Category: Labor & Employment

Employee Wins Federal Appeal Involving Commonly-used Defenses in Employment Discrimination Cases

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a decision (Haynes v. Waste Connections, Inc.) this week that reversed in the employee’s favor.  The opinion tackles many commonly-used defenses by employers in employment discrimination and retaliation cases.  In particular, the Fourth Circuit analyzed whether:

  • the employee had identified a valid comparator (aka a similarly situated employee);
  • established that he was performing his job satisfactorily when the employer fired him; and
  • produced any evidence of pretext, which looks to whether the employee can show that the employer’s stated reason for the adverse employment action (termination, demotion, etc.) was meant to disguise a discriminatory intent.

Ultimately, the court found in favor of the employee and sent the case back down to the trial court.

Background

Jimmy Haynes, who is African-American, claimed that his former employer, Waste Connections, Inc. (WCI), discriminated and retaliated against him when it fired him.  Haynes alleged that WCI violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. §1981 (Section 1981) as a result.  Notably, while Title VII and Section 1981 have many similarities in terms of prohibiting race discrimination in employment, a number of significant differences exist that can impact how a court reviews these claims, as discussed here.

The key facts had to do with Haynes reporting to work one evening and then leaving the job site.  According to Haynes, he left work due to a stomach virus and told his supervisor about this.  WCI, on the other hand, claimed that Haynes walked off the job because he was frustrated that his normal truck was not ready.  Two days later, WCI fired Haynes for job abandonment.  WCI did not mention any other reason for terminating Haynes’ employment at the time.  During the course of his lawsuit though, WCI claimed that Haynes had also committed other violations during June and August 2015.

After Haynes filed his lawsuit in court and the parties exchanged information during the discovery process, WCI filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that no disputed material facts existed and thus a jury trial was unnecessary.  The trial court granted summary judgment to the WCI and dismissed Haynes’ lawsuit.  Haynes then appealed this decision and the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision.

The Fourth Circuit’s findings

Valid comparator/similarly situated employee

The Fourth Circuit first analyzed whether Haynes had established a proper comparator who was not African-American and was treated better than him.  Noting that comparing similar employees will never involve exactly the same offenses occurring over the same time period with the same set of facts, the court explained that showing someone is a valid comparator involves:

  • evidence that the employee and the comparator dealt with the same supervisor;
  • were subject to the same standards; and
  • engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the employer’s treatment of them

Haynes v. Waste Connections, Inc., Case No. 17-2431 at p. 8, (4th Cir. April 23, 2019).  The appellate court found that a white employee, who had the same supervisor as Haynes, had several workplace violations.  These violations included twice using a cellphone while driving, driving while distracted, and responding to a traffic situation late.  Id.  It also appeared that this white employee had yelled at the supervisor before quitting his job.  Yet the white employee was allowed to return to work and Haynes, who had not yelled at his supervisor and had fewer infractions, was fired.

Because both employees had the same supervisor, were subject to the same standards, and engaged in similar conduct, the court found the white employee to be a valid comparator.  In making this decision, the appellate court rejected WCI’s argument that the white employee’s infractions did not cause any damages whereas Haynes’ violations did.  It also turned away WCI’s claim that the white employee had notified the employer that he was resigning while Haynes simply walked off the job.

Was Haynes performing his job satisfactorily

WCI also argued that Haynes had not demonstrated that he was performing his job satisfactorily at the time WCI fired him.  The Fourth Circuit pointed out that Haynes was not required “to show that he was a perfect or model employee;” rather, he need only show that he was qualified for the position and meeting WCI’s legitimate expectations.  To support his contention that he was satisfactorily performing his job, Haynes produced evidence that:

  • his supervisor told him the month before Haynes was terminated that “everything looks good” and “nothing to worry about” in terms of his upcoming job performance evaluation; and
  • Haynes received bonuses during the relevant time period

The court thus ruled that Haynes had presented enough evidence to demonstrate satisfactory job performance.

Evidence of pretext

To show pretext, “a plaintiff may show that an employer’s proffered non-discriminatory reasons for the termination are inconsistent over time, false, or based on mistakes of fact.”  Haynes, Case No. 17-2431 at 12.  If the employee does so, then summary judgment should be denied and the case should proceed to trial.

The most important factor to the Fourth Circuit was that WCI came up with a new reason why it claims it terminated Haynes’ employment:  his poor attitude.  The only reason given at the time of Haynes’ termination, however, was job abandonment.  Further, the company policy on job abandonment defines it as three days with no call or no show, yet Haynes had called and texted within one day.  Ultimately, the Fourth Circuit found too many inconsistencies with WCI’s purported reasons for firing Haynes and thus ordered that a jury should decide whose version is correct.

Key takeaways

Some important factors can be gleaned from the Fourth Circuit’s decision here:

  • For the comparator/similarly situated analysis, you’re more likely to meet this test if you and the other employee(s) you’re comparing yourself to:
    • share the same supervisor;
    • perform very similar job tasks and responsibilities (both the number and weight) as the other person;
    • if the case involves discipline, then the number and severity of the infractions should be relatively similar;
    • have similar job performance evaluations and disciplinary history; and
    • your experience level (including supervisory experience) the same as the other person
  • To demonstrate that you were performing your job satisfactorily, evidence that you received bonuses, awards, and/or average (or higher) job performance ratings will be important;
  • Regarding pretext, the more inconsistencies you can show the employer’s reasons for firing you, the better off you will be.

© 2019 Zuckerman Law
This post was written by Eric Bachman of Zuckerman Law.

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Cases Determining Extent of Title VII Protection for LGBT Workers

The Supreme Court of the United States announced three cases will be argued next term that could determine whether Title VII protects LGBT employees from workplace discrimination.

Title VII prohibits discrimination because of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” but it does not explicitly mention sexual orientation or gender identity.  Federal courts have disagreed on whether discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity falls within Title VII’s prohibition against sex-based discrimination.  Differing opinions on this topic exist within the federal government as well:  the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has taken the position that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, while the Department of Justice has argued it does not.  The Supreme Court’s decisions may ultimately decide these conflicts.

Two cases represent a split in federal appellate courts regarding the extent, if any, to which Title VII prohibits sexual orientation discrimination as a subset of sex discrimination.  In Altitude Express v. Zarda, a skydiving company fired Donald Zarda, a skydiving instructor, after Zarda informed a female client he was gay to assuage her concern about close physical contact during skydives.  The trial court dismissed Zarda’s sexual orientation discrimination claim.  In an opinion written by Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann on behalf of a full panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal and held that sexual orientation discrimination is properly understood as a subset of discrimination on the basis of sex.  In other words, in the Second Circuit, sexual orientation discrimination is prohibited under Title VII.  The Second Circuit aligned its thinking with the Seventh Circuit’s April 2017 opinion in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, which held that “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in Gerald Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia.  Gerald Bostock alleged he was terminated from his county job after the county learned of his involvement in a gay recreational softball league and his promotion of involvement in the league to co-workers.  The trial court dismissed and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, relying on its own precedent that broadly held that Title VII does not prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.  In other words, in the Eleventh Circuit, Title VII does not prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.

The Supreme Court consolidated the cases into a single case to determine whether the prohibition in Title VII against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.

The third case, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, focuses on whether Title VII applies to transgender employees.  In 2007, a funeral home hired Aimee Stephens, whose employment records identified her as a man.  Later, Stephens told the funeral home’s owner she identified as a woman and wanted to wear women’s clothing to work.  The owner fired Stephens, believing allowing Stephens to wear women’s clothing violated the funeral home’s dress code and “God’s commands.”  The EEOC filed suit on Stephens’ behalf.  The trial court dismissed a portion of the lawsuit because “transgender . . . status is not currently a protected class under Title VII,” but permitted other portions to proceed based on the claim Stephens was discriminated against because the funeral home objected to her appearance and behavior as departing from sex stereotypes.  The Sixth Circuit agreed that Stephens had viable claims.  The Supreme Court will review “[w]hether Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender people based on (1) their status as transgender or (2) sex stereotyping” under prior Supreme Court precedent.

All three cases will affect the employment rights of LGBT workers.  Dinsmore & Shohl lawyers will closely monitor the Court’s analysis of these cases.  Dinsmore’s Labor and Employment Practice Group stands ready to assist employers in navigating this developing area of law.  Dinsmore’s experience in this arena includes accomplished labor and employment lawyers, former law clerks to federal judges who have drafted orders on these very issues, former federal government attorneys, litigators and published scholars.

 

© 2019 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.
This post was written by Jan E. Hensel and Justin M. Burns of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.
Read more on the US Supreme Court  decision on the National Law Review’s Labor and Employment page.

Cincinnati City Council Passes Ordinance Prohibiting Salary History Inquiries

In a thinly veiled attempt to steal the spotlight from Cleveland, the new destination city for the National Football League, on March 13, 2019, the Cincinnati City Council passed Ordinance No. 83-2019, titled Prohibited Salary History Inquiry and Use, barring employers from inquiring about or relying on job applicants’ salary histories. It is scheduled to become effective in March 2020, and it applies to private employers with 15 or more employees in the city of Cincinnati.

The ordinance makes it “an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer or its agent to:

    1. Inquire about the salary history of an applicant for employment; or
    2. Screen job applicants based on their current or prior wages, benefits, other compensation, or salary histories, including requiring that an applicant’s prior wages, benefits, other compensation or salary history satisfy minimum or maximum criteria; or
    3. Rely on the salary history of an applicant in deciding whether to offer employment to an applicant, or in determining the salary, benefits, or other compensation for such applicant during the hiring process, including the negotiation of an employment contract; or
    4. Refuse to hire or otherwise disfavor, injure, or retaliate against an applicant for not disclosing his or her salary history to an employer.”

The ordinance does not limit employers from asking applicants “about their expectations with respect to salary, benefits, and other compensation, including but not limited to unvested equity or deferred compensation that an applicant would forfeit or have cancelled by virtue of the applicant’s resignation from their current employer.” Ordinance No. 83-2019 requires that, following a conditional offer of employment, upon request, the employer must provide the conditional offeree the pay scale for the position. The ordinance provides a private right of action to enforce the law. Remedies for violating the ordinance include “compensatory damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, the cost of the action, and such legal and equitable relief as the court deems just and proper.”

Ordinance No. 83-2019 is designed to “ensure that . . . job applicants in Cincinnati are offered employment positions and subsequently compensated based on their job responsibilities and level of experience, rather than on prior salary histories.” In reality, it reaches well beyond Cincinnati, as state and local salary history bans are proliferating. Many municipalities, cities, and states across the country have passed laws limiting salary inquiries, and legislation is pending in numerous other jurisdictions around the country.

 

© 2019, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.
Read more on Equal Pay issues on the National Law Review’s Labor and Employment page.

U.S. Senators Seek Formal Investigation Of Non-Compete Use And Impact

Earlier this month, a group of six United States Senators made a joint request for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate the impact of non-compete agreements on workers and the U.S. economy as a whole. This action suggests that the federal non-compete reform effort is not going away.

Recent Legislative Efforts

On February 18, 2019, we reviewed a new bill by Florida Senator Marco Rubio to prohibit non-competes for low-wage employees. That bill followed an effort in 2018 by Democrats in both houses of Congress to ban non-competes altogether. Although Senator Rubio’s bill represents a more limited attack on non-competes, we noted that it “suggests a level of bipartisan support that was not previously apparent.”

The Joint Letter

The recent joint letter to the GAO, issued on March 7, 2019, is signed by two Senators who were not involved in the prior legislative efforts: Democratic Senator Tim Kaine (VA); and Republican Senator Todd Young (IN). This represents additional evidence of bipartisanship on non-compete reform.

The joint letter does not formally oppose the use of non-competes. Nevertheless, from the Senators’ explanation for their request, it is clear that they believe the use of non-competes has become excessive, and that significant harm is being done to workers and the greater economy as a result.

In the letter, the Senators cite three ways in which non-competes allegedly are being abused:

  • The allegedly excessive imposition of non-competes on low-wage workers;
  • The alleged inability of workers to “engage in genuine negotiation over these agreements”; and
  • The belief that “most working under a non-compete were not even asked to sign one until after receiving a job offer.”

Further, the Senators allege that “[a]cademic experts and commentators from across the political spectrum have raised serious concerns about the use and abuse of these clauses[.]”

Based on the above-referenced concerns, the letter instructs the GAO to investigate the following questions:

  • What is known about the prevalence of non-compete agreements in particular fields, including low-wage occupations?
  • What is known about the effects of non-compete agreements on the workforce and the economy, including employment, wages and benefits, innovation, and entrepreneurship?
  • What steps have selected states taken to limit the use of these agreements, and what is known about the effect these actions have had on employees and employers?

Of note, these questions appear to address broader concerns about the use and impact of non-compete agreements than the discreet issues raised by the alleged “abuses” set forth above. The letter does not provide a deadline for the GAO to issue its report. However, the GAO’s explanation of how it handles investigation requests sets forth a six-step process, from Congress making the request to the issuance of the report. Further, while the GAO protocol does not offer a time-frame for every step, it does state that it “typically” takes “about 3 months” to simply design the scope of the investigation. Consequently, it would be reasonable to anticipate waiting months at least for the GAO to issue the report.

Where Does This Leave Us?

As noted above, the joint letter indicates that there is growing bipartisan support for restricting the use of non-competes on a nation-wide level. At the same time, by expressing the need for additional information about the use and impact of non-compete agreements on U.S. workers, the Senators may not move forward with further proposed non-compete legislation until they receive that information and take the time to fully digest its implications.

 

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2019
For more labor and employment news, check out the National Law Review’s Employment type of law page.

Can You Prohibit Employees From Using Cell Phones At Work?

With the prevalence of cell phones in today’s society, many companies struggle with how to manage employee time spent on personal mobile devices. But there are legal limits on what employers can do on this front. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has taken the position that employees have a presumptive right, in most instances, under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to use personal phones during breaks and other non-working times.

A recent advice memo issued by the agency has reaffirmed its stance – even since the NLRB generally has taken a more lax view of employer personnel policies over the last year. At issue, in this case, was a company policy that limited employees’ use of personal cell phones in the workplace. The relevant analysis in the NLRB memo states:

“This [company’s] rule states that, because cell phones can present a ‘distraction in the workplace,’ resulting in ‘lost time and productivity,’ personal cell phones may be used for ‘work-related or critical, quality of life activities only.’ It defines ‘quality of life activities’ as including ‘communicating with service or health professionals who cannot be reached during a break or after business hours.’ The rule further states that ‘[o]ther cellular functions, such as text messaging and digital photography, are not to be used during working hours.’ This rule is unlawful because employees have a [NLRA] Section 7 right to communicate with each other through non-Employer monitored channels during lunch or break periods. Because the rule prohibits use of personal phones at all times, except for work-related or critical quality of life activities, it prohibits their use on those non-working times. The phrase regarding text messaging and digital photography is more limited, but still refers to ‘working hours,’ which the Board, in other contexts, has held includes non-work time during breaks. Although the employer has a legitimate interest in preventing distractions, lost time, and lost productivity, that interest is only relevant when employees are on work time. It, therefore, does not outweigh the employees’ Section 7 interest in communicating privately via their cell phones, during non-work time, about their terms and conditions of employment.” (emphasis added)

In other words, while an employer may be able to limit employee use of personal mobile devices during working time in order to minimize distractions, having a policy in place that is worded in a way that limits that activity during non-working time may run afoul of the NLRA.

This is another reminder for employers to ensure their policies are drafted in a way that conforms to applicable NLRB standards. A poorly drafted rule – even with the best intentions – can result in legal headaches for a company.

 

© 2019 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
This post was written by David J. Pryzbylski of Barnes & Thornburg LLP.
Read more employer HR policies on the labor and employment type of law page.

Terminating Right to Stock Options Through Severance Agreement in Massachusetts

Parting with any employee comes with a host of dangers and pitfalls for an employer. These liabilities are increased when the exiting employee holds ownership in or options to own the employer’s company. Especially for smaller businesses, restricting its ownership from departing with employees is essential to continuing to operate smoothly and effectively. But in cases where an employee has unexercised stock options in his or her employer’s company, how can the company ensure that shares of its ownership do not walk out the door with a former manager? A well-crafted severance agreement is the answer.

By taking the extra time to craft a comprehensive severance agreement, rather than an off-the-shelf template, a company can extinguish its former executives’ interest in the company. Because a grant of stock options is a part of the employment contract, it is essential that the severance agreement clearly and unambiguously terminate the employment agreement itself. Recently, in the case of MacDonald v. Jenzabar, Inc., 92 Mass App. Ct. 630 (2018), the Appeals Court for the Commonwealth deemed a former manager’s rights to both unexercised stock options and unclaimed preferred shares in his employer’s company to be extinguished by a broad general release by his employer.

Broad Release Term Specifically Terminating Employment Agreement

Among other provisions the general release at issue provided:

“As a material inducement to the Company to enter into this Agreement, you agree to fully, irrevocably and unconditionally release, acquit and forever discharge the Company…from any and all claims, liabilities, obligations, promises, agreements, damages, causes of action, suits, demands,  losses, debts, and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees and costs) of any nature whatsoever, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, arising on or before the date of this Agreement and/or relating to or arising from your employment and your separation from employment with the Company and/or any of the Released Parties, including, without limitation, … any and all claims under the [employment agreement].”

Integration Clause Terminating and Superseding All Previous Agreements

In addition to this general release of claims, the severance agreement contained a merger and integration clause:

“This Agreement constitutes a  single, integrated contract expressing the entire agreement between you and the Company and terminates and supersedes all other oral and written agreements or arrangements; provided, however, that you understand and agree that the terms and provisions of the Confidentiality Agreement are specifically incorporated into this Agreement, and you remain bound by them.”

Stock Options Arise Out of Employment Agreement and Are Extinguished with Its Termination

Because the Court found that the plaintiff’s stock options and preferred shares arose from his prior employment, these provisions were found to be unambiguous and conclusive. Of note, the Court specifically observed that in addition to “generally [extinguishing] any and all agreements, of any nature whatsoever….[it] also expressly extinguishes the employment agreement.” Therefore,  absent any language to the contrary, this contract provision is sufficient to extinguish the employment agreement and consequently the preferred shares and stock options arising therefrom.

Going forward, an employer seeking to extinguish the unvested stocks and stock options in its departing managers, would be advised to consult with an attorney to craft a broad severance agreement with specific reference to the operative agreements relating to employment. Such consultation will allow the employer to restrain the ownership of its business while also crafting exceptions for contracts executed in the employer’s favor. With the right severance agreement, an employer can make sure that its stock stays in-house while continuing to be protected by previously executed non-competes and confidentiality agreements.

 

© 2019 by Raymond Law Group LLC.
This post was written by Evan K. Buchberger of Raymond Law Group LLC.

Three Takeaways from DOL’s Proposed New Overtime Rule

On Mar. 7, 2019, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding changes to the “white collar” overtime exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Here are three key points employers need to know:

1. The salary basis threshold would increase to $679 per week ($35,308 per year).

The DOL set this threshold by using the same methodology from the 2004 revisions, which set the salary level at $455 per week.

In 2004, $455 per week represented the 20th percentile of earnings for full-time salaried workers in the lowest-wage census region and in the retail sector. The new annual salary of $35,308 represents the DOL’s estimate for the 20th percentile standard in January 2020, when it anticipates the rule to become final. The NPRM would also permit employers to count nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) paid on an annual or more-frequent basis to satisfy up to 10 percent of the standard salary level.

With the prior rule issued under President Barack Obama, the DOL attempted to change the salary basis level from $455 to $913 per week. As we have covered in this blog, the change did not take effect because the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas blocked the rule from taking effect. Under President Donald Trump, the DOL ultimately stopped pursuing the rule and dropped its appeal of the Texas court’s ruling.

2. The salary basis threshold for highly compensated employees would also increase from $100,000 to $147,414 per year.

The proposed salary basis threshold represents the 90th percentile of full-time salaried workers nationally, as projected by the DOL for 2020. This was the same methodology used by the DOL for the Obama-era rule.

3. The duties tests for executive, administrative and professional employees remain unchanged.

Assuming an employer has properly classified its exempt employees, the NPRM will not change that classification, unless the employee no longer satisfies the salary basis threshold.

Given how the Obama-era rule met its demise, the NPRM is unlikely to be the final word. Stay tuned for additional developments.

 

Copyright © 2019 Godfrey & Kahn S.C.
This post was written by Rufino Gaytán of Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

Compliance with the New Proposed DOL Salary Threshold May Create Challenges for Many Employers

As we wrote in this space just last week, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) has proposed a new salary threshold for most “white collar” exemptions.  The new rule would increase the minimum salary to $35,308 per year ($679 per week) – nearly the exact midpoint between the longtime $23,600 salary threshold and the $47,476 threshold that had been proposed by the Obama Administration.  The threshold for “highly compensated” employees would also increase — from $100,000 to $147,414 per year.

Should the proposed rule go into effect – and there is every reason to believe it will – it would be effective on January 1, 2020.  That gives employers plenty of time to consider their options and make necessary changes.

On first glance, dealing with the increase in the minimum salaries for white-collar exemptions would not appear to create much of a challenge for employers—they must decide whether to increase employees’ salaries or convert them to non-exempt status. Many employers that reviewed the issue and its repercussions back in 2016, when it was expected that the Obama Administration’s rules would go into effect, would likely disagree with the assessment that this is a simple task. The decisions not only impact the affected employees, but they also affect the employers’ budgets and compensation structures, potentially creating unwanted salary compressions or forcing employers to adjust the salaries of other employees.

In addition, converting employees to non-exempt status requires an employer to set new hourly rates for the employees. If that is not done carefully, it could result in employees receiving unanticipated increases in compensation—perhaps huge ones— or unexpected decreases in annual compensation.

The Impact on Compensation Structures

For otherwise exempt employees whose compensation already satisfies the new minimum salaries, nothing would need be done to comply with the new DOL rule. But that does not mean that those employees will not be affected by the new rule. Employers that raise the salaries of other employees to comply with the new thresholds could create operational or morale issues for those whose salaries are not being adjusted. It is not difficult to conceive of situations where complying with the rule by only addressing the compensation of those who fall below the threshold would result in a lower-level employee leapfrogging over a higher-level employee in terms of compensation, or where it results in unwanted salary compression.

Salary shifts could also affect any analysis of whether the new compensation structure adversely affects individuals in protected categories. A female senior manager who is now being paid only several hundred dollars per year more than the lower-level male manager might well raise a concern about gender discrimination if her salary is not also adjusted.

The Impact of Increasing Salaries

For otherwise exempt employees who currently do not earn enough to satisfy the new minimum salary thresholds, employers would have two choices: increase the salary to satisfy the new threshold or convert the employee to non-exempt status. Converting employees to non-exempt status can create challenges in attempting to set their hourly rates (addressed separately below).

If, for example, an otherwise exempt employee currently earns a salary of $35,000 per year, the employer may have an easy decision to give the employee a raise of at least $308 to satisfy the new threshold. But many decisions would not be so simple, particularly once they are viewed outside of a vacuum. What about the employee who is earning $30,000 per year? Should that employee be given a raise of more than $5,000 or should she be converted to non-exempt status? It is not difficult to see how one employer would choose to give an employee a $5,000 raise while another would choose to convert that employee to non-exempt status.

What if the amount of an increase seems small, but it would have a large impact because of the number of employees affected? A salary increase of $5,000 for a single employee to meet the new salary threshold may not have a substantial impact upon many employers. But what if the employer would need to give that $5,000 increase to 500 employees across the country to maintain their exempt status? Suddenly, maintaining the exemption would carry a $2,500,000 price tag. And that is not a one-time cost; it is an annual one that would likely increase as those employees received subsequent raises.

The Impact of Reclassifying an Employee as Non-Exempt

If an employer decides to convert an employee to non-exempt status, it faces a new challenge—setting the employee’s hourly rate. Doing that requires much more thought than punching numbers into a calculator.

If the employer “reverse engineers” an hourly rate by just taking the employee’s salary and assuming the employee works 52 weeks a year and 40 hours each week, it will result in the employee earning the same amount as before so long as she does not work any overtime at all during the year. The employee will earn more than she did previously if she works any overtime at all. And if she works a significant amount of overtime, the reclassification to non-exempt status could result in the employee earning significantly more than she earned before as an exempt employee. If she worked 10 hours of overtime a week, she would effectively receive a 37 percent increase in compensation.  And, depending on the hourly rate and the number of overtime hours she actually works, she could end up making more as a non-exempt employee than the $35,308 exemption threshold.

But calculating the employee’s new hourly rate based on an expectation that she will work more overtime than is realistic would result in the employee earning less than she did before. If, for instance, the employer calculated an hourly rate by assuming that the employee would work 10 hours of overtime each week, and if she worked less than that, she would earn less than she did before—perhaps significantly less. That, of course, could lead to a severe morale issue—or to the unwanted departure of a valued employee.

 

©2019 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.
This post was written by Michael S. Kun of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. 

Are New Jersey Uber Drivers Covered By Workers’ Compensation Insurance?

You might ask yourself the above question if you are considering signing up to drive for the transportation service Uber. Uber promises that anyone with a valid driver’s license, personal car insurance, a clean record, and a four-door car can meet the New Jersey requirements to drive for Uber.

The Uber driver makes his or her own hours and is free to pick up or drop off a rider anywhere they chose and the driver can work as much or as little as they choose. Uber requires its drivers to carry the appropriate automobile insurance to cover the driver’s liability to other parties, damage to the vehicle and injury to the driver.

Uber provides commercial auto liability insurance for drivers to protect against injury to others. Uber drivers are paid a percentage of the fares they generate and receive a 1099 form yearly from Uber so that they can declare their earnings and pay their own taxes on the money they earn.

Since Uber does not consider its drivers employees, or provide workers’ compensation coverage in the event an Uber driver is injured, it is important to know what you are giving up by being an Independent Contractor/Uber driver.

Workers’ compensation coverage in New Jersey includes weekly wage replacement paid at 70% of wages, medical care paid 100% by the workers’ compensation carrier, and partial or total permanency benefits paid for a period of time if the injured worker is left with an impairment after all of the medical treatment is provided.

The courts in New Jersey have not decided any workers’ compensation cases for Uber drivers, however, they have decided cases for other employees who drive for other car services. Although the facts of each individual case vary, the case explained below gives an idea of the factors the court considers when deciding if a driver is an independent contractor or an employee.

The courts have outlined a 12-part test to determine if a person is an employee or an independent contractor, for the purpose of whether or not New Jersey workers’ compensation coverage applies. These factors include the employer’s right to control the manner of the work, the extent of supervision needed, who furnishes the equipment, how the person is paid, whether there is paid vacation and sick time, and whether the “employer” pays Social Security taxes, and the intention of the parties.

In a recent court case in New Jersey, the Appellate Division found that a limousine driver for the XYZ Two Way Radio Company was an independent contractor and not an employee when the driver was injured in a serious motor vehicle accident. The court analyzed the above factors and found that XYZ Two Way Radio Company exercised little control over the driver since he could work as many or as few hours as he wanted.

The Court noted that the driver supplied his own equipment, including his own vehicle and auto insurance, and that the company only provided a small car computer that was used to communicate with the office. The driver was paid a percentage of the fares he generated, and was free to reject any pick-up sent to him by the company. The driver was sent a 1099 form every year and no Social Security or wage taxes were paid by the company.

Based on all of these circumstances the Court found that the driver for XYZ Two Way Radio was an independent contractor, and not an employee entitled to workers’ compensation coverage. This was despite the fact that that the driver worked for the company for 23 years, was told what type of car he must drive and what to wear, and worked a fairly regular schedule.

Comparing the above case to the factors relevant to the Uber driver, courts in New Jersey may consider Uber drivers independent contractors and not employees subject to workers’ compensation coverage. Uber is still taking the position that its drivers are Independent contractors, not subject to workers’ compensation in New Jersey.

However, this has not yet been the subject of an Appellate Court decision. If you work for Uber and get injured in an accident while working, your own automobile coverage would provide some medical care, and possibly some weekly wage replacement benefits, but probably not to the level of coverage provided under the workers’ compensation laws in New Jersey.

Your own automobile policy would not provide the permanency benefits provided under the workers’ compensation statute in this state. Probably not a deal breaker for many given the flexibility offered by Uber, but at least Uber drivers should be aware of the workers’ compensation benefits they may be giving up.

 

COPYRIGHT © 2019, Stark & Stark.
This post was written by Marci Hill Jordan of Stark & Stark.

DOL’s Long-Awaited Overtime Proposed Rule Announced

Recent developments on the wage and hour front will soon require employers to reexamine exemption classifications within their workforce.

On March 7, 2019, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) released its long-awaited proposed amended rule to the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). If this proposed rule takes effect, the minimum salary threshold required for workers to qualify for the FLSA’s “white collar” exemptions (executive, administrative and professional) will be increased to $35,308 annually (or $679 per week). The current salary threshold under the FLSA’s “white collar” exemptions is $455 per week ($23,660 annually), and has not seen an increase since 2004.

The proposed rule also will increase the salary threshold for the “highly compensated employee” exemption, from the current $100,000 to $147,414 per year. Further, under the proposed rule, employers will be allowed to count certain nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) toward up to 10 percent of the new salary threshold.

By way of background, in May 2016, the DOL under President Obama issued a rule intended to increase the salary threshold to $913 per week ($47,476 annually). Other changes to the rule included an increased salary threshold for highly compensated workers from $100,000 to approximately $134,000 and a schedule for automatic increases to the salary threshold.

Days before the rule was set to take effect, a Texas federal district court preliminarily enjoined the rule, and later confirmed its ruling on the basis that the new regulations placed too much emphasis on the salary requirement and would have resulted in the reclassification of substantial groups of employees who otherwise performed duties qualifying for exempt status. At the time, the DOL predicted that its rule would cover about four million workers who were presently non-exempt.

While the DOL’s newly proposed rule is set to take effect in January 2020, it is subject to a 60-day comment period and may face legal challenges from business and worker advocate groups alike. Given that some increase to the salary threshold is imminent, employers should nevertheless remain proactive and audit their exempt worker population. As we have noted in prior publications, employers have a number of options available in addressing this issue. As a first step, employers should identify all positions in their organizations that are classified as exempt but pay less than $35,308, review employees’ job descriptions for compliance under each exemption’s duties test, and determine the number of hours exempt employees are working.

 

© 2019 Vedder Price.
This post was written by Sadina Montani and Monique E. Chase of Vedder Price.
Read more labor and employment news, including updates on the DOL’s Overtime Rule, on our labor and employment page.