Category: Labor & Employment

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.

‘ABC Test’ for Independent Contractors Set to Take Effect in California Jan. 1

As 2019 draws to a close, every business with a California presence should consider evaluating its workforce in the Golden State to ensure compliance with AB 5, which will be effective Jan. 1, 2020.

Through AB 5, the California legislature codified and expanded the reach of the so-called “ABC Test” for determining whether a worker should be classified as an independent contractor. This new law expands the reach of the California Supreme Court’s Dynamex decision which applied to coverage under the California Industrial Welfare Commission’s Wage Orders. AB 5 applies this new test to businesses under the California Labor Code and the California Unemployment Insurance Code.

Currently, California businesses are subject to a variety of tests of employee status, depending upon the law in question. Under most federal and California laws, the common law agency test applies. For workers’ compensation laws, the California Supreme Court adopted an “economic realities” test 30 years ago in S.G. Borello & Sons v. Department of Industrial Relations.

However, as of Jan. 1, 2020, the default standard for independent contractor treatment will be the ABC Test.

The ABC Test significantly narrows the scope of work for which businesses may classify workers as independent contractors, rather than employees, and expands the application of this new standard to nearly all employers doing business in California.

Businesses that do not adapt to the ABC Test may face an increased risk of claims from workers asserting that they were misclassified as independent contractors, on an individual and class or collective basis.

ABC Test Explained

Under the ABC Test, a worker is assumed to be an employee unless the business demonstrates:

A. That the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in performing the work, both in the contract for performance and in fact

B. That the worker performs work that is outside of the usual course of the hiring entity’s business

C. That the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity

It is Prong B of the test that will likely cause the most difficulty for companies that regularly engage independent contractors.

Prong B excludes from the assumption of employee status workers who perform duties outside the “usual course of the hiring entity’s business.” While AB 5 does not specifically define the phrase, many businesses use contractors to help them perform their regular business. California courts are expected to be tasked with interpreting the scope of this requirement.

Many industries lobbied hard to obtain exemptions from the ABC Test. The new statute excludes seven different categories of occupations or business, each with its own separate test for qualifying for the exclusion. These exclusions cover diverse occupations ranging from professionals such as architects and lawyers to non-professionals such as grant writers, tutors, truck drivers, and manicurists. Each category has a slightly different requirement to qualify for the exclusion from the ABC Test. However, qualifying for the exclusion from the ABC Test merely defaults the workers to a determination under the Borello test. Complicating matters further is that for all these occupations, a determination of employee status under federal law, such as under the National Labor Relations Act, likely remains under the common law agency test.

Application and Enforcement

While the California Labor Commissioner is officially tasked with enforcing many of the provisions of AB 5, claims of worker misclassification will more commonly be asserted in private civil actions either individually or on a class basis. In other words, companies will increasingly see independent contractors bring claims for wage and hour law lawsuits or class actions (i.e. overtime claims, meal and rest break claims, wage statement claims, etc.).

Employer Takeaways

Although several industry groups are expected to challenge the new law, businesses operating in California should review and update their practices relative to independent contractors before Jan. 1, 2020 – whether through potentially reclassifying independent contractors as employees or revising independent contractor agreements.

© 2019 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP\

More on independent contractor compliance via the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.

Dear Former Employee, Here Are a Few Things I Want You to Know

Do you provide terminated employees with information regarding their employee benefits upon termination? If not, consider doing so now—especially if you typically provide a lot of your benefits information on your intranet site, which employees will lose access to upon termination. Even though there is generally no legal requirement to do so, providing departing employees with a letter that includes important reminders and deadlines related to their benefits is beneficial for two reasons: (1) it will save your HR department time by reducing the number of benefits-related inquiries they receive from former employees, allowing them to focus their time on more valuable tasks, and (2) the letter can help defend against a claim by a former employee who loses benefits because they missed a deadline.

Here is a non-exhaustive list of items we recommend including in your letter to exiting employees regarding their benefits:

Remind them of important dates and deadlines, and provide them with other relevant information regarding their benefits, including:

  • The date their medical and other insurance coverages will stop
  • Whether their accrued vacation will be paid out
  • When they can expect to receive their last paycheck
  • If applicable, the deadline to exercise their outstanding stock options
  • Their right to convert their group life insurance coverage to an individual policy
  • The deadline to use their Flexible Spending Account (FSA) balances

    **Note that California recently passed a law that actually requires employers to notify employees starting January 1, 2020 of any deadline to withdraw funds from their FSAs before the end of the plan year, such as when an employee terminates employment.By drafting this letter now, you can get ahead of this requirement!

  • If applicable, the date that their non-qualified deferred compensation payments will begin

Provide them with a list of important documents they should be watching for in the mail to prevent employees from inadvertently throwing these important documents away, including:

  • 401(k) or pension distribution packets
  • COBRA election packets

Remind them to update you and your plan administrators if their address changes (both residential and email addresses), and provide them contact information for whom to send updated information, since you will need this information to send out their final Form W-2 and your plan administrators will need it to be able to provide plan information and notices.

As mentioned above, this is a non-exhaustive list. Consider gathering your HR and benefits professional staff together for a 15-minute brainstorming session about other topics to include. We’re sure you’ll come up with other helpful items.

© 2019 Foley & Lardner LLP

Indiana Federal Court Gives Frostbitten ADA Plaintiff The Cold Shoulder

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana recently granted summary judgment on behalf of a logistics employer in a case alleging discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court found that because the plaintiff employee could not work in the freezer area of his employer’s warehouse, as was required for his job, he failed to establish that he was a “qualified individual” with a disability.

In Pryor v. Americold Logistics, LLC, the defendant employer operates a cold-storage warehouse that “provides temperature-controlled food warehousing and distribution services,” with “five cooler rooms, two freezer rooms, a loading dock, a designated battery-changing room, and a small office.” The plaintiff was a Lift Truck Operator (LTO) who filled orders by picking items from the various rooms of the warehouse and wrapping them on a skid for pickup by another employee. He had previously “suffered severe frostbite on his left hand after he spent three-quarters of a shift in the freezer with defective gloves,” and due to his prior frostbite “exposure to the freezer’s extreme cold caused pain and risked further injury.”

After treatment (and intervening stints of alternate duty), the plaintiff employee “reached maximum medical improvement” and was put on “a permanent restriction of exposure to the freezer for no more than thirty minutes per workday.” The plaintiff’s LTO role, however, required nearly constant exposure to subzero temperatures. When the plaintiff did not return from leave, he was terminated.

The plaintiff alleged that his employer “discriminated against him by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation for his disability and by terminating his employment.” The employer argued that the plaintiff was not a “qualified individual” under the ADA because “he could not perform the essential duties of an LTO with or without a reasonable accommodation.” The district court held that the plaintiff had not “presented sufficient evidence that he was able to perform the essential functions of his job with a reasonable accommodation,” and thus granted summary judgement in favor of the employer.

The court explained the employer’s judgment as to which job functions are essential is entitled to consideration. And with regard to the essential functions of the LTO role, the court found that the LTO role required “substantial exposure to freezer temperatures” each workday. The court explained that, because the plaintiff admittedly could not work in the freezer for more than thirty minutes per day, “he could not perform the essential functions of his LTO order selector position without reasonable accommodation.” He was thus a “‘qualified individual’ under the ADA only if he could perform the essential functions with reasonable accommodation.”

As for the question of what a reasonable accommodation might entail, the plaintiff argued that he could have been reassigned to a non-freezer position, a temporary “cooler-only” position, or a position in the loading dock or office. However, the court stated, “it is the plaintiff’s burden to show that a vacant position exists for which he was qualified.” The court explained that the ADA does not require an employer to “create a new position or transfer another employee to create a vacancy,” or to “transfer a disabled employee to a temporary position on a permanent basis.”

Ultimately, with regard “cooler-only” positions, the court held that the plaintiff failed to identify any vacancies, and noted that pursuant to a union contract, those positions had to be filled according to seniority. With regard to the vacant loading dock or office positions, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he was qualified. Thus, the court held that the plaintiff failed “to create a genuine issue of material fact whether reassignment was a reasonable accommodation,” and summary judgement in favor of the employer was appropriate.

The key takeaways from the Pryor decision for employers facing ADA claims are that employees must still be able to perform the essential functions of their job, and that courts should consider the employer’s determination of which job functions are essential. Moreover, the Pryor decision reaffirms that the ADA does not require employers to create positions or vacancies as part of the interactive process.

© 2019 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
For more ADA cases, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.

Three NBA Players Suspended for Drug Violations

The NBA commenced its new season on 22 October with the battle for Los Angeles, as Kawhi’s Clippers edged the Lakers this time. But, less than three weeks into the new season, attention has turned to off-the-court matters; three NBA players who were active on rosters last season have been suspended for testing positive for banned substances.

Wilson Chandler of the Brooklyn Nets tested positive for Ipamorelin, a growth hormone during the summer. The number 1 pick of last year’s draft, DeAndre Ayton tested positive for a diuretic whilst the Atlanta Hawks’ John Collins tested positive for Growth Hormone Releasing Peptide-2, a synthetic drug found to increase appetite and food intake.

The three players have been suspended without pay for 25 games for violations of the NBA/National Basketball’s Player Association (NBPA) Anti-Drug Program.

The terms governing the Anti-Drug Program are set out in the NBA’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), entered into between the NBA and the NBPA. The NBPA negotiates the terms of the CBA on behalf of NBA players. The CBA regulates a wide variety of matters relevant to the operation of the NBA.

Amongst other things, the CBA governs:

  • the share of “Basketball Related Income” between the players and the league;
  • the team salary cap and tax structures;
  • rules on player contract terms, including salaries and duration;
  • free agency – the process by which out-of-contract players can engage in contract discussions with other NBA teams;
  • rules on trading players; and
  • the aforementioned Anti-Drug Program.

The current CBA was entered into in 2017, and is due to run until the end of the 2023-24 season. The terms of the Anti-Drug Program are set out in Article XXXIII of the current CBA. The new CBA increased penalties for positive tests for performance-enhancing drugs from 20 games to 25 games for first violations. There was also an increase in suspension periods for second violations from 45 games to 55 games. A third positive test continues to result in the player’s expulsion from the league.

Section 9 of the Anti-Drug Program provides that players who have been found to have taken performance-enhancing drugs may have penalties reduced or rescinded through arbitration. Section 19 provides a defence if the player can present:

clear and convincing evidence that he bears no significant fault or negligence for the presence of the drugs in his test result.

This means the player must not have known or suspected, and could not have reasonably known or suspected, that he was taking, ingesting, applying or using the banned substance. Further, the player must establish how the substance entered his system. This is a high evidential bar to meet.

Nevertheless, Ayton is appealing the findings. Diuretics can be used to help the body remove evidence of other banned substances. Ayton’s follow-up tests revealed no traces of other banned substances. The NBPA is preparing to take the case to arbitration, invoking the section 19 ‘unintentional ingestion’ defence, to appeal the decision. Collins intends to appeal the test results on the same basis, claiming that the offending substance derived from a supplement that “unbeknownst to me, had been contaminated with an illegal component”.

An impartial arbitrator will now review the arguments raised by the players and sustain, reduce or rescind the suspensions.

Performance-enhancing drug suspensions are relatively rare in the NBA. ESPN analyst Bobby Marks described the recent spate of suspensions as “unprecedented”. It will be interesting to see how the arbitration proceedings unfold and whether the penalties are changed.

© Copyright 2019 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

For more on the NBA and related news, see the National Law Review Entertainment, Art & Sports law page.

Third Thursdays with Ruthie: The Intersection of Religion and Labor Law [PODCAST]

In this episode of the Third Thursdays podcast, Ruthie Goodboe examines how religious discrimination and accommodation intersect with traditional labor law. She will cover religious accommodation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, best practices for handling requests for religious accommodation when an employee is governed by a collective bargaining agreement, and how Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act comes into play with religious accommodation.

© 2019, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

For more labor law developments see the Labor & Employment law page on the National Law Review.