Category: Labor & Employment

National Labor Relations Board Tightens Standard for Joint Employer Status

A business is a joint employer of another employer’s employees only if the two employers share or codetermine the employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment, according to a recently unveiled and long-awaited final rule from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This means that a business must exercise “substantial direct and immediate control” over such issues as wages, benefits, hours of work, hiring, discharge, discipline, supervision and work direction. The rule, which takes effect on April 27, 2020, tightens the legal test the NLRB uses to determine whether workers are jointly employed by affiliate businesses, including franchisors and franchisees.

Specifically, the new rule substantially tightens the standard for joint employer status articulated by the NLRB in its 2015 Browning-Ferris decision. In that decision, the NLRB departed from a half-century’s worth of precedent in determining that it could consider employers who exercised indirect control over the terms and conditions of another employer’s employees, or who reserved the right to exercise such control, as joint employers. The new rule expressly rejects this standard, making clear that neither “indirect” control nor a reservation of right to control terms and conditions of employment is sufficient, on its own, to establish joint employer status. The new rule returns the NLRB to its pre-Browning-Ferris jurisprudence, which required actual and direct control. The new rule also notes that “sporadic, isolated, or de minimus” direct control will not be enough to warrant a finding of joint employment.

The issue of joint employer status is significant for businesses because workers and the unions that represent them can collectively bargain with joint employers and hold them jointly liable for unfair labor practices, which are violations of federal labor law. The Browning-Ferris decision, with its broader test for joint employer status, engulfed more contractors and franchisors into costly and time-consuming labor disputes and contract negotiations. By rejecting the Browning-Ferris standard, the NLRB’s new narrower test brings certainty to this area of law by ensuring that labor disputes and contract bargaining only involve those contractors and/or franchisors that exercise direct control over the employees of another employer. NLRB Chairman Jon Ring made this very point when he explained that “employers will now have certainty in structuring their business relationships, [and] employees will have a better understanding of their employment circumstances.”

This new rule is particularly important to franchisors and comes on the heels of the Department of Labor’s (DOL) new joint-employer rule, which also affected franchisors. Since the Browning-Ferris decision, there has been uncertainty about how much “control” is too much. This new NLRB rule provides welcomed clarity for franchisors, and will allow franchisors to provide more operational support and guidance to franchisees, which should result in franchisees having the opportunity to run their small businesses in a manner that will make a difference in their communities. Franchisors can protect their brands through appropriate brand standards and require franchisees to meet those standards without the heightened risk of being deemed a joint employer of their franchisees’ employees.

However, franchisors must be mindful of various state joint employer regulations, which may be broader in scope than the new rule, as well as plaintiffs’ lawyers asserting claims based on control theories. Franchisors should continue to review their business models and business practices (training, technology and field support) to ensure they are not involved in the exercise of control over a franchisee’s employees. Franchisors also should appropriately address these issues in their franchise agreements and operations manuals.

In sum, the NLRB’s new joint employer test is a win for employers, returning the NLRB’s joint-employer status jurisprudence to the narrower direct and actual control standard. Under this new test, contractors and franchisors who do not want to become joint employers should be careful to avoid exercising direct control over another employer’s employees’ terms and conditions of employment, including wages and benefits. The new rule’s clarity allows businesses to know where they stand as a potential joint employer and to prepare accordingly.

© 2020 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved.

For more on NLRB decisions, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

Mitigating Payment Fraud Risks

For businesses that thrive on person-to-person transactions, cash is quickly being replaced by cards, as well as tap-to-pay systems, mobile wallets and QR-based payment systems. These technologies will continue to dominate the market in the near future, but the long-term future of the payment card industry will likely be shaped by the impact of blockchain and artificial intelligence. These developments will eventually also impact risk management, marketing and financial planning, as they present opportunities for serious risks, including fraud. Hence, it is imperative for risk management professionals to plan for these short- and long-term changes in the industry.

Strong risk monitoring requires proactively assessing threats and planning mitigation measures to minimize risk impact on the company or organization. To help mitigate payment fraud risks, businesses can take the following steps:

Train your Employees Regularly

The more regularly you train your employees, the more likely are they to spot suspicious behavior, no matter what payment technology the business uses. Repeated and regular trainings are essential because employees tend to forget what they have learned with time. These training workshops should teach the workers to never accept damaged cards from customers, confirm customer identities, and never enter a card number manually.

Use Contactless and EMV-Enabled Terminals

As payment technology changes, businesses must evaluate what options are safest and least prone to fraud. Currently, businesses should use EMV (short for Europay, Mastercard and Visa), which involves chips embedded into payment cards—a significant step in making transactions safer. The introduction and adoption of EMV-enabled secure terminals, particularly when using PIN and EMV security together, has helped merchants and customers prevent fraudulent transactions.

Contactless smartcards such as chip and magnetic stripe cards use contactless payment, which can present another secure way to process transactions. Most EMV terminals are also enabled with contactless payment. At such terminals, a fast and secure transaction is possible using Near Field Communication (NFC) or Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) via smartcard or smartphone. If a merchant chooses to use contactless payment without PIN, they can put a limit to the amount spent on each contactless transaction to further minimize risk.

Beware Uncommon Transactions

Transactions that involve unusually large purchases could be a sign of potential fraud. Businesses should examine such transactions closely and confirm the identity of the customer. Similarly, if several purchases are made with a card in a short timeframe, it could indicate that the card was stolen and being used by someone other than the owner.

Maintain Online Security

As merchants and consumers shift to contactless and EMV-enabled point of sale terminals, risk has shifted towards online transactions. To mitigate this risk, it is important for online businesses to use the Address Verification Service (AVS), which verifies that the billing information matches the one registered with the card issuer. Vendors should also ask for Card Verification Value 2 (CVV2) to verify that the user has the card in hand when placing the order. Another important check is to put a limit on an IP address for the number of cards it can use for online transactions.

Prevent Employee Fraud

Employee fraud is always a major concern for risk management professionals.  Businesses should remember to keep an eye on credit card activity, particularly returns, as employee theft often shows up in fake discounts or returns. Companies should create alerts that set limits on returns at stores and notify management any time those limits are exceeded.

 

Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2020 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

New NLRB Rule Defining Joint-Employer Status to Take Effect

The National Labor Relations Board has announced the issuance of its final rule governing joint-employer status. The new rule, which was first proposed in September 2018 and has been the subject of extensive public comment, will become effective April 27, 2020.

The critical elements for finding a joint-employer relationship under the new rule is the possession and the exercise of substantial direct and immediate control over the terms and conditions of employment of those employed by another employer.  The essence of the new rule is described in the Board’s February 25, 2020 press release:

To be a joint employer under the final rule, a business must possess and exercise substantial direct and immediate control over one or more essential terms and conditions of employment of another employer’s employees. The final rule defines key terms, including what are considered “essential terms and conditions of employment,” and what does, and what does not, constitute “direct and immediate control” as to each of these essential employment terms. The final rule also defines what constitutes “substantial” direct and immediate control and makes clear that control exercised on a sporadic, isolated, or de minimis basis is not “substantial.”

Evidence of indirect and/or contractually reserved control over essential employment terms may be a consideration for finding joint-employer status under the final rule, but it cannot give rise to such status without substantial direct and immediate control. Importantly, the final rule also makes clear that the routine elements of an arm’s-length contract cannot turn a contractor into a joint employer.

The new rule marks a return to a standard similar to that which the Board followed from 1984 until 2015.  In 2015, in Browning-Ferris Industries, the Board adopted a much more liberal test under which a finding that the putative joint employer possessed indirect influence and the ability (including through a reserved contractual right) to influence terms and conditions, regardless of whether the putative joint employer actually exercised such influence or control, could result in it being held to be a joint-employer of a second employer’s employee.

As a practical matter, the standard under the Board’s new rule should make it much more difficult to establish that a company is a joint-employer of a supplier, contractor, franchisee, or other company’s employees. The new rule will mean that a party claiming joint-employer status to exist will need to demonstrate with evidence that the putative joint-employer doesn’t just have a theoretical right to influence the other employer’s employees’ terms and conditions of employment, but that it has actually exercised that right in a substantial, direct and immediate manner.

This new rule is likely to make it much more difficult for unions to successfully claim that franchisors are joint-employers with their franchisees, and that companies are joint-employers of personnel employed by their contractors and contract suppliers of labor, such as leasing and temporary agencies.

©2020 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

For more on the Joint-Employer Rule see the National Law Review Labor & Employment Law section.

Sticks and Stones May Break Bones, But Words May Constitute Unlawful Discrimination

In recent months, there have been several news stories about the legal implications of inappropriate and/or offensive language in our society, generating discussion about whether such language is, or should be, unlawful in certain circumstances.  This past fall, the Massachusetts Legislature held a committee hearing on a widely-publicized bill which sought to penalize the use of “bitch,” by imposing a fine of up to $200 for any person who “uses the word ‘bitch’ directed at another person to accost, annoy, degrade or demean” another person.

While this proposed legislation, fraught with Constitutional issues involving the exercise of free speech, was largely decried and gained no traction, it does highlight an important question: In what circumstances may offensive and demeaning comments constitute unlawful discrimination?  In fact, in January, Chief Justice John Roberts, during oral arguments in Babbe v. Wilkie, asked the hypothetical question whether the phrase “OK Boomer” would qualify as age discrimination.

The answer to Chief Justice Robert’s question is not a bright-line “yes” or “no.” Context matters. For example, in connection with a hostile work environment claim, one of the central legal issues is whether the conduct in question was severe or pervasive. As a general rule, a single, isolated comment will not be actionable as creating a hostile work environment, but in some instances, it may. See Augis Corp. v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 398, 408-409 (2009) (noting that a supervisor who calls a black subordinate a f***ing n***** “has engaged in conduct so powerfully offensive that the MCAD can properly base liability on a single instance”).

Courts do not impose a numerosity test. Rather, the legal analysis is focused on whether the discriminatory comments “intimidated, humiliated, and stigmatized” the employee in such a way as to pose a “formidable barrier to the full participation of an individual in the workplace.” See Thomas O’Connor Constructors, Inc. v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 549, 560–61(2008); Chery v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 98 F. Supp. 3d 179, 193 (D. Mass. 2015) (noting that, in the context of a hostile work environment based upon race, “[i]t is beyond question that the use of the [“N” word] is highly offensive and demeaning, evoking a history of racial violence, brutality, and subordination”).

Similarly, in the context of a disparate treatment claim (e.g., allegations that employee was terminated based on unlawful age bias), evidence that the decision-maker referred to the employee as a “Boomer” should not be evaluated in a legal vacuum. Rather, this evidence may be presented to the jury as just one piece of a “convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence” from which a fact-finder could properly determine that the termination decision was driven by discriminatory animus based upon age. See Burns v. Johnson, 829 F.3d 1, 16 (1st Cir. 2016).

So, while sticks and stones may break bones, words also do harm and depending upon the circumstances, may result in legal claims and liability.

© 2020 SHERIN AND LODGEN LLP

For more on Free Speech, see the National Law Review Constitutional Law section.

EMPLOYERS BEWARE: $2.4M Jury Verdict Serves as a Reminder of the Duty Employers Owe to Their Employees

A recent New Jersey Superior Court case involving PNC Bank as a defendant should serve as an eye-opening reminder to all employers that it has a duty to maintain a safe and healthy workplace for all employees, free from harassment, discrimination and any other tort or prohibited conduct. Notably, this duty to maintain a safe and healthy workplace not only applies to the eradication of wrongdoing by employees, but also affords protection to employees from improper acts of non-employees such as customers, clients, vendors, independent contractors, etc.

Following a jury trial in Essex County, PNC Bank was deemed liable in the amount of $2.4 million in damages, consisting of both back and front pay, as well as past and future emotional distress damages, awarded to a former employee who claimed she was the victim of a sexual assault/gender discrimination by a bank customer in 2013. The Plaintiff argued that the customer in question was known by the Bank to have groped and harassed others in the past, yet the Bank did not take the appropriate, remedial measures to ensure her safety and prevent it from happening again.

Although the Bank claims that it had no such knowledge of the prior bad acts of the customer and had no way of knowing any such assault would occur towards the Plaintiff, the jury clearly did not accept that defense.

This case is yet another example on how important it is to have a well-established and widely distributed anti-harassment and discrimination policy and training for all staff in the workplace, applicable to all those susceptible to harassment or discrimination in the workplace, whether it be by fellow employees or otherwise, such as customers or guests.

© 2020 Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C. All Rights Reserved

For more about employer responsibilities, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

Coronavirus: Employers Should Plan, Not Panic

Coronavirus, whose formal name is COVID-19, has been the subject of much media attention since the first outbreak in Wuhan, China, late last year.  Just like recent outbreaks of the swine flu, the avian flu, SARS and the West Nile virus, each new “bug” creates fear surrounding a previously unknown threat.  While there are tens of thousands of cases in China, as of February 19, 2020, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were 15 confirmed cases of coronavirus in the U.S.  The confirmed cases were limited to seven states located on the perimeter of the country.

According to the CDC, coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that are common in many different species of animals, including camels, cattle, cats and bats. Rarely, animal coronaviruses can infect and then spread between people.

To put the current coronavirus outbreak in context, the CDC estimates there have been between 26 MILLION and 36 MILLION cases of flu in the U.S. this season and an estimated 15,000 to 36,000 deaths.  In fact, this year’s flu season is the worst in almost 20 years.  While the majority of these deaths and hospitalizations have occurred in people over age 65, this year’s flu has impacted children and younger adults in greater numbers than usual.

While no one knows for sure the extent to which the coronavirus will take hold in the U.S., employers should take steps now to plan ahead so that they will be able to maintain normal business operations.  The challenges for any business facing coronavirus or any other disease outbreak involve a multitude of conflicting legal obligations.  Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and similar state laws, employers have a general duty and obligation to provide a safe and healthy work environment, even when the work occurs outside the employer’s physical premises. Furthermore, under these health and safety laws, employers must not place their employees in situations that are likely to cause serious physical harm or death.

Conversely, overreacting by implementing broad-based bans and making business decisions about employees that are not based on statistical realities could get an employer sued under laws that prohibit discrimination based upon disability (perceived or real) and national origin discrimination, among others.

Properly planning for and implementing plans to deal with the coronavirus is legally and operationally complex.  Listing all of the considerations for such plans are too numerous for this brief blog article. By way of example, employers who have operations in Hubei Province in China, the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak, will face far more difficult and complex challenges than an employer with a single facility in the middle of the U.S.  However, at a minimum here are some things every business should be doing:

  • If you have not already done so, institute a ban on all business travel to China.  This may be a moot point given the cancellation of most flights into and out of mainland China.  Under the circumstances, it is also totally appropriate to require that any of your employees who choose to travel to China for personal reasons notify a designated company official and let the official know of their plans.

  • If employees must use a company-designated travel agent to arrange business travel, get the agent to provide reports on all international business travel.  But don’t overreact and implement a broad-based travel ban to countries that do not pose a risk of harm.  However, if an employee expresses fear of any international travel, have a rational discussion and review the relevant outbreak statistics to see if those fears are real or inflated.  Even if fears are irrational, consider the negative impact on employee morale by forcing someone to travel.

  • Designate a management official to check the CDC website daily to see the latest tracking of the virus’ spread.  This person should be the in-house resource and should be involved in ban or no-ban decisions.

  • If an employee has been to a real coronavirus “hotspot,” consider making him or her stay home for the full 14-day incubation period.  Whether employees work remotely or do not work, the decision whether they should be paid to stay home during this time is an individualized determination.  However, employers need to be flexible and should consider bending the rules if they want to appear humane and seriously concerned about health issues.  If employers force someone to stay home for two weeks without pay or make them use precious PTO, they may push people to hide where they have been, which will defeat planning to ensure that management is taking all reasonable steps to prevent the spread through the workplace.

  • Do not panic or overreact but rather engage in sound business contingency planning.  Begin by developing contingency plans based upon the industry you are in, the size of your business and how you will operate in the event absenteeism rates greatly exceed those of a normal flu season.

  • Use this opportunity to communicate with your employees about seasonal flu prevention strategies, such as minimizing contact and engaging in sound hygiene and sanitation.  As the statistics above demonstrate, seasonal flu poses a far greater and more immediate threat to your employees’ health than does the coronavirus.

  • Develop a plan for communicating with your employees if a major pandemic breaks out, regardless of where they are located, including the workplace, at home or on the road.
    Regardless of how bad things may get, it is important that management not panic or overreact.  Plan for worst case scenarios now so you can effectively respond to what will likely be a rapidly changing situation. To do this, your management should anticipate and prepare for how you will answer the plethora of questions that will almost certainly be raised.

Proper planning for and dealing with individualized employee situations implicates a whole range of employment laws, such as ADA, GINA, OSHA, Title VII, ERISA, as does the nature of your business.  To deal with these legal issues, you should consult with your attorney.

Finally, there are a variety of web-based resources available to assist you in planning, preparation, and monitoring the spread of the coronavirus on a global basis, including the CDC at www.cdc.gov, OSHA at https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/covid-19/, and the World Health Organization https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019.

© 2020 Foley & Lardner LLP

For more on the coronavirus see the National Law Review Health Law & Managed Care section.

An Overview of STEM OPT Employer Site Visits

Employers who have employed F-1 students in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) category of the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program can expect site visits by the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). The March 2016 STEM OPT rule allows the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to conduct site visits of employers that train STEM OPT students.

Conducting Site Visits

The site visits are aimed to ensure that STEM OPT students are in compliance with the OPT program rules. Employers must engage the students in a structured, work-based learning experience consistent with the practical training and other information provided in Form I-983 – Training Plan for STEM OPT students. Employers will receive prior notification of such visit and the DHS will then assess if the program mentoring is working for both the student and employer.

The DHS is looking to verify if the employer has enough supervisory personnel to effectively maintain the program. The DHS might first request information through phone or email and conduct a site visit right after giving notice or do so later.  The DHS may ask employers to provide evidence that they use to assess the wages of similarly situated U.S. workers. The DHS will maintain all the information that is obtained during a site visit.

Consequences of Site Visits

The DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will be overseeing employer location site visits. The DHS may refer matters to the U.S. Department of Labor or any other appropriate federal agency if the site visit warrants such referral.

If the DHS determines that an employee or student needs to update or clarify any information, the DHS will send a request in writing to the employer on how they should provide that necessary information.

Preparation for Students and School Officials

Students and Designated School Officials (DSO) must be prepared in anticipation of these upcoming site visits. Students must update their information in the SEVP portal or report updates to their school officials to make sure that their employer information and home addresses are up-to-date. Students must also be careful to update the address and name of the employer’s location where they are working. DSOs should also be prepared to provide the student’s up-to-date Form I-983 if requested.

Preparation for Employers

Now will be a good time for the employers to ensure that Form I-983 is updated and to ensure that the student’s training complies with the training plan. Also, to designate a company representative and train them on how to handle any such site visits by ICE. Employers must also maintain audit files containing all relevant STEM OPT form copies and supporting documents.

©2020 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved

For more on DHS STEM OPT visits, see the National Law Review Immigration law sections.

Love at Work: 5 Things for Employers to Know

Workplace romances are inevitable. According to a recent survey by the Society for Human Resource Management, one out of every three American adults is or has previously been in a workplace romance. Given this reality, coupled with the #MeToo movement and the resulting renewed emphasis on preventing workplace sexual harassment, it is important to have a basic understanding of the key practical and legal issues surrounding workplace relationships. Below are answers to five common questions.

1. Is workplace romance unlawful?

No. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the primary federal law governing sexual harassment in the workplace. Two coworkers having a consensual romantic relationship does not, by itself, violate Title VII. Legal and/or employee relations issues can arise, for example, when romantic relationships involve supervisors and subordinates, when a romance “goes bad,” when there are concerns with favoritism, or when two coworkers bring their romance into the workplace in a way that makes others uncomfortable.

2. When does a workplace romance cross the line?

It is impossible to identify all behaviors that may violate Title VII. Fundamentally, the statute prevents harassment because of a person’s sex. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), “[u]nwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual’s employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.”

Harassment can include offensive remarks or physical behavior. While Title VII does not generally prevent teasing, offhand comments, or other isolated incidents, such behavior can rise to the level of harassment if it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile work environment. The harasser can be a supervisor, an agent of an employer, a coworker, or even a nonemployee. The victim of sexual harassment can be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.

3. Aren’t some workplace relationships beneficial?

Yes. Research has shown that, generally, employees who form genuine relationships with their coworkers and supervisors are happier and more engaged at work, and less likely to leave for another company. Many employers encourage connections between supervisors and subordinates to improve workplace culture. The concept of a “work spouse,” referring to a coworker with whom an employee has a close personal relationship, is increasingly common given the amount of time many employees spend in the workplace. Studies suggest that this kind of tight bond can increase employee motivation, productivity, and retention. Workplace relationships can, however, become the source of legal or practical woes if boundaries are crossed.

4. What can employers do?

Most employers have sexual harassment policies outlining their expectations regarding behavior in the workplace. Employers may also want to provide regular training relating to those policies—in some states, such as California, Connecticut, Illinois, and New York, such training is required. In addition, given the risks relating to workplace romance, employers may also want to consider implementing policies outlining employee conduct expectations related to romantic relationships with coworkers or even third parties, such as vendor employees. There are a variety of permutations to such policies, and some employers prohibit romantic relationships altogether. Others prohibit only romantic relationships between employees and their supervisors. Sometimes, such policies identify the situations in which romantic relationships are permitted (e.g., employees working in different departments) or the potential consequences of romantic relationships (e.g., an employee’s being transferred or having his or her employment terminated).

5. What is a “love contract”?

With a workplace romance, particularly one involving a supervisor and subordinate, there is some risk that an employee may allege that a relationship was involuntary. To mitigate that risk, some employers require employees to disclose any workplace romance and enter into a consensual relationship agreement, commonly called a “love contract.” A love contract is a written acknowledgment signed by both employees involved in a relationship confirming the voluntary and mutual nature of the relationship. Generally, a love contract states that both employees have received, read, and understood the company’s anti-harassment policy and that the relationship does not violate the policy. Love contracts can be perceived negatively by employees, so it is prudent to carefully consider their pros and cons.

© 2020, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

For more on HR-related concerns, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

No Relief in Sight for NJ Employers: Six Newly-Enacted State Employment Laws to Tackle

On January 21, 2020, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed five employee-friendly bills into law, including statutorily mandated requirements that increase penalties on employers that misclassify workers and obligate employers to pay severance to workers impacted by mass layoffs. Also, on December 19, 2019, the Governor signed the “Create a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair Act” (“CROWN Act”), which clarifies that discrimination based on hair textures and styles violates the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”).

In line with states like California and New York, the enactment of these new laws places New Jersey among a handful of states that provide markedly heightened protections for employees. The amalgamation of these new laws dramatically expands employee rights in the workplace.

Increased Employer Fines for Misclassification

Effective immediately, A.B. 5839 authorizes the state’s Department of Labor and Workforce Development to assess fines against employers for misclassifying workers. Under the new law, New Jersey employers or staffing agencies that misclassify workers may be issued up to a $250 fine per employee for the first violation and up to $1,000 per employee for subsequent violations. The amount of the penalty to be assessed will depend on such factors as the history of prior violations, the severity of the violation, the size of the employer’s business and the good faith of the employer. In addition, an employer found to have misclassified a worker may have to pay a fine to the misclassified worker of up to 5% of their gross earnings over the previous year.

New Employer Posting Requirement

Effective March 1, 2020, A.B. 5843 requires employers to post a conspicuous notice regarding employee misclassification. The New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development will issue a form of notice, which will include a prohibition on misclassification, description of what constitutes worker misclassification, employee rights and remedies, and the process for reporting employer misclassifications.

In addition, the newly enacted statute prohibits employer retaliation against workers who make complaints about potential unlawful employee misclassifications. Employer retaliation carries a fine of $100 to $1,000 for each offense, and employees found to be terminated in retaliation for such protected conduct are entitled to reinstatement in addition to back pay and legal fees.

Managers Potentially on the Hook

Effective immediately, A.B. 5840 amends New Jersey’s recently passed Wage Theft Act and provides that employers and labor contractors will be jointly and severally liable for state wage and hour law violations and tax law violations, including with respect to worker misclassifications. The law broadly provides that any person acting on “behalf of an employer,” including an owner, director, officer or manager of the employer, may be held liable as the employer.

Business Shutdowns for Violations

Effective immediately, A.B. 5838 permits state regulators to issue “stop-work orders” upon seven days’ advance notice to sites where employers are found to have violated state wage, benefits, or tax laws, subjecting employers to a steep penalty of $5,000 per day against an employer for each day that it conducts business operations that are in violation of the stop-work order.

The law gives the state’s Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development the authority to issue stop-work orders requiring cessation of all business operations at the specific place of business where any wage, benefit, or employment tax law violation is found. Employers subject to a stop-work order will have 72 hours following receipt of the order to exercise their right to make a written appeal to contest the stop-work order. Importantly, while employers may appeal the finding, that process may take weeks, risking potentially large losses for the implicated business.

Severance for Mass Layoffs

Effective July 19, 2020, S.B. 3170 dramatically amends the New Jersey state WARN Act in several significant respects. In the event of a covered mass layoff or termination or transfer of operations, the amendment increases the advance notice required to affected employees from 60 days to 90 days. New Jersey was previously aligned with the federal WARN Act which requires 60 days in advance of certain mass layoffs or plant closings. With respect to the length of notice now required in New Jersey, the new 90- day prior notice period mirrors New York State’s advance notice requirement, though threshold standards defining when notice must be given under these statutes differ. Upon the effective date, New Jersey employers now will need to consider two different statutory schemes to determine to what extent advance notice is required.

The amendment requires covered employers to provide severance pay to employees when there is a mass layoff or termination/transfer or operations impacting at least 50 full-time workers laid off in a 30-day period. Under the statute, severance is calculated at one week’s pay for each full year the worker has been employed and is required even when the requisite notice has been provided. In addition, when an employer fails to meet its advance notice mandate, the new law requires employers to give affected employees an additional four weeks of severance pay. In contrast, severance is currently a penalty for non-compliance with the New Jersey WARN Act.

Further, the required severance must be paid to the affected employee at the same time as the final paycheck. The severance cannot be used as consideration to negotiate a general release of claims from the terminated employee. Employers can, however, obtain a release of claims where additional consideration is offered to the impacted employee for that specific purpose.

The Crown Act

S.B. 3945 amends the LAD to clarify that race discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of “traits historically associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture, hair type, and protective hairstyles.” Governor Murphy enacted the CROWN Act exactly one year after an incident involving an African-American high school wrestler who was forced to cut off his locks in order to compete in a match. The wrestling incident prompted the introduction of S.B. 3945 and garnered widespread media attention. We reported on the CROWN Act in detail in our October 2019 alert. Effective immediately, the CROWN Act codifies guidance issued by the New Jersey’s Division on Civil Rights (DCR) stating that the DCR considered “hairstyles closely associated with Black people,” such as “twists, braids, cornrows, Afros, locks, Bantu knots, and fades” to be included in the definition of racial characteristics protected under the LAD.

New Jersey has become the third state to ban discrimination based on natural hair and hairstyles, following New York (effective on July 12, 2019) and California (effective on January 1, 2020). The New York City Commission on Human Rights issued similar guidance in February 2019 that clarifies that the New York City Human Rights Law includes discrimination based on natural hair and hairstyles as a form of race discrimination. Several other states and municipalities have similar legislation pending. Also, Senator Cory Booker introduced federal legislation on December 5, 2019 that would ban discrimination based on hair textures and hairstyles that are commonly associated with a particular race or national origin, and Representative Cedric Richmond introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

Takeaways:

New Jersey continues to take steps to dramatically increase employee rights in the workplace. New Jersey employers should take appropriate measures now to ensure that (i) owners, directors, officers, managers, and others involved in the process of classifying workers are mindful of the new employee classification requirements for businesses and their potential exposure based on individual liability for misclassifications, (ii) their businesses are compliant with new posting requirements regarding New Jersey’s recently passed employee misclassification laws, and (iii) managers and supervisors are trained on the new retaliation protections afforded employees who report alleged violations concerning employee misclassification.

New Jersey employers also should review their grooming policies to determine whether they discourage natural hairstyles and hair textures, and determine whether any policies pertaining to appearance or aesthetics implicate any other proxies to race. With similar laws in other states, like New York, and pending elsewhere, employers across the nation should review their policies regarding grooming, appearance and aesthetics.

Lastly, the amendments to the New Jersey WARN Act will require careful analysis to determine an employer’s obligations and to minimize risks in connection with a mass layoff or transfer/termination of operations. The new severance obligations undoubtedly will impose substantial financial burdens on employers who have made the decision to reduce costs and/or operations.

© Copyright 2020 Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.

For more on employment laws in New Jersey and elsewhere, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.

Federal Court Preliminary Enjoins Enforcement of New California Arbitration Law AB 51

On Friday, January 31, 2020, Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the federal District Court for the Eastern District of California issued a Preliminary Injunction (PI) against the State of California, enjoining the State from enforcing Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51) with respect to mandatory arbitration agreements in employment to the extent governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).1

As discussed in the Vedder Price employment law alert, TRO Halts New Arbitration Law AB 51, the District Court had previously issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on December 30, 2019 temporarily enjoining enforcement of AB 51 pending a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for January 10, 2020. The Court subsequently continued the January 10 hearing and extended the TRO until January 31 to allow the parties time to submit supplemental briefing. AB 51, the new California law previously slated to take effect on January 1, 2020, purportedly prohibited employers from requiring applicants or employees in California to agree, as a condition of employment, continued employment, or the receipt of any employment-related benefit, to arbitrate claims involving violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) or the California Labor Code. AB 51 did not specifically mention “arbitration” but instead broadly applied to the waiver of “any right, forum, or procedure for a violation of [the FEHA or Labor Code], including the right to file and pursue a civil action.”

In issuing the PI, the District Court specifically: (a) enjoined the State from enforcing sections 432.6(a), (b), and (c) of the California Labor Code where the alleged “waiver of any right, forum, or procedure” is the entry into an arbitration agreement covered by the FAA2; and (b) enjoined the State from enforcing Section 12953 of the California Government Code [FEHA] where the alleged violation of “Section 432.6 of the Labor Code” is entering into an arbitration agreement covered by the FAA.

The PI will remain in place pending a final judgment, which would likely occur following a motion for summary judgment rather than a full trial on the merits since there are no material facts in dispute to be tried. However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), an order granting a preliminary injunction is immediately appealable. Accordingly, it is likely that the State of California will file an immediate appeal directly with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In the interim, based on this PI, employers should feel comfortable in continuing to require employees in California to sign mandatory arbitration agreements as a condition of employment without being subjected to criminal prosecution under AB 51, provided that the arbitration agreement is clearly governed by the FAA. Employers are encouraged to consult with legal counsel to ensure compliance in this regard.

1 See Chamber of Commerce of U.S., et al. v. Xavier Becerra, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-02456-KJM-DB, Dkt. No. 44 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2020).

2 Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16

© 2020 Vedder Price

For more on recent employment law litigation in California and elsewhere, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.