing a process for undocumented workers to seek deferred action from removal (deportation) when they report a violation to a labor agency or cooperate in an agency investigation. In some circumstances, the individuals who utilize this process may also be eligible for temporary work authorization. Although each request for deferred action will be decided on a case-by-case basis, it’s clear that the purpose of this new process is to encourage undocumented workers to report labor violations and assist with agency investigations.

How Does the Process Work?

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will manage the process using a centralized intake system. If an undocumented worker makes a complaint to the EEOC, the DOL, or other labor agency, or assists the agency with an investigation, that worker can request deferred action from removal by submitting certain required documents. Among other things, the worker must submit his or her own statement setting forth the basis for the request, as well as a supporting “statement of interest” from the involved labor agency. According to the guidelines, the agency’s “statement of interest” should provide details about the nature of its investigation, how the worker may be helpful to that investigation, and how granting the worker’s request for deferred action would support the agency’s enforcement interests.

If the worker is already in removal proceedings or subject to an order of removal, the request for deferred action will be forwarded to ICE for determination. Otherwise, USCIS will adjudicate the request. Either way, USCIS or ICE will exercise its discretion on a case-by-case basis. In certain cases, the interested agency may also ask that the worker’s request be adjudicated on an expedited basis.

If an undocumented worker’s request is approved, the grant of deferred action will normally be good for two years, although it is subject to termination at any time. When submitting the request, the worker may also apply for temporary employment authorization on USCIS Form I-765. Approved applications for employment authorization, while not guaranteed, will typically allow the individual to work for the entire period of deferred action. Subsequent requests to extend the worker’s deferred action can be made if the labor agency continues to have an investigative or enforcement interest in the worker’s matter.

What’s the Practical Impact?

This is less clear. Will undocumented workers take advantage of this new process in significant numbers? The guidelines offer some potential protection, but the approval of an individual worker’s request is not automatic and, even if approved, the grant of deferred action is temporary. Notably, the guidelines do not provide any long-term path to lawful status. And, because the guidelines have been issued without Congressional or regulatory action, they are subject both to being challenged in the courts and to being revoked in two years if there’s a change in the White House. Will undocumented workers feel comfortable using this process in the face of all this uncertainty? Stay tuned.

Article By Keith Covington and Anne R. Yuengert of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

For more immigration legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Congress Eases Criminal Offense Restrictions for Employment With Financial Institutions

Included in the defense spending bill signed by President Biden in December 2022 is a section with key provisions for financial institutions that will ease restrictions on hiring candidates with criminal records. Section 5705 in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2023, titled “Fair Hiring in Banking,” further narrows convictions that would constitute a bar to employment under Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA) absent a written waiver by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). A representative for the FDIC confirmed that the changes are effective now and will be implemented by the FDIC in 2023.

Background

Section 19 generally prohibits any person who has been convicted of a crime of “dishonesty or a breach of trust or money laundering or has agreed to enter into a pretrial diversion or similar program in connection with a prosecution for such offense” from working in banking without first obtaining written consent from the FDIC.

Section 19 requires financial institutions to conduct criminal background checks on job candidates, regardless of whether state or local laws limit consideration of criminal histories in hiring. In July 2020, the FDIC issued a final rule that loosened the prohibitions in Section 19 by, among other things, expanding what are considered “de minimis” offenses and expanding the definition of “expungement” to include an order to seal a criminal record or a record relating to a pretrial diversion program.

Older Offenses

The Fair Hiring in Banking provisions go even further, providing that a waiver is not needed if it has been seven years or more since the offense occurred or if the individual was incarcerated with respect to the offense and it has been five years or more since the individual was released from incarceration. The need for a waiver also does not apply to conduct that an individual committed before the age of 21 and if it has been at least thirty months since the sentencing.

De Minimis Offenses

The provisions further permit the FDIC to exempt other “de minimis offenses” that they may determine by rule. Those rules must include a requirement that the offense “was punishable by a term of three years or less.” Applicable de minimis offenses may include offenses for writing bad checks so long as the aggregate value of all the bad checks is $2,000 or less. The FDIC may further designate other “lesser offenses” to be exempt if one year or more has passed since conviction, “including the use of a fake ID, shoplifting, trespass, fare evasion, driving with an expired license or tag, and such other low-risk offenses.”

Consent Applications

According to the provision, when reviewing an application to allow an individual with an applicable criminal conviction to work for a bank, the FDIC must make an “an individualized assessment.” This assessment must take “into account evidence of rehabilitation, the applicant’s age at the time of the conviction or program entry, the time that has elapsed since conviction or program entry, and the relationship of individual’s offense to the responsibilities of the applicable position.” They must further consider the individual’s employment history, letters of recommendation, and the completion of any substance abuse or job preparation programs.

Key Takeaways

The Fair Hiring in Banking provisions clear some barriers for financial institutions to hire individuals who may have committed criminal offenses in the past but have since been rehabilitated, providing needed flexibility in hiring and recruitment. Further, the provisions go beyond the 2020 FDIC rule changes by amending Section 19 of the FDIA to create exceptions to hire individuals convicted of certain criminal offenses without burdensome consent review by the FDIC.

While the federal laws preempt conflicting state and local laws, the Fair Hiring in Banking provisions are in line with the growing number of jurisdictions across the country that have prohibited or limited consideration of job candidates’ criminal histories in the hiring process. Those measures, such as so-called ban-the-box laws, have been imposed in part to promote rehabilitation and concerns that considering criminal histories in hiring disproportionately affects individuals in protected classes.

For more Employment Law News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Category: Labor & Employment

NLRB Determines Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement Provisions to be Unlawful in Severance Agreements

It is important to note that this decision has some limitations:

Like this: