Category: Labor & Employment

Disability in the Workplace: The Key to Equal Access and Accommodations

The month of October is designated as National Disability Employment Awareness Month (NDEAM) to educate the public about the issues faced by people with disabilities in pursuing, obtaining, and keeping employment. 

There are approximately 5.5 million employees in the United States who have some type of disability, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and these employees account for at least 4% of the employed population. It is likely that almost all large employers have had disabled employees at some point in time. This has not always been the case, however. Until the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990, disabled persons in the United States were often denied employment opportunities. And even today, despite the passage of the ADA, there are millions of individuals with disabilities who cannot find meaningful employment despite their capabilities and skills.

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was the first legislation to address the idea of equal access for individuals with disabilities through the removal of architectural, employment, and transportation barriers. But the Rehabilitation Act only reached those businesses and employers who received federal funding — the vast majority of businesses were not impacted by it. But the advances created by the Rehabilitation Act marked the first time that the exclusion and segregation of persons with disabilities was recognized as unlawful discrimination. The Rehabilitation Act recognized that although there are major physical and mental variations in different disabilities, people with disabilities as a group faced similar discrimination in employment, education, and social access.

Thus spurred on by the advances achieved through the Rehabilitation Act, the disability rights community was determined to expand these rights to the larger general population. Their efforts culminated in the signing of the ADA in 1990, which is a watershed event in U.S. history. The ADA is premised on a basic presumption that people with disabilities want to and are capable of working, want to be members of the community, and that the exclusion and segregation of people with disabilities would no longer be tolerated in our society.

Although the ADA reaches many parts of our lives, it has brought profound changes to the workplace. No longer is it legal for employers to refuse to hire applicants with disabilities, terminate employees who becomes disabled, or otherwise treat disabled employees differently than other employees in the terms and conditions of employment. And not only must employers treat disabled employees equally, the ADA requires them to affirmatively accommodate their disabilities in order that the disabled workers can participate equally with other employees in the workplace.

The ADA defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. The ADA defines a physical impairment as a physiological disorder that affects a body system and a mental impairment as a psychological or mental disorder, such as emotional or mental illness, developmental disorders, and learning disabilities. An impairment that is episodic or in remission, such as cancer or HIV, is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active. Major life activities include almost everything we do, such as seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.

Employers are required under the ADA not only to not discriminate against disabled employees but to also provide reasonable accommodations to them so they can perform the essential functions of their jobs. A reasonable accommodation is a modification or adjustment to a job or to the work environment that enables an individual with a disability to have an equal opportunity not only to get a job, but to successfully perform their job tasks to the same extent as people without disabilities. Reasonable accommodations should not be viewed as “special treatment,” and they often benefit all employees. Examples of reasonable accommodations include making existing facilities accessible, job restructuring; part-time or modified work schedules, acquiring or modifying equipment, changing training materials or policies, and providing qualified readers or interpreters. Many job accommodations cost very little and often involve minor changes to a work environment, schedule, or work-related technologies.

Employers should always engage a disabled employee in a discussion to find a mutually acceptable reasonable accommodation that will permit the employee to perform their job but not create an undue hardship on the employer. Although employers do not necessarily have to provide the accommodation requested by the employee, they should take into account the employee’s wishes and attempt to accommodate unless such an accommodation would create an undue hardship. There are as many accommodations as there are individuals with disabilities, and the employer’s responsibility is to make sure they have looked at all reasonable accommodations before deciding that providing an accommodation would be an undue hardship to the employer. The undue hardship standard is very high and should be used very sparingly and only when all other accommodation efforts have been exhausted.

In conclusion, the passage of the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA have provided great benefits to our society and have given opportunities to millions of individuals who in the past would have been unfairly and discriminatorily excluded from the workforce.

This article was written by Debbie Whittle Durban of Nelson Mullins law firm. For more articles about employee accommodation, please visit here.

Knock Your Socks Off: A Conversation with EEOC Leaders

Mandatory vaccinations, harassment and retaliation charges, and guidance and enforcement priorities are just some of the important issues U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) officials addressed at Ward and Smith’s Fall Employment Law Update.

I moderated the discussion that was led by Tom Colclough, Deputy District Director of the EEOC Charlotte District Office, and Glory Gervacio Suare, Director of the EEOC Raleigh Area Office.

Over his 25 years with the EEOC, Colclough has investigated charges and complaints of discrimination, led high-performing teams, and served in various leadership positions. Currently, he plays a key role in fulfilling the agency’s mission through strategic enforcement, management, and planning.

Gervacio’s background includes serving as the director of the EEOC’s Honolulu office. Her career with the Commission began as an enforcement investigator in 2001, and she continually provides outreach and educational assistance to various committees in her jurisdiction.

The conversation began with an analysis of how many charges the EEOC handles in an average year, and of those charges, how many go through mediation, conciliation, or litigation. “We normally receive between 65,000 and 100,000 charges per year,” said Colclough. “This year, it was around 65,000. In our district, we received about 5,500 charges this year.”

Of that amount, Colclough explained that the EEOC:

  • Resolved 17.8% of cases through the negotiated settlement process;
  • Completed approximately 500 successful mediations;
  • Issued a ‘no cause’ determination for 65% of cases; and
  • Dismissed around 29% for untimely filing or because a summary review of the Charge allowed the investigator to determine that a violation did not occur.

The leading types of charges last year included retaliation, followed by disability and race. “This is interesting because, in the previous year, race was the second type of charge that was filed,” commented Gervacio. “So I think we’re seeing a trend because of COVID, and with reasonable accommodation requests and vaccination mandates, we’re probably going to see more disability charges in the near future.”

Enforcement Priorities

The local EEOC district office focuses their efforts in part on supporting six national strategic enforcement priorities, says Colclough. These enforcement priorities include:

  • Eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring;
  • Protecting immigrants, migrants, and other vulnerable workers;
  • Addressing emerging and developing issues;
  • Enforcing equal pay laws;
  • Preserving access to the legal system; and
  • Preventing harassment through systemic enforcement and targeted outreach.

Colclough indicated his district has developed a complement plan to address issues that are important to the local community: “For the most part, we’re looking at vulnerable workers, also emerging issues dealing with the ADA. As you know, COVID is an emerging issue that continues to develop every single day. And retaliation is the number one priority.”

Retaliation goes beyond someone receiving an adverse result after objecting to a form of harassment or discrimination. “There’s more to retaliation than just the mirror opposition or exercising a right to complain,” noted Gervacio. “Disability is on the rise, and there’s a component of retaliation when somebody requests a reasonable accommodation due to their disability.”

COVID Vaccinations

The subject of mask mandates and vaccination requirements is still on employers’ minds and continually evolving. Generally, officials at the EEOC expect to see a substantial increase in COVID-related charges and inquiries pertaining to reasonable accommodations.

For those who watch the news every day, it’s clear that vaccination mandates remain a hot button issue, explained Colclough. “One thing I’d like to folks to know is that, on our website, we clearly state that federal laws do not prevent an employer from requiring all employees physically entering the workplace to be vaccinated for COVID-19.”

Gervacio illuminated the subject with an analysis of a recent case involving United Airlines, in which a court order placed a temporary stay on the company’s vaccination mandate. Basically, the judge ordered that placing employees on unpaid leave for requesting an exception to the airline’s vaccination mandate due to a disability or religious exemption is not a reasonable accommodation.

“We are still waiting on guidance from our headquarters on how to address that,” said Gervacio, “so it is unfolding as we speak.”

In light of this development, employers should understand that it is doubtful that placing an individual who requests an exemption to a vaccine mandate on unpaid leave is a reasonable accommodation. Until the EEOC provides updated technical guidance, a potential best practice for employers is to go through an interactive process for all disability and religious-related exemption requests.

Is Long COVID a Disability?

Recently, the EEOC stated that it would be adopting the Department of Health and Human Services position on “long COVID” is to classify it as an ADA disability. The determination ultimately turns on whether or not it substantially limits one or more daily activities.

Employers should educate themselves on what “long COVID” is and its symptoms and understand that since it could potentially be classified as an ADA disability, they should be prepared to engage in an interactive discussion with the employee.

Working from Home

At the pandemic’s start, many employers suddenly had to transition the majority of their workforce to a remote or a virtual environment. With that in mind, the question of which positions are appropriate for telework remains relevant.

Given a choice, many employees would choose to work from home, but that may not be in the employer’s best interest. “Telework as a reasonable accommodation “might be the gold Cadillac standard of what an individual wants,” explained Colclough, “but that’s not necessarily what the employer has to provide.” Employers only need to consider whether an accommodation allows the individual to perform the essential job functions.

“Telework is just one of many tools of accommodation an employer has in their toolkit,” adds Colclough. Employers may sometimes feel that the employee is driving the interactive process and that they have to comply with the employee’s preferred accommodation.

Ultimately, however, it is up to the employer to decide what accommodations are reasonable based on the needs of the business and what will allow the employee to perform the essential job functions. Employers have various options for those who are averse to getting the vaccine, whether their request for an exception is ADA-related or due to a religious exemption. As far as reasonable accommodations, the following are listed on the EEOC’s website as technical guidance on potential reasonable accommodations to vaccine mandates:

  • Social distancing, e., placing an individual in their own office;
  • Modifying shifts to limit interactions with other employees and customers;
  • Periodic testing; and
  • Reassignment.

Gervacio pointed out that “[t]here are many examples of reasonable accommodation listed on the Job Accommodation Network. This service provided by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy offers technical guidance on various types of accommodations for certain disabilities, including specific COVID-related issues from telework.”

An unexpected outcome the EEOC has seen after the rise of telework is an increased number of sexual harassment complaints over the past 18 months. These complaints have originated from Zoom meetings, Facebook, and other forms of social media.

Employers should consider developing standards for how employees are expected to behave in a virtual environment, advised Colclough. “We’ve got to convince people to get back to being as professional as they were in person,” he said. “And perhaps that will help some harassment complaints go down.”

Gervacio recommended that employers train their managers and supervisors. “A lot of the charges we get, it seems the manager or supervisor is not aware of their roles and responsibilities, and whether or not they need to take action,” commented Gervacio. “This training should be tailored to the workforce because you want them to be engaged.”

Another update the EEOC leaders mentioned included a change to the notice of right to sue. When the EEOC decides to close an investigation, it issues what is commonly referred to as a notice of right to sue, which allows the charging party to file a federal lawsuit if they want to pursue the claim further.

Finally, the EEOC leaders shared that recently, the regulations were amended to make digital service an acceptable form of communication for this notice. “Doing it digitally is much, much faster,” added Colclough, “and we get an almost instantaneous notice when parties take a look at it. This helps us ensure the right to sue got into the right hands.”

© 2021 Ward and Smith, P.A.. All Rights Reserved.

Article By Hayley R. Wells of Ward and Smith, P.A.

For more articles on the EEOC, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

How to Be More Inclusive with Your Legal Marketing

If your law firm isn’t focusing on inclusivity and diversity in its marketing, you may be missing out on opportunities to grow your business and provide legal help to those who need it.

Being inclusive with your law firm marketing might be difficult when you have no idea where to start. But you will need to figure out how to show people from all different types of backgrounds that you’re the law firm for them with your advertising and marketing efforts.

Audit Your Law Firm’s Current Marketing Strategies

In order to be more inclusive, you first need to get really honest with yourself about where your law firm is currently at in terms of diversity and inclusion, and which systems you might have in place that have prevented your firm from becoming more inclusive in your marketing approach.

Start off by auditing the content your law firm has already released. You should be looking for any unintentional messages about who your law firm is, what matters to you, and who you will or will not work with. For example, does the content on your website use terminology such as “his or her”, or “he or she”? To be more inclusive, your content should always address your target client as “they” to be most inclusive.

Comb through your social media profiles, your attorney bio, and every piece of media you’ve created and analyze them.  Are there ways that you could have been more inclusive to ensure that people from more diverse backgrounds recognize that you’re the law firm that can help them?

What Photos Does Your Law Firm Use?

One of the first things you should go through when you’re reviewing your law firm’s marketing materials are the photos you have used. Any images on physical materials, and more importantly, online, should be carefully considered. Do all of your photos and images have people of the same nationality, gender, or race? What about individuals who have disabilities? There are a few different ways you can go about being more inclusive when it comes to your photos.

First, you should start hiring with inclusivity and diversity in mind. This means hiring people from varying backgrounds to work with you and your law firm. It is the most natural and authentic way to be more inclusive with your marketing, because your law firm is living it.

Another way to be more inclusive in your marketing photos is by engaging with and participating in your community. Volunteer with organizations that care about inclusivity and diversity. Host fundraising events where possible. These are just a couple of options, but ultimately you want to immerse your law firm in the community that you want to be representing.

Have You Thought About Accessibility?

Another way to be more inclusive in your marketing is to take accessibility into consideration. Is your current website accessible for those with visual, neurological, cognitive, or auditory impairments?

Are there ways that you could make it easier for clients to find you and interact with the current materials your firm has already created? Some easy upgrades to make your website more accessible could include adding keyboard navigation capabilities, adding ALT Text to your images, and descriptive URLs.

Consider Language Barriers

When you live in a particularly diverse area, and when you want to take steps to be more inclusive, you should take into consideration the fact that not all of your prospective clients are going to speak English as their first language. Some clients may not speak English at all. By having lawyers in your team who can speak multiple languages, you may be able to uniquely bridge a language barrier gap that your competitors may not be taking into consideration.

Make sure you let your future clients know that a language barrier won’t be a problem with your law firm, because you have people on staff who speak their native language. This is not only a great marketing benefit, but provides your client with an overall better experience with your law firm.

Establish a Solid and Ongoing Review Process

Most attorneys know that getting a bad review online can have a significant impact on your law firm. One of the best ways you can be more inclusive and diverse in your marketing is by establishing an ongoing review-getting process.

If successful, you could be seen as a law firm with a solid reputation. If your reviewers leave open and honest feedback on their experience with your firm, those searching for an attorney could resonate with your client’s experience and view you as the best option for their legal representation.

You should also be sure to respond to any negative feedback or reviews you might receive. And be sure to utilize constructive criticism that may be holding your law firm back from achieving optimal inclusivity.

This article was written by Meranda M. Vieyra of Denver Legal Marketing. For more articles about Legal Marketing, please visit here.

How to Improve Cities After COVID-19: What to Know About the Revitalizing Downtowns Act

In July, Democratic Senators Gary Peters and Debbie Stabenow (along with Democratic  Representatives Dan Kildee, John Larson, and Jimmy Gomez) introduced the Revitalizing Downtowns Act (“The Act”) to Congress. With the goal of reviving urban districts and downtown commerce, the Act would establish a new federal tax credit that encourages property developers to convert unused office space into residential or mixed-use space.

The Act defines an obsolete office structure as a building at least 25 years old, and at least 20 percent of the residential conversion must be dedicated to affordable housing. If these criteria are met, 20 percent of the conversion expenses will be covered by the tax credit. The Act has  growing support from economic development organizations across the country, including the International Downtown Association and the Federal City Council. Together, 37 organizations formed the Revitalize Our Cities coalition, committed to reenergizing downtown spaces and strengthening the U.S. economy.

The Act presents a substantial opportunity to improve American cities of all sizes. Justin P. Weinberg, Partner in Charge at Taft Stettinius & Hollister’s Minneapolis office, said of the Act, “It’s an opportunity to revitalize and reenergize existing spaces. Giving new purpose – and attracting new tenants – to buildings that would otherwise be vacant means more people, customers, and workers to build and sustain a strong community and business district where there wasn’t one before.”

How Can Federal Tax Credits Help Unused Office Space Redevelopment?

With employees still working from home and a permanent return to the office for countless businesses seeming more uncertain as the COVID-19 pandemic continues, many office buildings may remain vacant and unused, leaving downtowns with fewer opportunities for investment and revenue generation.

“This Act would be huge in encouraging all types of business to invest in downtown markets. It would be most helpful though if the tax credit provided could be used in conjunction with other credits, such as historic tax credits, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (“LIHTCs”) and/or new markets and also incentivized business owners to open. Residential development works best if it is in conjunction with other retail, services and other amenities and, of course, plenty of parking,” said Kelly Rushin Lewis, partner in Jones Walker’s tax practice and leader of the firm’s tax credit finance team.

For buildings needing a lot of work, tax credits are essential to ensuring the project has the necessary financing. Without them, many projects requiring a lot of renovations and updates may not be able to move forward, Ms. Lewis said.

“Tax incentives are a key tool in attracting private capital in neighborhoods or towns in need of revitalization. These conversions can be much more challenging than building from the ground up, especially if dealing with vacant buildings that may have environmental, zoning, code compliance, or other latent issues that may be expensive to correct. The projects often are just not financially feasible and will not get done without those incentives,” she said. “A credit or some other incentive for potential tenants in the commercial spaces would be helpful – many business owners may be reluctant to be the first or one of few to open in what may be an otherwise quiet downtown. Tax incentives would encourage them to come and hopefully give them a cushion while the neighborhood is being revitalized.”

Another potential impact of the bill would be the increased investment in affordable housing. With many cities large and small struggling to provide enough affordable housing, the Act would create an opportunity to develop vacant buildings into much-needed affordable housing developments.

“Now more than ever, investment in affordable housing is critical.  Housing costs are at an all-time high with demand outpacing supply. The costs of acquiring housing is high and the cost of building it is as well,” Ms. Lewis said. “Affordable housing developments do so much more than create housing – they create jobs and careers in everything from construction, accounting, legal work, property management, and more.”

In addition to creating jobs, the creation of affordable housing has the potential to slow down the gentrification affecting many large cities, said Lacy Clay, a former congressman from Missouri and a Senior Policy Advisor at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.

“If you can convert these older buildings into affordable housing units, then you will slow down the gentrification process taking place in quite a few of these urban centers. You can look at any major city now and see that low to moderate income families and people of color are being pushed out of those cities, and then to further into the suburbs,” he said. “This would help reverse those trends.”

How Investing in Affordable Housing Actually Can Help with the Current Labor Shortage.

The Revitalizing Downtowns Act is a timely piece of legislation for investing in urban centers during the COVID-19 pandemic. For many industries, it appears that widespread remote work is here to stay, and it is critical that American cities reflect that new reality. By providing incentives for developers and property owners, the Act makes these necessary overhauls far more viable. “Tax incentives reduce investors’ financial risk,” explained Mr. Weinberg. “[This makes] taking on such a project highly attractive.”

The bill’s emphasis on affordable housing is especially notable. Through this provision, legislators hope to provide equal footing for renters and thereby attract young talent to fill employment needs.

“I want to compliment Senator Stabenow and Gary Peters and Dan Kildee for coming up with this innovative way to be able to bring populations back in a way that does not exclude communities of color, but will include communities of color,” Mr. Clay said. “If you build enough affordable housing units, according to the legislation, at least 20 percent of any of those redevelopments have to be dedicated to affordable housing.”

Through investing in affordable housing, downtowns would benefit from an increased flow of commerce, as well as a buffer against the ongoing U.S. labor shortage and or talent mismatch.

“The trick is to prioritize affordable housing without eliminating or displacing families in market-rate housing that do not otherwise qualify for affordable housing,” said Mr. Weinberg. “But if done well, a city that strikes the right balance of available affordable housing benefits from additional economic stability and makes itself a sustainable destination for business, families, and communities.”

Copyright ©2021 National Law Forum, LLC
For More Articles on Real Estate, visit the NLR Construction & Real Estate section.

Protections for Employees Who Report Workplace Discrimination

While thousands of employees each year submit complaints of discrimination against their employers, many more experience workplace discrimination and do not submit a formal complaint or even report it internally. A 2016 study by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) noted that three out of four individuals who experienced harassment never spoke with a supervisor, manager, or union representative about the harassment. Other studies estimate that only one percent of people who experience workplace discrimination file a formal discrimination charge.

Types of Discrimination Charges Filed

Even with a high level of underreporting of harassment and discrimination in the workplace, the EEOC reported that workers filed 67,448 charges of workplace discrimination in fiscal year 2020.[1] The EEOC breaks down the data by the characteristics of the individual who filed the complaint. The breakdown reflects the various bases for protection under federal anti-discrimination laws, specifically disability, race, sex, age, national origin, color, religion, and genetic information. In the EEOC data from fiscal year 2020, retaliation claims made up 55.8% of all charges filed, which was the most common claim asserted. Retaliation claims are often coupled with claims of discrimination because they generally require complaints about, or opposition to, discrimination in the workplace. Because of this overlap in claims and the reality that workers may have multiple characteristics or identities that entitle them to protections, the total of the percentages of the types of claims asserted is greater than 100%.

Following retaliation claims, discrimination claims based on disability were the most common in fiscal year 2020, making up 36.1% of all workplace discrimination claims. Fiscal year 2020 may have seen an even greater increase in disability-related charges due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The EEOC continues to update its guidance periodically on the impact of COVID-19 on workplace discrimination laws related to disability. Discrimination based on race made up 32.7% of claims, and discrimination based on sex made up 31.7%.

The breakdown by category is consistent with charge filing patterns in past years. One study conducted by the Center for Employment Equity of the University of Massachusetts Amherst analyzed all discrimination charges filed with the EEOC (or a comparable state agency) from 2012 to 2016. It determined that discrimination charges based on disability and race were the most common and that disability-related claims had become more frequent than charges based on other protected categories. In an article published by staff at the Center for Employment Equity, they determined that 63% of employees who filed a complaint eventually lost their jobs.

Protections from Retaliation

The data from the EEOC and Center for Employment Equity underscores an unfortunate reality for employees who come forward to report discrimination—they face the possibility of retaliation by their employer, which, at its most extreme, results in a loss of their job. Fortunately, there are legal protections in place for employees who face retaliation for complaining about workplace discrimination.

Employees who engage in protected activity, either by participating in an investigation of workplace discrimination, complaining of workplace discrimination, or opposing discrimination in the workplace, are protected from retaliation. This means that an employer cannot take any “materially adverse action” against these employees. Such actions include anything that would deter a reasonable worker from coming forward to complain about discrimination in the workplace.  This includes actions short of termination, like demotions or salary reductions. The law protects not only current employees and applicants, but also former employees and third parties who have a close relationship with the employee who experienced discrimination. Employees who face retaliation for reporting discrimination in the workplace may be entitled to monetary compensation for the harm caused by the retaliation, including back wages, reinstatement to their former position if they were terminated, compensation for emotional distress caused by the employer’s actions, and reimbursement of their attorneys’ fees and costs.

While no employee should face retaliation for reporting workplace discrimination or harassment, the data demonstrates that it is an unfortunate reality in workplaces. If you believe you have faced discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, you should contact an employment attorney to determine your options and how to proceed.

Importance of Seeking Legal Counsel

The Center for Employment Equity’s analysis highlighted another reality faced by employees who filed discrimination charges with the EEOC. Upon examining the outcome of each charge and excluding charges that were closed because of administrative reasons, it noted that monetary benefits and changes to workplace practices were relatively infrequent. In less than 20% of charges, employees received a monetary benefit.  Less than 10% resulted in changes to employer practices. This data does not account for employees who made complaints of discrimination and were able to reach a resolution with their employer prior to filing a charge.

This data showing the poor outcomes from filing discrimination charges demonstrates the importance of seeking legal counsel if you believe that you have faced discrimination in the workplace. An attorney can advise you on the merits of your claim as well as the appropriate deadlines for filing a charge and lawsuit, and can advocate for you before the employer, both before and after submitting a discrimination charge. For current employees, such advocacy may help to shield you from retaliation or to exit from your employment on more favorable terms. In addition to seeking legal counsel, you can begin to take other steps to assist your case by doing the following:

  • Document the mistreatment you experience.

  • Create a detailed timeline of instances of discrimination, which will assist an attorney who may assess your potential claims.

  • Retain employment-related documents, like employee manuals; employment offer letters and agreements; and information concerning commission, equity, and benefits plans.

  • Do not record conversations without the consent of the other party and without first seeking advice from legal counsel. Each state has different recording law statutes that require all parties or at least one party to consent to recording. It is important not to violate these laws, which can carry civil and sometimes criminal liability.

This list only identifies basic steps that you can take if you believe you have experienced discrimination or harassment in the workplace. If you have faced workplace discrimination, you should consult with an employment attorney for advice on your potential claims

[1] The number of charges filed has decreased steadily in recent years, with 72,675 charges of workplace discrimination filed with the EEOC in fiscal year 2019 and 76,418 filed in 2018. There may be multiple explanations for this decrease, though this year’s decline may be in part explained by the COVID-19 pandemic, which left many employees without work for much of 2020 and required others to work remotely.

This article was written by Alia Al-Khatib of Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLP.
For more articles regarding workplace discrimination, please visit our Labor and Employment News section.

How Government Contractors Can Prepare for a Government Shutdown

The federal government’s funding is slated to deplete on September 30th, 2021. Congress is currently debating the legislation that will allow operations to continue beyond this date, but it remains to be seen whether or not the government will experience a temporary shutdown. Regardless, the Office of Management and Budget signaled for agencies to prepare for a gap in funding, and President Joe Biden’s White House is preparing for this outcome.

“Government shutdowns impact government contractors in significant ways. Work and payments suddenly stop, and contractors have to decide what to do with their skilled and knowledgeable workers, who suddenly have nothing to do for a company whose cash flow has taken a sudden hit,” said Guy Brenner, a partner in the labor and employment law department and head of the Government Contractor Compliance Group at Proskauer Rose LLP. “This is particularly difficult given that the length of the shutdown is difficult to predict.”

A government shutdown presents unique challenges, not only for federal agencies, but for government contractors and subcontractors as well. These challenges include (but are certainly not limited to) employee pay and overtime, unemployment benefits, the furloughing of employees and more. As a result, it’s important government contractors remain informed and prepare themselves for next steps, should the shutdown indeed take place.

What Do Government Contractors Need to Know About the Shutdown?

In years past, government shutdowns complicated pay and backordered work, and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic adds another layer to the impending decision on September 30, 2021. With a possible shutdown approaching, government contractors should consider their options under their existing contracts. The looming possibility of a government shutdown creates an air of uncertainty, but workers can mitigate the effects with proper preparation. This includes provisions of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN Act) which impacts larger employers.

Typically under the WARN Act, employers must notify employees within 60 days of an upcoming large-scale layoff. The WARN Act applies if there is an “employment loss,” which includes a layoff exceeding six months, an employment termination or a 50 percent reduction in hours in each month over six months.

Another consideration for government contractors during a shutdown is furloughing employees. Often contract workers who are furloughed are not paid their owed wages until after the shutdown has ended and a spending agreement is made, sometimes taking many months before issuing the payments. In some instances, such as during the shutdown of 2018/2019, lawmakers may vote against paying contractors for their furloughed time.

Another complication begins when government contractors take a hit during the shutdown and require workers to use their paid time off (PTO) as compensation rather than back pay. And those with PTO still fare better than contractors who are considered non-essential and cannot rely on PTO. What are the options for those workers?

In addition to furlough and PTO, another potential option for government contractors and their employees during the shutdown is unemployment benefits. However, some furloughed employees may not be eligible for unemployment benefits. Government contractors should check state laws to determine eligibility. Government contractors can find additional resources from the U.S. Department of Labor, including fringe benefits, paid sick leave and pay requirements.

How Can Government Contractors Prepare for a Shutdown?

Despite the uncertainty, government contractors can prepare in advance for a government shutdown. E-Verify, the online system used by employers to check the employment eligibility of new hires, is run by the Department of Homeland Security and may be unavailable during a shutdown. To prepare for this, government contractors should complete I-9 paperwork as soon as possible if E-Verify is unavailable.

Another consideration for government contractors during a shutdown is employee benefits. Furloughed employees may have their benefits affected if a government shutdown happens for a long period of time. The longest government shutdown on record was for 34 days in 2018-2019, which was a partial shutdown, whereas the government is facing a full shutdown this time since the government hasn’t passed any funding bills.

If the government shuts down and employees’ hours are reduced, they may lose COBRA health plan coverage. If this happens, government contractors must send qualifying event notices to affected employees, and employees must be given the option to continue coverage under the plan for the duration of the furlough at the employee’s expense for the maximum COBRA continuation period.

If the government is shut down and employees are furloughed, government contractors should tell employees not to do any work. If employees work while furloughed, they must be paid a salary for the entire week. Aside from furlough, government contractors may also decide to allow employees to work a reduced number of hours, but the process needs to be analyzed carefully and managed tightly, due to requirements for exempt employees, salary requirements, local regulations for a reduction in compensation, as well as contractual obligations, overtime exemptions and any foreign work authorizations.

Government contractors should consider incorporating the cost impacts of a shutdown into their planning and allow for it in their contracts. Contractors should plan to establish a line of communication with contracting officers ahead of time to discuss what work might be halted just in case they are unavailable if the government shuts down. Additionally, small businesses that rely on government funding can also prepare by speaking with their bank before any upcoming funding deadlines to ensure they have the cash flow to stay afloat during the shutdown.

What are the Next Steps for Government Contractors?

Government contractors can start preparing now for a government shutdown by completing necessary I-9 paperwork, determining furlough and unemployment benefit eligibility, determining WARN Act eligibility as well as planning for COBRA coverage interruptions.

“When the government shuts down, contractors can feel sudden and serious economic and workflow impacts, and naturally want to react quickly. But doing so without careful thought and planning may only solve one problem while creating an even bigger and potentially more costly one,” Mr. Brenner said. “Wage and hour, immigration, benefits, unemployment insurance, and lay off laws are all issues contractors need to consider before taking action.”

Copyright ©2021 National Law Forum, LLC
For more articles on the government shutdown, visit the NLRGovernment Contracts, Maritime & Military Law section.

What Does Equal Pay Really Mean?

By now you’ve certainly heard of the U.S. women’s soccer team’s challenge to their pay arrangement. Back in the spring of 2019, the players sued the United States Soccer Federation (“USSF”) alleging they were unfairly compensated in comparison to the men’s soccer team–a dispute that has been going on since at least 2017. The federal court dismissed the pay claims on summary judgment, ruling that the women were not, in fact, paid less than the men per game played.

Recently the players appealed the federal court’s ruling to the 9th Circuit. In their opposition brief, the USSF argued that the women cannot challenge a payment schedule they expressly negotiated and agreed to via a collective bargaining agreement.

The case presents two very interesting and important issues on the fair pay landscape. The first question is whether an individual can challenge their pay as unequal when they expressly bargained for and negotiated that pay, especially where–as here–they had full knowledge of what employees of the opposite sex were paid.

The second issue is how much “market realities” (as the USSF has called them) are allowed to play a role in the Equal Pay Act analysis as a legitimate job-related factor other than gender (one of the statutory exceptions). For example, in 2018 and 2019, FIFA paid out $38 million to the winner of the men’s world cup, but only $4 million to the winner of the women’s world cup. That is, in the international market, the men’s soccer competitions (generally speaking, not just the U.S. men’s team specifically) sell more tickets and at higher prices, have more expensive sponsorship deals, and generate more revenue.

The USSF argues that because of the potential to generate more revenue from their competitions (even if they end up losing and failing to generate that revenue), the men stand to earn more in their contracts via win bonuses. In response, the women argue that they have, in fact, generated more revenue than the men’s team over the past few years, yet do not have the same bonus opportunities.

It will be interesting to watch how the 9th Circuit wrestles with these two issues, particularly as the result may have lasting impacts for individual employees making equal pay claims. For example, would pay transparency and negotiated salaries be a strong defense to later equal pay claims? Moreover, would revenue generation or even potential revenue generation be a strong defense even when actual performance suggests the lower-paid female employee is generating more revenue than the male employee?

The 9th Circuit will likely hear oral argument on the appeal in early 2022.

{ U.S. women’s soccer team players sought a collective-bargaining agreement that prioritized guaranteed salaries and benefits over potentially higher bonuses, and can’t now pursue “equal pay” claims based on a pay structure they rejected, the U.S. Soccer Federation argued . . . .

 https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-soccer-women-equal-pay-11632341799

©1994-2021 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

Get Poked or Get Canned – Can You Terminate an Employee for Refusing the Vaccine?

The answer is it depends.

Why is the employee refusing the vaccine?

For employers mandating the vaccine, an employee’s refusal to receive it because he or she simply does not want to be vaccinated is likely fair game for termination. Typically, however, an employee will seek a reasonable accommodation that enables him or her not to get the vaccine, raising an objection pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (a medical issue) or Title VII (a sincerely held religious belief). Those scenarios require an employer to entertain the request by engaging in an interactive process to determine, primarily, whether there exists a way to provide the accommodation without creating an undue burden (or hardship) on the employer. The threshold for the hardship analysis is much higher for a medical reason than a religious reason. Keep in mind that you do not have to remove essential functions of a job or create a separate position as a reasonable accommodation.

What if you have a union or a federal contract?

The issue becomes even more complicated if a union is involved or the employer is a federal contractor. With a union, you must make sure you bargain appropriately before imposing a change in working conditions.

On the federal contract side, those employees will fall under a vaccine mandate starting October 15, just like federal employees. In the past months, vaccine requirements have differed from site to site depending on the particular government contracting agent. For example, if the site lets visitors (including contractor/subcontractor employees who perform their duties onsite) enter with masks or a negative test as an alternative to vaccination, the employer will in most cases need to provide the same accommodation. If the site takes a more stringent approach and does not allow masks and negative tests as an alternative, the employer may be able to deny such a request and terminate the employee instead. Before you terminate an employee, make sure to check for any vacancies in which you can provide the accommodation. If no such vacancies exist, the employer should allow the employee to exhaust available sick or PTO time, as well as FMLA leave, if his or her vaccine refusal is based on a medical issue. For a religious issue, the employee would not qualify for sick time, but the employer should allow that employee to exhaust available PTO prior to termination.

What about the OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard?

We expect OSHA to issue its Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) soon, which will shed light on the analysis, but we do not yet know exactly what that guidance will be. We expect, however, that exceptions based on disability or religious requests for accommodation will be a part of the rules, and the ADA and Title VII analysis will be necessary.

As always, stay tuned for additional guidance after OSHA issues its ETS.

© 2021 Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Article By Anne Knox Averitt, Chuck Mataya and Anne R. Yuengert of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

For more articles on mandatory vaccines, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

COVID-19: President Biden Targets Private Employers and Federal Employees and Contractors in His “Path Out of the Pandemic”

On 9 September 2021, President Biden announced his comprehensive national strategy for addressing the COVID-19 pandemic including multiple directives and actions targeted at federal, private-sector, and healthcare employers. The strategy includes regulatory action from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in addition to two Executive Orders, all of which include sweeping vaccination and COVID-19 safety mandates. Though the six-pronged action plan includes measures focused on vaccination efforts, protecting already vaccinated individuals, keeping schools safely open, increasing access to testing, safeguarding economic recovery, and improving care for those affected by COVID-19, this alert will address the specific directives affecting employers.

OSHA EMERGENCY TEMPORARY STANDARD FOR LARGE PRIVATE-SECTOR EMPLOYERS

As outlined in the President’s six-pronged strategy, the White House has directed OSHA to issue an emergency temporary standard (ETS) that would require private employers with 100 or more employees to either mandate the COVID-19 vaccine for its workforce or require weekly COVID-19 testing before reporting to a worksite. Though limited details were provided, this ETS would apply to approximately 80 million private-sector workers in the United States. As part of the ETS, covered employers would also be required to provide paid time off for time spent obtaining a COVID-19 vaccine as well as for recovery from post-vaccination symptoms. The ETS is anticipated to be published in the coming weeks.

As background, OSHA is authorized to issue emergency temporary standards under limited conditions, specifically when it has determined that workers may be in grave danger and a new standard is necessary for their protection in the workplace. After initial publication in the Federal Register, the temporary standard follows the usual rulemaking procedure for a permanent standard, though the timeline for a final ruling is within six months of publication. Finally, an ETS may be challenged in the appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals.1

OSHA most recently issued an ETS on 10 June 2021 that was limited to the healthcare industry. Prior to that, OSHA had not issued an emergency temporary standard since November 1983, and that one (related to asbestos) was invalidated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit about four months later. It is reasonable to expect that a new ETS may also face legal challenges, not only in the regular course, but also due to a potential clash with state legislation and executive actions prohibiting certain requirements related to COVID-19 vaccinations.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DIRECTED AT FEDERAL EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEES AND FEDERAL CONTRACTORS

The President’s plan also includes an Executive Order mandating the vaccine for federal executive branch employees, with exceptions only as permitted by law. Although few details have been provided, the Executive Order directs the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force (Task Force) to issue guidance within seven days as to the specific implementation protocols for affected agencies.

A separate Executive Order requires agencies to include a clause in certain federal contracts providing that contractors must comply with all workplace safety guidelines issued by the Task Force, with the specific protocols and any exceptions to be published by 24 September 2021. By 8 October 2021, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, which is responsible for promulgating the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), is required to (1) begin drafting the FAR clause required by the Executive Order and (2) recommend that agencies use their authority under FAR Subpart 1.4 to deviate from the FAR to include the Executive Order’s requirements in specific types of contracts. Agencies also are required to take steps to ensure that the Executive Order’s requirements are included in contracts and contract-like instruments that are not subject to the FAR, such as other transaction agreements, entered into on or after 15 October 2021. The clause will be included in contracts or contract-like instruments for services, construction, leases, and concessions. It also will be included in contracts and contract-like instruments subject to the Service Contract Act or entered into with the Federal Government in connection with Federal property or lands and related to offering services for Federal employees, their dependents, or the general public. The Executive Order specifically excludes certain types of federal agreements from compliance with the new requirement. Most notably, the Executive Order excludes federal grants, contracts below the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000), and subcontracts solely for the provision of products.

EXPANDED CMS REGULATIONS FOR HEALTHCARE FACILITIES

The President’s plan also expands on the 18 August 2021 CMS emergency regulation requiring vaccination for nursing facility staff, by requiring employees of all healthcare facilities that receive funds from Medicare and Medicaid to be fully vaccinated. The new CMS directive will expand the vaccination mandate to hospitals, home care facilities and dialysis centers in the United States and will apply to nursing home staff as well as staff in hospitals and other CMS-regulated settings, including clinical staff, individuals providing services under arrangements, volunteers, and staff who are not involved in direct patient, resident, or client care. Although some states have begun to adopt vaccination mandates for the healthcare industry, the CMS directive will develop a uniform standard across all covered entities. CMS is in the process of developing an Interim Final Rule with Comment Period that will be issued in October.

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR EMPLOYERS

Given the broad scope of the President’s plan and the pending ETS, employers, including federal contractors, should evaluate coverage under any of the aforementioned mandates and work with counsel to develop and implement a compliance program that complies with federal, state, and local laws. Depending upon the scope of the ETS, there may be additional issues under the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as state wage and hour laws. Unionized employers should be cognizant of how these directives may impact obligations under collective bargaining agreements or whether a vaccine program would be a mandatory subject of bargaining. Finally, employers must address employee and applicant requests for a reasonable accommodation under both the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act if requiring vaccination as a condition of employment.

1 29 U.S. Code §655 (“Any person who may be adversely affected by a standard issued under this section may at any time prior to the sixtieth day after such standard is promulgated file a petition challenging the validity of such standard with the United States court of appeals for the circuit wherein such person resides or has his principal place of business, for a judicial review of such standard. A copy of the petition shall be forthwith transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Secretary.”).

Copyright 2021 K & L Gates
For more articles on mandatory COVID-19 vaccines, visit the NLR Coronavirus News section.

New York HERO Act Alert: COVID-19 Designated as Highly Contagious Communicable Disease

On September 6, 2021, New York State Commissioner of Health Howard A. Zucker designated COVID-19 as “a highly contagious communicable disease that presents a serious risk of harm to the public health in New York State.” As a result of the commissioner’s designation, employers are required to activate their airborne infectious disease exposure prevention plans in accordance with the New York Health and Essential Rights Act (NY HERO Act).

As we previously reported, on July 6, 2021, the New York State Department of Labor (NYS DOL), in consultation with the New York State Department of Health, published the Airborne Infectious Disease Exposure Prevention Standard and Model Airborne Infectious Disease Exposure Prevention Plan. Although the NYS DOL initially published the standard and model plan only in English, the NYS DOL has since furnished the standard and the model plan in Spanish. The industry-specific templates, for “Agriculture,” “Construction,” “Delivery Services,” “Domestic Workers,” “Emergency Response,” “Food Services,” “Manufacturing and Industry,” “Personal Services,” “Private Education,” “Private Transportation,” and “Retail,” are available only in English.

When the standard and the model plan were published, COVID-19 had not received the commissioner’s designation as a highly contagious communicable disease presenting a serious risk of harm to the public health. Now, because of the September 6, 2021, designation, employers with employees in New York may wish to ensure that they are complying with the applicable provisions of the NY HERO Act. Specifically, if not already completed, each employer shall:

  1. Immediately review . . . and update the plan, if necessary, to ensure that it incorporates current information, guidance, and mandatory requirements, issued by federal, state, or local governments related to [COVID-19];

  2. Finalize and promptly activate the . . . plan;

  3. Provide the verbal review [in accordance with the plan];

  4. Provide each employee with a copy of the . . . plan in English or in [Spanish, if identified as the employee’s primary language];

  5. Post a copy of the plan in a visible and prominent location at the worksite (except when the worksite is a vehicle);

  6. Ensure that a copy of the . . . plan is accessible to employees during all work shifts.

Per the act, if an employer has a handbook, the plan must be included in the handbook.

Because Commissioner Zucker’s designation requires activation of the plans, employers may also want to consider that the model plan and industry-specific templates provide that when a plan is activated, training “which will cover all elements” of the plan must be provided. Per the model plan and industry-specific templates, the topics to be covered during training include the following:

  1. The infectious agent and the disease(s) it can cause;

  2. The signs and symptoms of the disease;

  3. How the disease can be spread;

  4. An explanation of [the] … [p]lan;

  5. The activities and locations at [the employer’s] worksite that may involve exposure to the infectious agent;

  6. The use and limitations of exposure controls[;]

  7. A review of the standard, including employee rights provided under [the NY HERO Act].

The model plan and industry-specific templates also provide that the training will be furnished “at no cost to employees and take place during working hours,” or, if training cannot take place during normal work hours, that “employees will be compensated for the training time (with pay or time off).” In addition, the training is required to be “[a]ppropriate in content and vocabulary to [the] educational level, literacy, and preferred language” of each employee and “[v]erbally provided in person or through telephonic, electronic, or other means.”

The commissioner’s designation will remain in effect until September 30, 2021, at which point the commissioner will “determine whether to continue [the] designation.” Accordingly, employers may wish to continue to monitor guidance and information from the New York State Department of Health and the NYS DOL to determine additional or continuing obligations, if any.

© 2021, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

Article By Simone R.D. Francis of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

For more articles on the NY HERO Act, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.