Category: Labor & Employment

Can an Employer Implement a Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy?— It Depends on State Law (US)

Nicotine products are highly addictive and have been linked to a variety of serious health issues, including lung cancer and other respiratory illnesses.  In addition to the numerous health risks associated with nicotine use, there is also a causal connection between employee nicotine use and lower productivity in the workplace, as well as higher healthcare costs for employers.  In response to these issues, and in an effort to promote and empower a healthy workforce, more employers are enacting health-conscious workplace policies and anti-smoking/vaping initiatives.

In fact, over the last decade, employers—particularly hospitals and businesses in the medical field—have adopted anti-smoking/vaping policies in those states in which it is lawful to do so, with the goal of encouraging a more healthy work environment, as well as to increase worker productivity and reduce healthcare costs.  As the health risks associated with nicotine use become increasingly apparent (particularly with the recent wave of vaping-related illnesses), it is likely that more employers will consider their policies toward these important health issues. For example, on December 30, 2019, U-Haul International announced a new nicotine-free hiring policy that will go into effect in 21 states on February 1, 2020.  Although U-Haul subsidiaries operate in all 50 US states and 10 Canadian provinces, due to legal restrictions in some jurisdictions, the policy will be implemented only in the following 21 US states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.  Prospective employees in those states will see statements regarding the nicotine-free hiring policy on application materials and will be questioned about nicotine use. Further, to be considered for employment in states where nicotine testing is allowed, applicants will be required to consent to submit to nicotine screening in the future.  U-Haul employees hired prior to February 1, 2020 will not be affected by the new policy.

U-Haul will be the first major company in its field to refuse to hire applicants who are nicotine users, and the new policy has caused some to question whether companies which, like U-Haul, are deeply invested in the well-being of their employees, are allowed to enact such policies.  The answer to that question depends on the jurisdiction in which the company operates.  Nicotine users are not a “protected class” under any federal anti-discrimination law, and thus state law governs this issue.  In each of the 21 states in which U-Haul companies will implement its policy, there are no laws that protect the rights of nicotine-users or prohibit employers from declining to hire applicants due to their engaging in otherwise lawful conduct outside the workplace.  Therefore, a policy refusing to hire nicotine users is perfectly legal in those jurisdictions, and employers in those states are free to enact nicotine-free hiring policies if they so choose.

However, employers who are considering implementing such nicotine-free hiring policies should tread carefully.  The rest of the 29 states where U-Haul subsidiaries are not implementing its policy (and the District of Columbia) have various anti-discrimination or employee privacy laws preventing employers from enacting such policies.  These states provide varying degrees of protection to employees.  For example, some states broadly forbid employers from discriminating against applicants or employees based on the use of “lawful products” or for “lawful conduct,” whereas other state laws specifically protect an applicant’s or employee’s right to smoke or use other tobacco products.  Although these states are generally more employee-friendly in this context, in some of these jurisdictions, employers can require smokers to pay higher health insurance premiums, so long as the additional amount reflects the actual differential cost to the employer.  Further, employers can still regulate and limit an employee’s on-site smoking, and can typically offer financial incentives for employees who participate in wellness programs to help them quit smoking.

Given the state-specific nuances associated with this issue, employers thinking about implementing a nicotine-free hiring policy should consult with an attorney before implementing such a policy to ensure it may lawfully do so.

© Copyright 2020 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

For more on employers’ healthy-workplace initiatives, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

Employee Video Surveillance: Position of the European Court of Human Rights

On October 17, 2019, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) approved the installation of a Closed-Circuit Television (“CCTV”) surveillance system which was used to monitor supermarket cashiers without informing those employees of the fact that it had been installed.

In this case, a Spanish supermarket manager decided to install cameras in the supermarket because of suspected thefts. He installed (i) visible cameras pointing at the supermarket’s entrance and exit of which he had informed the staff and (ii) hidden cameras pointing at the cash registers of which neither employees nor staff representatives had been informed.

The hidden cameras revealed that thefts were being committed by several employees at the cash registers. The concerned employees were dismissed. Some of them brought an action before the Spanish Labor court arguing that the use of CCTV without their prior knowledge was a breach to their right to privacy and that such evidence could not be admitted in the dismissal procedure.

Like French law, Spanish law requires the person responsible for a CCTV system to inform the concerned employees of the existence, purpose, and methods of the collection of their personal data, prior to implementation of the system.

The case was brought before the ECHR, which gave a first decision on January 9, 2018, concluding that Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, relating to the right to privacy, had been breached. The case was then referred to the Grand Chamber.

The issue raised was to find the proportionality and the balance between (i) the reasons justifying the implementation of a CCTV system (i.e., the right of the employer to ensure the protection of its property and the proper functioning of its business) and (ii) the employees’ right to privacy.

The ECHR stated that “domestic courts must ensure that the introduction by an employer of surveillance measures that infringe the employees’ privacy rights is proportionate and is implemented with adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse”, referring to its previous case law [1].

The ECHR considered that in order to ensure the proportionality of CCTV measures in the workplace, domestic courts should take into account the following factors when balancing the interests involved:

  1. Has the employee been informed of the possibility of being subject to a video surveillance measure?
  2. What is the extent of the video surveillance and what is the degree of intrusion into the employee’s private life?
  3. Has the use of video surveillance been justified by the employer on legitimate grounds?
  4. Was there an alternative surveillance system based on less intrusive means and measures available to the employer?
  5. What were the consequences of the surveillance for the employee who was subject to it?
  6. Was the employee concerned by the video surveillance measure offered adequate guarantees?

Therefore, prior notification to the employees is only one of the criteria taken into account in the balance of interests.

In this particular case, the ECHR approved the examination of proportionality of the video surveillance measure. The Judges decided that despite the lack of prior notification to the employees, the CCTV was (i) justified by suspicions of theft, (ii) limited in space (only a few checkout counters), and (iii) limited in time (10 days). The Court also noted that very few people watched the recordings and then concluded that the degree of intrusion into the employees’ privacy was limited.

Consequently, the Grand Chamber considered that there was no violation of the employees’ privacy rights.

Although this decision does not directly concern France, it remains very interesting since French regulations (i.e., the Data Protection Act, the General Data Protection Regulations, and the Labor Code) provide:

  • that the monitoring measures implemented by an employer must not impose restrictions on the employees’ rights and freedoms which would neither be proportionate nor justified by the nature of the task to be performed (Article L. 1121-1 of the Labor Code); and
  • that concerned employees and staff representatives must be informed prior to the implementation of a video surveillance system (Article L. 1222-4 of the Labor Code).

According to French case law, any system that is not compliant with the above is considered illicit and the information collected could not be used as evidence of an employee’s misconduct [2].

The ECHR’s decision seems to challenge French case law: where the absence of prior notification to employees is considered as an overwhelming obstacle by French judges, the ECHR considers that it is merely one of the several criteria to be taken into account to assess the proportionality of the infringement to the employee’s right to privacy.

The question that remains is: what will be the impact of the ECHR’s decision in France?

NOTES

[1] ECHR, Grand Chamber, September 5, 2017, n°641996/08, Bărbulescu c. Roumanie; ECHR, decision, October 5, 2010, 420/07, Köpke c. Germany.

[2] See French Supreme Court, June 7, 2006, n°04-43866 ; French Supreme Court, September 20, 2018, n°16-26482.

Copyright 2019 K & L Gates

ARTICLE BY Christine Artus of K&L Gates.
For more on employee privacy rights, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment Law section.

SECURE Act Brings About Significant Changes to IRAs

As we reach the end of 2019 and prepare to flip the calendar to 2020, Congress and the president have finally passed the SECURE (Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement) Act. The act brings about significant changes to federal tax law impacting individuals and business owners alike. Here are some of the law’s most significant provisions:

Removes Some Stretch Distributions for Inherited IRAs

This is a long-expected change that significantly impacts what an IRA beneficiary receives upon the death of the account owner. Under current law, any traditional IRA account owner must begin taking required minimum distributions (RMDs) from the IRA upon reaching age 70½. If the account owner dies after that age, any funds remaining in the IRA at the owner’s death may be inherited, with the RMDs being paid out to the heir over his or her life expectancy in most cases. This stretch enabled a younger beneficiary to grow the inherited IRA substantially (and tax-free), sometimes over many decades.

As a result of the SECURE Act, most beneficiaries will be required to distribute the entirety of an inherited IRA over a 10-year period. The writing has been on the wall since 2014 when the Supreme Court declared that an inherited IRA in the hands a non-spouse beneficiary was not a retirement account in the bankruptcy context (Clark v. Rameker). However, RMDs payable to the following persons still qualify for the stretch:

  • Surviving spouse of an account owner
  • Person who is not more than 10 years younger than the account owner
  • Minor child of the account owner
  • Disabled person
  • Chronically ill person

These new RMD rules apply to retirement accounts whose owners die after December 31, 2019.

Increases RMD Ages

As noted above, under current law, any traditional IRA owner must begin taking RMDs upon reaching age 70½. Under the SECURE Act, this age has been raised to 72, providing for a slightly increased period of tax deferral as well as greater clarity given the lack of half-birthday celebrations.

Removes Age Limitations on Traditional IRA Contributions

Under current law, while an individual could contribute to a Roth IRA without any age restriction, contributions to a traditional IRA were disallowed upon attaining age 70½. As a result of the SECURE Act, any individual may continue contributing to a traditional IRA throughout his/her lifetime with no age restriction.

The benefit of the removal of the contribution age restriction is significantly muted when read in conjunction with the removal of the stretch distributions for non-spousal beneficiaries above. Nevertheless, the removal of age restrictions on contributions presents an attractive tax deferral opportunity for the septuagenarian wage earner with a younger spouse who is named as the IRA’s beneficiary.

Adds Penalty-Free Distributions for Birth of Child or Adoption

As a default rule, withdrawals from retirement accounts prior to age 59 1/2 are subject to income tax on the withdrawn amount plus a 10 percent penalty. The SECURE Act provides a specific carve-out from the penalty if the funds – up to $5,000 – are withdrawn in order to pay expenses associated with a qualified birth or adoption. You’ll still pay income tax on the funds withdrawn but only if they aren’t repaid.

Adds Qualified 529 Plan Expenditures

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act signed into law back in December 2017 permitted 529 account funds to be used for the payment of K-12 education expenses on behalf of the account beneficiary. The SECURE Act further expands the list of permissible uses of 529 funds to include costs associated with registered apprenticeships and student loan repayments.

Unfortunately, Michigan residents are still in a strange limbo with regard to using 529 account funds to pay K-12 education expenses as Michigan has not amended state law in coordination with the change in federal law. As a result, while withdrawals from 529 accounts for K-12 education expenses are explicitly qualified withdrawals under federal tax law, they may or may not be qualified expenses under Michigan state law. This position is further complicated by the presence of the Blaine amendment in Michigan’s constitution requiring that no money be appropriated from the state treasury for the benefit of any religious sect. If the Michigan Department of Revenue determined that withdrawals for the payment of K-12 education expenses were not qualified, any income withdrawn from the 529 account would be subject to income tax as ordinary income along with a 10 percent penalty.

Enhances Small Employer Access to Retirement Plans

Congress previously authorized the creation of the SIMPLE (1996) and SEP (1978) IRAs in an effort to improve access to retirement accounts for small employers. In the SECURE Act, Congress acknowledged that those previous efforts produced some success but left room for improvement. The new law should increase the willingness of small employers to participate in pooled retirement plans by softening the impact for an employer when another employer in a pooled plan fails.

The act also increases the credit for plan start-up costs, which will make it more affordable for small businesses to set up retirement plans. The existing $500 credit is increased by changing its calculation from a flat dollar amount to the greater of (1) $500 or (2) the lesser of (a) $250 multiplied by the number of nonhighly compensated employees of the eligible employer who are eligible to participate in the plan or (b) $5,000.

The SECURE Act will bring about both opportunities and complications for individuals planning their own financial futures as well as employers seeking to maximize their attractiveness to potential employees.

© 2019 Varnum LLP

For more on retirement regulation, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.

Congress (Finally) Passes the SECURE Act

After a delay of several months, Congress passed the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement (SECURE) Act, clearing the way for one of the most substantial pieces of retirement plan legislation in years to become law.

The House of Representatives initially passed the SECURE Act in May by an overwhelming 417−3 vote. Although the Act was set for easy bipartisan passage, it foundered in the Senate. The bill found new life at the eleventh hour of the 2019 legislative session as an attachment to the must-pass $1.4 trillion spending bill, which passed by significant margins.

The SECURE Act brings quite a few changes that will affect both plan sponsors and participants. It is intended to incentivize employers (particularly small businesses) to offer retirement plans, promote additional retirement savings, and enhance retiree financial security, including several provisions that will impact current plan administration. The changes brought by the Act are generally positive in our view, but certain ones will create some new administrative challenges and questions.

Key changes include:

Open Multiple Employer Plans (MEPs)

Among several other MEP-related provisions, the Act provides for the establishment of defined contribution Open MEPs – referred to as “Pooled Plans” – which will be treated as single ERISA plans. Under current law, where a plan is sponsored by a group of employers that are not under common control, the employers must have certain “commonality” of interests, or the arrangement may be treated as multiple component plans for ERISA purposes. Even though the recent Department of Labor regulation on “Association Retirement Plans” relaxed the commonality requirement significantly, a limited commonality requirement nonetheless remained. As a result, Open MEPs (which are generally offered by service providers and open to any employer who wishes to adopt them) remained subject to potential treatment as multiple ERISA plans. In a move largely cheered by the industry, the SECURE Act goes further by abolishing the commonality requirement entirely.

Part-Time Employee Eligibility for 401(k) Plans

Sponsors of 401(k) plans will be required to allow employees who work at least 500 hours during each of three consecutive 12-month periods to make deferral contributions ─ in addition to employees who have satisfied the general “one year of service” requirement by working at least 1,000 hours during one 12-month period. Long-term part-time employees eligible under this provision may be excluded from eligibility for employer contributions, and the Act provides very significant nondiscrimination testing relief with respect to this group. Nonetheless, this is an example of a provision that – while positive in the sense of encouraging additional retirement plan coverage – will nonetheless create new recordkeeping and administrative challenges.

Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs)

The age at which required minimum distributions must commence will be increased to 72 from 70 1/2. This is another example of a helpful change that will nonetheless lead to additional compliance questions.

Increased Tax Credits

The cap on start-up tax credits for establishing a retirement plan will increase to up to $5,000 (depending on certain factors) from $500. Small employers who add automatic enrollment to their plans also may be eligible for an additional $500 tax credit per year for up to three years.

Safe Harbor 401(k) Enhancements

Employers will have more flexibility to add non-elective safe harbor contributions mid-year. Additionally, the Act eliminates the notice requirement for safe harbor plans that make non-elective contributions to employees. The automatic deferral cap for plans that rely on the automatic enrollment safe harbor model (known as the “qualified automatic contribution arrangement” or “QACA” safe harbor) also will increase to 15% from 10%.

Other Retirement Plan Highlights

  • Penalty-free (but of course, not tax-free) retirement plan withdrawals for a birth or adoption.
  • An objective fiduciary safe harbor for the selection of a lifetime income provider is being added to encourage employers to offer in-plan annuity options. The Act also provides for tax-advantaged portability for a lifetime income product from one plan to another or between plans and IRAs to help avoid surrender charges and penalties where the lifetime income product is removed from a particular plan.
  • A separate provision also requires participant lifetime income disclosures illustrating the monthly payments if the participant’s account balance was used to provide lifetime income in an annuity.
  • Nondiscrimination testing relief for some closed defined benefit plans.
  • Certain clarifications relating to the termination of 403(b) custodial accounts and 403(b) retirement income accounts within church-sponsored plans.
  • Increase in penalties for failing to file plan returns on time.

While it is not related directly to employer-sponsored plans, readers may be interested to know that the Act also repeals the maximum age for IRA contributions and eliminates the stretch IRA. As to the latter, non-spouse beneficiaries of inherited IRAs will be required to take their benefits in income on an accelerated basis (as compared with current law) – this will have estate planning implications for individuals and families that should be understood and reviewed.

The SECURE Act is one of the most comprehensive retirement plan reforms in a decade and brings many changes for consideration. Plan sponsors should consider how the SECURE Act will impact the administration of their plans. Employers that do not currently sponsor retirement plans may wish to consider (or reconsider) doing so given the Act’s additional incentives ─ or may consider joining a MEP.

Most provisions of the Act will go into effect on January 1, 2020. In the coming months, it will be necessary to consider its practical effects on plan design and administration, including the interplay between certain of the Act’s provisions and existing regulatory guidance where there is subject-matter overlap.

©2019 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved

More on retirement regulation on the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.

Sexual Harassment Training Becomes Mandatory for All Professionals Licensed by IDFPR

All professionals licensed by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) whose licenses come up for renewal after January 1, 2020 and who must satisfy continuing education requirements need to complete one hour of sexual harassment and prevention training under a law that Governor J.B. Pritzker recently signed.

Health care companies that employ registered nurses, pharmacists, doctors and other health care professionals licensed by IDFPR should start making plans to conduct sexual harassment training to help their employees avoid license renewal issues next year.

Most large and medium-sized corporations have conducted in-house harassment and discrimination training for years. More than 20 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that companies may have an affirmative defense against lawsuits alleging that a supervisor sexually harassed a subordinate if the employer adopted and annually trained its employees on policies that:

  • define the different forms of sexual harassment,

  • detail to whom to report harassment complaints,

  • detail how the company will investigate such complaints, and

  • prohibit retaliation for good-faith reporting of such complaints

After those Supreme Court decisions, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission adopted a similar standard for all forms of illegal discrimination.

The new Illinois law, an outgrowth of the #MeToo movement, governs only sexual harassment, not other forms of discrimination. But smart employers will protect their employees and themselves by combining sexual harassment training with training on other types of discrimination. That approach allows employees to obtain the needed continuing education credits under the new law while simultaneously ensuring that employees understand what constitutes harassment and discrimination, to whom employees can report complaints and how their employers will investigate such complaints.

The new state statute is short on details. It simply says that all professionals who have continuing education requirements and are renewing their licenses after January 1, 2020 need one hour of continuing education credits on sexual harassment. The statute authorizes IDFPR to provide detailed regulations on such training, which IDFPR has not yet done.

© 2019 Much Shelist, P.C.

For more states requiring sexual harassment training, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.

Chicago Workers to Earn $15 Minimum Wage by 2021

On Nov. 26, the Chicago City Council approved Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s proposal to increase the city’s minimum wage from $13 per hour to $15 per hour. This puts the Chicago minimum wage four years ahead of those mandated by the state of Illinois, which will not hit a minimum wage of $15 per hour until 2025. Our previous coverage of the Illinois minimum wage hike cited a 2017 report by the National Employment Law Project finding that 41 percent of all workers in Illinois currently earn less than $15 per hour.

Chicago’s minimum wage will increase in waves, first to $14 per hour on July 1, 2020 and then to $15 per hour on July 1, 2021. After that, it will rise annually with the consumer price index. For tipped workers, sub-minimum wages will increase to $8.40 per hour in 2020, up from the current $6.40 per hour, and to $9 per hour by 2021. Tipped wages will also increase annually after 2021, to remain at 60 percent of the minimum wage.

Mayor Lightfoot stated that these wage increases would address wage stagnation, affecting hundreds of thousands of workers, as the cost of living in Chicago continues to increase. It would likewise eliminate exemptions for disabled workers and minors. Specifically, employers will no longer be able to pay disabled residents below the minimum wage, starting in 2024. Workers below the age of 18 will receive a gradual increase in wages, starting at $10 an hour in 2020 and ultimately reaching $15 an hour by 2024, until the minimum wage exemption for minors is eliminated in 2025.

There is some relief for small employers, as employers with fewer than 20 workers will have until 2023 to increase wages to $15 per hour, and businesses with fewer than four employees are exempt from all increases, with a few exceptions.

Mayor Lightfoot cited support for her proposal from elected officials as well as labor and business leaders, but some employers are concerned that the higher wages will harm their businesses or force them to hire fewer workers. However, Mayor Lightfoot views her proposal as a compromise, as it keeps tipped workers below the minimum wage – a move the restaurant industry applauded. While employers are legally required to pay the difference if an employee’s tips do not add up to the minimum wage, workers’ advocates allege that this does not always happen in practice.

The minimum wage increases in Chicago and Illinois will have far-reaching consequences for employers and employees alike. Employers will need to adjust their budgets and financial projections to prepare for these anticipated wage increases. Employers should also consider reviewing their payroll practices, both to verify they will be paying the appropriate wage and overtime rates for employees affected by the minimum wage increases and to ensure their tipping practices comply with the new law.

© 2019 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

More on minimum wage increases across the US, via the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.

Dealing With “Attitude” at Work, Part 3 – Helping Staff Help Themselves

In the first two posts in this series, I looked at the law around workplace attitudes which might stem from some form of disability. But what if your employee is fit and well in all respects bar being exceptionally painful to work with?

He may be relentlessly negative, make heavy weather out of every instruction, or just operate on a very short fuse, often perfectly civil but prone to detonation when colleagues overstep some clearly very important, but also absolutely invisible, line in their dealings with him. He is, in every sense, grit in the gearbox of your business. But without obvious performance or conduct concerns, what can you do?

Probably the first point is to ascertain whether the employee himself recognises the problems he is causing to his colleagues. This won’t be an easy conversation but it forces him to confront the problem head-on. He may demand to know who has complained and require detailed examples of where others have been offended. By the very nature of a poor attitude, however, individual manifestations of it seem trivial and raising them individually with the employee like a series of miniature disciplinary charges is just going to lead to a precipitous further decline in workplace relationships. So I would suggest in many cases that the attitude issue is put as a collective perception without the identification of either individual complainants or specific examples. This is the view people have on you. You don’t need details of individual complainants or examples to decide whether you recognise that as having any truth in it. If you do accept that there is something in it, you can do something about it. If you can’t/don’t do anything about it, the employer will need to do so instead.

That meeting will best take place in private and without any offer of a companion, so it is not disciplinary action and cannot be relied upon as a warning at a later stage. It is intended to be no more than a word to the wise.

This leaves the employee with some choices. Is he going to be wise or not? If secretly he recognises that this is how he might come across, then without admission and without formal disciplinary proceedings he can amend his behaviours and all will be well at minimum disruption and cost. Alternatively he may flatly deny those behaviours both to you and (more importantly) to himself. However, he will then have to address in his own head the question of why so many of his colleagues say otherwise. Or he may accept the behaviours in broad terms, but allege that they are the product of some treatment he has received from the employer or his colleagues. He withdrew from social interaction with them because they withdrew from such interaction with him, and they did it first, so there. He is being passive-aggressive because they are being aggressive-aggressive. He doesn’t trust them because they didn’t support him about something a long time ago which he has been unable to get over, and so on.

Of course, you can make such a response the subject of a formal grievance and disciplinary process, but this will have more oh yes you did and oh no I didn’t than the average Christmas panto and at the end of it you will find the same two things every time: first, that no one is completely blameless and second, that by conducting the effective artillery duel which those formal procedures encourage, you have converted a relationship which didn’t work very well into one which no longer works at all.

Therefore if you can catch your employee’s attitude issue early enough to avoid having to go through a formal process, why not try to mediate a resolution? Use the safe space created by that process to exchange some views about how each side’s conduct makes the other feel. It may be the first time your employee has heard this “from the heart”. Ideally this should be in non-aggressive terms – “You intimidate me” cries out to be whacked back over the net with added topspin, but “I feel intimidated by you” cannot so easily be argued with because it is about what someone feels, not what someone else did.

You might reasonably expect emotion and tears at such a mediation (dawning self-awareness can be very painful) so it won’t necessarily be an easy process. But at the end, if it works, you will have a newly functioning working relationship and not the cratered and smoking wreckage of what used to be the team spirit.

If it doesn’t work? More next week.

 

See Parts 1 & 2:

© Copyright 2019 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

For more on workplace attitudes, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

End of the Year Bonuses – Do They Have to Be Shared with My Ex?

The end of the year is coming, and for many employees that means end of the year bonuses will be included in their paychecks this month. Many question whether their bonus should be included as “income” for the purpose of support obligations, as well as equitable distribution in the context of a divorce.

A baseball manager from Arizona, Anthony DeFrancesco, recently faced issues surrounding his year-end bonus and how it related to his support obligations. Mr. DeFrancesco, the manager of the Houston Astros AAA minor league team, was given a $28,000 bonus in 2017 when the Astros won the World Series. The Arizona Appeals Court recently found that the bonus was considered a gift, as opposed to earnings, and he did not have to provide a portion of the bonus to his now ex-wife.

This result is not typically what happens in New Jersey when courts consider whether bonuses are a part of income. In the vast majority of cases, bonuses are awarded to employees for their exemplary work during the preceding year, often resulting from meeting specific targets, going above and beyond the work of a typical employee, and sharing in the success of the company without which the company would have not have otherwise reached. While employees are not legally entitled to bonuses in most cases, bonuses are most often the result of the employee’s hard work. Thus, in the eyes of most courts, the bonus was earned. Any earned income is considered by courts when setting support obligations.

In connection with equitable distribution, money that is earned during the marriage is considered an asset of the marital estate. Therefore, even if the complaint for divorce has already been filed, an end-of-year bonus may be considered a part of the marital estate. For example, if a complaint for divorce is filed on July 1, and an employee receives a bonus of $50,000 at the end of the year for work performed during the previous calendar year, half of that bonus would be attributable to time spent during the marriage.

New Jersey is a court of equity. Arguments can be made that bonuses, or portions of bonuses, should or should not be considered for support and equitable distribution purposes.

Several years ago there was a case in New Jersey in which a private company had been working for many years to go public. One of the company officers had been a long-time employee and, in fact, his dedication to the company to the exclusion of all else contributed to the failure of his marriage. Two years after the divorce complaint was filed, the company went public. The SEC filings noted that the employee received a bonus in excess of $1 million for his dedication to the company and work over the last five years. His wife was successful in her application to reopen the divorce and obtain a portion of that payout due to the evidence that it was for work conducted during the course of their marriage. While this case may be unique, it speaks to why each case has to be evaluated on its own merits, and why each case may have a different result.

COPYRIGHT © 2019, STARK & STARK

For more on spousal support obligations, see the National Law Review Family Law, Divorce and Custody law page.

“Presents” of Mind for the Holidays: Six Q&As on Sensible Workplace Gift Giving

‘Tis the season of generosity, random acts of kindness, and selfless gifts. But not all gifts are well received—or positively perceived. In the employment law context, where compliance and best practice remain the watchwords, presents exchanged by colleagues, however well-intentioned, must still pass muster under law and corporate policy. Below are answers to several questions addressing the appropriateness of workplace gifts given during this time of year.

Q: Are there any employment law concerns about gifts given around the holidays—such as gifts with potentially romantic overtones, such as flowers, perfume, or perhaps an invitation to a one-on-one carriage ride—that may give rise to subsequent claims of sexual harassment? Or are such presents innocuous in the holiday season?

A: The nature of the holiday doesn’t change the nature of the gift exchanged between workers (regardless of managerial or non-managerial level). If an item is one that could lead to questions regarding the sender’s motivation (e.g., a veiled romantic overture), it should be avoided. Failing to do so could create misimpressions as to a sender’s true motive or could lead to the perception of favoritism or inappropriate sexual advances.

Q: Managers sometimes are told not to accept gifts from subordinates. Why might accepting presents from subordinates be imprudent? And how might managers tactfully turn down presents from subordinates?

A: Allowing gifts from subordinates may create the false impression that gift-givers are treated differently than non-gift-givers. It also may allow tacit competition concerning who can give the best, most expensive, or most thoughtful gift, and lead to morale problems or discomfort among employees. A considerate way to turn down a gift from a subordinate is to make it known, graciously but unequivocally, prior to the holidays, that gifts will not be accepted. If such a statement seems Scrooge-like, suggesting that an anonymous donation to a charity would be acceptable (rather than a tangible gift to the supervisor) could be an appropriate alternative.

Q: Are there are any issues with employees giving each other religious presents at this time of year? (It is, after all, a religious time of year for many.) In the workplace, might that be problematic? What limits on presents between coworkers might be warranted?

A: Religious gifts should generally be avoided, both at holidays and at other work times. Such gifts could create the impression that one particular religion is more acceptable than others to the gift-giver, and could lead to discomfort in the workplace on that issue.

Other limits on gift giving in the workplace (besides the “romantic” gifts and the religious gifts mentioned previously) could be related to gag gifts concerning protected characteristics—for instance, “over-the-hill” or other age-related gifts or cards, or items that derogate a physical or mental disability. Such gifts could lead inadvertently to claims of discrimination or inappropriate workplace actions.

Q: What about bosses giving presents or holiday cards to employees? Are there any risks with this?

A: This is simply the inverse of the question regarding managers accepting or refusing gifts, and it raises similar issues. Unless a boss is giving a neutral gift (e.g., a one-pound bag of coffee, local history book, or non-religious seasonal card) to every employee, selective gift giving may occasion claims of preferential treatment, discrimination, and/or workplace harassment.

Q: Are limits on gift giving likely to be perceived as not in the holiday spirit? How can an employer enforce these limits without seeming unfestive?

A: While limits on gift giving could be perceived as “not in the holiday spirit,” the risk avoidance element is more critical to employers. There’s often a fine line between limiting the fun associated with the holidays and creating an atmosphere that could encourage inappropriate behavior. The solution is clear, thoughtful communication. It’s OK to tell employees that there’s a limit on gift giving, and that part of the reason is so that no one feels left out or unable to keep up with the level of gifts exchanged. Setting a reasonable limit—either in value or in substance—could allow employees to understand that the employer is doing this thoughtfully, with the best interests of the employees in mind.

Q: What might be some elements of a company gift policy, both during the holidays and at other times of year?

A: A company-wide gift policy, assuming that the employer is not already limited by regulations or laws, would depend upon the nature of the company or work group, the size of the business, and the holiday being celebrated (i.e., is it a religious holiday or, say, an employee’s birthday?). Policies may also address gifts from outside sources, including contractors, customers, lobbyists, and others. Clear rules supported by language explaining the general rationale for the policy can help employees fully understand the restrictions being imposed.

 

© 2019, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.
The author of this article was previously quoted on this topic on SHRM Online.
For more on company policies around the holidays, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.

Employee Advocacy for Nonemployee, Unpaid Interns Is Not Protected by National Labor Relations Act

Unpaid interns are not “employees” as defined by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and employee advocacy on their behalf is not protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the NLRA, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has ruled. Amnesty International of the USA, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 112 (Nov. 12, 2019).

The NLRB also concluded the employer’s expression of frustration and disappointment with its employees’ actions on behalf of the interns was not an unlawful implied threat.

Background

Amnesty International is a nonprofit advocacy organization that typically hires 15 unpaid interns to volunteer each academic semester.

In February 2018, a group of interns, assisted by an employee, circulated a petition requesting the organization pay them for their volunteer work. Nearly all the organization’s employees signed the petition. At the same time, the organization’s executive team was considering a paid intern program with only three interns.

On April 2, 2018, unaware of the unpaid intern’s petition, the Executive Director of the organization shared the organization’s plans for a paid internship program during an employee meeting. The unpaid interns sent their petition to the Executive Director the next day.

On April 9, 2018, the Executive Director held separate meetings with the current interns and the employees who signed the petition to announce plans to implement the paid internships that fall. The employees reacted negatively and expressed concern about the reduced number of interns. The Executive Director stated that she was disappointed the employees did not take advantage of the organization’s open-door policy to discuss the matter with management before using a petition. The Executive Director also stated that she viewed the petition as adversarial and felt it threatened litigation.

On May 9, 2018, the employee who assisted the unpaid interns with their petition met privately with the Executive Director. The employee recorded the conversation. The Executive Director stated she was “very embarrassed” that her employees felt unable to approach her about the issue and “disappointed that she did not ‘have the kind of relationship with staff’ that she thought she had.” The Executive Director said that it would have been “really helpful” to know about the intern’s interest in paid internships in advance and that the employee could have told the interns to “give me a heads-up to let me know it’s coming.” The Executive Director indicated that a petition “sets off a more adversarial relationship” and is not effective when the demand could “be met without applying that pressure.” She further stated, “you could try talking to us before you do another petition.”

Administrative Law Judge Decision

After a trial, ALJ Michael A. Rosas held that the employees had engaged in protected activity under Section 7 of the NLRA by joining the interns’ petition. He also determined the organization violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by: (1) instructing employees to make complaints orally before making them in writing; (2) threatening unspecified reprisals because of the employees’ protected concerted activity; (3) equating protected concerted activity with disloyalty; and (4) requesting employees to report to management other employees who are engaging in protected concerted activity. He dismissed the allegation that the Executive Director’s statements “impliedly threatened to increase employees’ workloads as a result of the petition.”

NLRB Decision

The NLRB reversed the ALJ’s conclusions and dismissed the complaint.

Holding that “[a]ctivity advocating only for nonemployees is not for ‘other mutual aid or protection’ within the meaning of Section 7,” the NLRB reasoned that the unpaid interns were not employees because they did not “receive or anticipate any economic compensation from [Amnesty International].”

The NLRB also held that the Executive Director’s statements did not coerce the employees. It concluded the Executive Director’s statements fell within Section 8(c) of the NLRA, which permits employers to express views, arguments, or opinions that are not accompanied by coercion (e.g., threats or promises of benefits). Considering the timing of the petition and the employees’ reaction, the NLRB determined that the Executive Director’s “opinions about how to handle petitions in the future to be, at most, suggestions, rather than commands or even direct requests.” Her statements “clearly expressed her frustration that, as a result of the lack of communication, management’s attempt to provide a positive response to the … petition had instead resulted in a backlash from employees.” However, the comments did not rise to the level of conveying anger, threaten reprisal, or accuse the employees of disloyalty, the NLRB ruled. Therefore, it concluded they did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA.

***

The NLRB has been signaling a hesitancy to impose obligations on employers outside the traditional employment context. It has proposed exempting paid undergraduate and graduate students from the NLRA, for example. Over the last several years, as employers are forced by the low employment rate to increase their use of nonemployees, unions have increased their efforts to expand the NLRA’s reach by organizing non-traditional workers, including temporary campaign workers and graduate students.

 

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2019
Read more about NLRB rulings on the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.