Category: Labor & Employment

Lactation Law Update: New York and Illinois

Recent developments require employers to reevaluate their lactation and nursing policies and practices to ensure that they are in compliance with newly enacted local laws in New York City and Illinois.

Changes to New York City Lactation Laws: Effective March 17, 2019

Since 2007, New York City employers with four or more employees have been required to provide reasonable unpaid break time (or to allow an employee to use paid break/meal time) to express breast milk in the workplace, for up to three years following the birth of a child, and to make reasonable efforts to provide a room, other than a restroom, to express milk in private.

Additional lactation-related obligations for New York City employers with four or more employees go into effect on March 17, 2019. For example, by that date, a covered employer must provide lactating employees with a sanitary “lactation room,” which is not a restroom, and which has, at minimum, an electrical outlet, a chair, a surface on which to place a breast pump and other personal items, and nearby access to running water. The lactation room must be made available to the employee for lactation purposes only when it is needed (and notice to other employees regarding the same is required), and a refrigerator and the room itself must be in “reasonable proximity” to the employee’s work area.

Notably, the required lactation room must be provided unless the employer can establish an “undue hardship,” in which case the employer must engage in a cooperative dialogue with the employee to determine alternative accommodations and issue a final written determination to the employee that identifies any accommodation(s) that were granted or denied.

In addition, by March 17, 2019, a covered employer in New York City must implement a written lactation room accommodation policy, which states that employees have the right to request a lactation room and identifies the process (as outlined in the Administrative Code) by which an employee may request a lactation room. All new employees must receive the lactation room policy upon hire.

Changes to Illinois’s Lactation Law: Effective August 2018

Like many employers in New York, Illinois employers with five or more employees have been required, since 2001, to provide employees with reasonable unpaid break time to express breast milk, in an appropriate room that is not a toilet stall.

Effective August 2018, the Illinois Nursing Mothers in the Workplace Act was amended. Now, Illinois employers with at least five employees must provide “reasonable break time” each time an employee needs to express breast milk, for up to one year following the child’s birth. While the break time “may” run concurrently with any other break time, the employee’s pay cannot be reduced due to the time spent expressing milk or nursing a baby – meaning, in effect, that any additional break time needed to express milk or nurse must be paid. Further, covered employers in Illinois who do not provide the requisite break time must show, if challenged, that providing the breaks is an “undue hardship” – a heightened burden than that previously imposed under the Act.

Employers should act quickly to ensure full compliance with all of the requirements of the new lactation laws.

 

© 2019 Vedder Price.
This post was written by Elizabeth N. Hall and Grace L. Urban

One-Two Punch for NJ Employers: State Enacts Minimum Wage Rate Increases and Expands Paid Family Leave Insurance Benefits

New Jersey’s minimum wage rates will steadily climb to $15 per hour, and both the duration and amount of the state’s paid family leave insurance benefits will significantly increase, under two recently enacted laws.

New Minimum Wage Rates

On February 4, 2019, Governor Murphy signed a bill that substantially increases the state’s minimum wage rate for non-exempt hourly workers.

Prior to the bill’s enactment, the state’s minimum hourly wage, as of January 1, 2019, was $8.85. With a few exceptions for seasonal workers (who work between May 1 and September 30), employees employed by a “small business” with fewer than six employees, and agricultural laborers, the minimum hourly wage will rise to $15.00 by January 1, 2024, in accordance with the following schedule:

7/1/19 $10.00
1/1/20 11.00
1/1/21 12.00
1/1/22 13.00
1/1/23 14.00
1/1/24 15.00

For seasonal workers and employees of small businesses, the minimum hourly wage rate increases will be more gradual and will not reach the $15.00 rate until January 1, 2026, based on the following schedule:

1/1/20 $10.30
1/1/21 11.10
1/1/22 11.90
1/1/23 12.70
1/1/24 13.50
1/1/25 14.30
1/1/26 15.00

It will take an even longer period of time for farm laborers to reach a minimum hourly wage rate of $15, given the following schedule:

1/1/20 $10.30
1/1/22 10.90
1/1/23 11.70
1/1/24 12.50

Any further minimum rate increases for farm laborers would be tied to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (“CPI-W”).

New Jersey now joins three other states – California, New York and Massachusetts – as well as the District of Columbia in committing to minimum hourly wage rates that significantly exceed the current federal minimum hourly wage rate of $7.25.

Business groups in New Jersey have voiced two principal objections to the new minimum rates. First, the numbers threshold for meeting the “small employer” exception is relatively low – employers with six or more employees do not satisfy it. Second, the New Jersey statute, unlike the California and New York laws, makes no provision for suspending scheduled minimum hourly rate increases in the event of deteriorating economic conditions in the state.

Family Leave Enhancements

On February 19, 2019, Governor Murphy signed into law a bill that substantially expands the job-protected family leave requirements applicable to smaller employers under the New Jersey Family Leave Act (“FLA”), as well as expands the monetary benefits available under the paid family leave insurance (“FLI”) and temporary disability insurance (“TDI”) programs for employees employed in New Jersey.

Under the state’s leave and benefit programs (which must be coordinated with applicable federal requirements), an eligible employee may take time off from work and receive family insurance benefits during such leave to, among other things, care for a newborn child or a covered family member who is suffering from a serious health condition.

Effective immediately,

  • There no longer is a one-week waiting period before FLI benefits may be received.

  • Covered family members under the new law now include siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, and parents-in-law, as well as others related to the employee by blood or who have a “close association with the employee” which is equivalent to a family relationship (though evidence of same must be provided by the employee).

  • FLI benefits may also be taken by a covered employee while taking time off from work pursuant to the NJ Security and Financial Empowerment Act (“SAFE Act”), to assist a covered family member who is a victim of domestic or sexual violence.

  • An employer may not retaliate against an employee with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because the employee took or requested any TDI or FLI benefits.

Effective June 30, 2019, NJ businesses employing at least 30 employees will be covered by the FLA and may not retaliate against employees returning from family leave by refusing to reinstate them, down from a 50 employee threshold.

Commencing July 1, 2020, the maximum duration of FLI leave benefits will increase from 6 to 12 weeks during any 12-month period; in cases of intermittent leave, the maximum FLI leave will increase from 42 days to 56 days. Further, the dollar amount of weekly FLI benefits will increase from two-thirds of a claimant’s average weekly wage to 85% of an employee’s average weekly wage, capped at $859 per week.

Although FLI benefits are funded entirely by employee contributions, NJ-based businesses have raised concerns that the broader eligibility for FLI leave, and the longer duration of such leaves, will increase business costs due to the need to pay more overtime wages to assure adequate staff coverage, or employ more temporary replacement workers, while eligible employees are out on leave. These increases may also lead to greater work load demands placed on regular employees who must cover while co-workers are out on such leave.

Employer Tips

NJ employers should assure that the wage rates they pay their employees meet the new NJ minimum wage rate thresholds.

Further, NJ employers should review and update their family leave policies to ensure that they comply with the requirements of the new law, which is complicated and substantially amends multiple existing laws.

 

© Copyright 2019 Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.

California Jury Rejects Employee’s Discrimination Claims Against Chipotle

Proving it still is possible to obtain a favorable jury verdict in California (see contrary evidence), a federal jury sided with Chipotle Mexican Grill last Wednesday in a case involving disability discrimination claims by former assistant store manager, Lucia Cortez.

Cortez alleged she suffered a miscarriage at work after years of trying to get pregnant, fell into a depression, and then needed extended medical treatment as a result. In response to her request for leave, her manager gave her 12 weeks of unpaid family medical leave. When Cortez later asked for another month off to “sort out a final doctor’s appointment,” her manager granted her one additional “courtesy week” of leave. Cortez then went behind her manager’s back and got her leave extended by another month by calling the employee benefits center.

Cortez failed to provide any medical documentation when she asked for the additional time off, while at the same time claiming that she might not be medically approved to return to work. When Chipotle informed Cortez that they were about to fill her position, she immediately asked to be put back on the schedule. Her manager refused to put her back on the schedule until she produced a doctor’s note certifying that she was able to return to work.

Cortez never sent Chipotle the required medical documentation and was thereafter fired, but was also told she could reapply for her job without losing any of her tenure or benefits. Instead of simply reapplying once she was able to return to work, Cortez sued Chipotle for discrimination based on an alleged mental disability and failure to accommodate.

Fortunately, the jury sided with Chipotle, finding that Cortez’s leave of absence and her alleged disability were not motivating factors in her termination. The jury found that her failure to return to work was the motivating factor for her discharge and that Chipotle had not failed to reasonably accommodate her alleged disability.

An employer can indeed require an employee to submit documentation from a health care provider, certifying that the employee is able to resume work following a medical leave (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2 § 11091(b)(2)(E)). This case demonstrates, however, how complicated even a simple leave of absence situation can be in California and how easy it is for disgruntled employees to sue their employer – and to try to get a jury to second-guess the employer. The employer in this case no doubt incurred hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs and attorney’s fees in successfully defending against this action – none of which can be recovered from the employee who justifiably lost the case.

 

© 2019 Proskauer Rose LLP.
This post was written by Anthony J Oncidi and Cole D. Lewis of Proskauer Rose LLP.

Trend to Watch: State Legislatures Target Restaurants for Mandatory Sexual Harassment Training

In the New Year, two states – New Jersey and Illinois – have proposed legislation requiring restaurants to adopt a sexual harassment training policy and provide anti-sexual harassment training to employees.  While it remains to be seen whether these bills will become law, attempts to target and reform working conditions in the hospitality industry are nonetheless noteworthy, particularly given that unlike New York and California, neither New Jersey nor Illinois have enacted broad legislation requiring private sector employers, regardless of occupation, to provide sexual harassment training to staff.

New Jersey Bill (A4831)

New Jersey Bill A4831 requires restaurants that employ 15 or more employees to provide sexual harassment training to new employees within 90 days of employment and every five years thereafter.  This training requirement would go into effect within 90 days of the law’s effective date.

As to the content of the training, the bill specifies that supervisors and supervisees receive tailored content relevant to their positions/roles that include topics “specific to the restaurant industry” in an “interactive” format, including practical examples and instruction on filing a sexual harassment complaint.  Implicitly recognizing the diverse nature of the hospitality workforce, the bill requires that such training must be offered in English and Spanish.

The bill would also require restaurants to adopt and distribute sexual harassment policies to employees (either as part of an employee handbook or as a standalone policy), though it does not prescribe the contents of such policies.

While the bill cautions that compliance with the act would not “insulate the employer from liability for sexual harassment of any current or former employee,” strict compliance is advisable as the bill creates fines for non-compliance – i.e., up to $500 for the first violation and $1,000 for each subsequent violation.

Illinois Bill 3351

Illinois Bill 3351, the proposed Restaurant Anti-Harassment Act, is broader than the proposed New Jersey legislation in that it applies to all restaurants regardless of the number of employees on staff.  Like its New Jersey analogue, this bill requires restaurants to adopt a sexual harassment policy and provide training to all employees.

The sexual harassment policy must contain the following elements:

(1) a prohibition on sexual harassment;

(2) the definition of sexual harassment under Illinois and federal law;

(3) examples of prohibited conduct that would constitute unlawful sexual harassment;

(4) the internal complaint process of the employer available to the employee;

(5) the legal remedies and complaint process through the Illinois Department of Human Rights;

(6) a prohibition on retaliation for reporting sexual harassment allegations; and

(7) a requirement that all employees participate in sexual harassment training.

Like New Jersey’s bill, the Illinois bill requires separate training for employees and for supervisors/managers, and delineates the topics to be covered in each training.  Specifically, the employee training must include: (i) the definition of sexual harassment and its various forms; (ii) an explanation of the harmful impact sexual harassment can have on victims, businesses, and those who harass; (iii) how to recognize conduct that is appropriate, and that is not appropriate, for work; (iv) when and how to report sexual harassment.   The supervisor training must include the aforementioned topics in addition to: (i) an explanation of employer and manager liability for reporting and addressing sexual harassment, (ii) instruction on how to create a harassment-free culture in the workplace, and an (iii) explanation of how to investigate sexual harassment claims in the workplace.  In addition to these requirements, the training programs must be offered in English and Spanish, be specific to the restaurant or hospitality industry and include restaurant or hospitality related activities, images, or videos, and be “created and guided by an instructional design model and processes that follow generally accepted practices of the training and education industry.”

If enacted, employees would need to receive training within 90 days after the effective date of the act or within 30 days of employment and every 2 years thereafter.

Like New Jersey, the Illinois bill contemplates a $500 fine for the first violation and a $1,000 fine for each subsequent violation.

Recommendation

Restaurants should carefully track the progress of these bills and be on the lookout for similar legislative efforts in other states.  Given that a number of states, including New York and California, already require all private employers (of a particular size) to provide sexual harassment training, restaurants operating in Illinois and New Jersey may want to move towards implementing a sexual harassment policy and training program sooner than later.

 

©2019 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

New Jersey Announces Minimum Wage Increase

Governor Murphy, Senate President Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Coughlin have just announced their plan to increase New Jersey’s minimum wage to $15 per hour. Currently, minimum wage in New Jersey is $8.85 per hour.

Under the proposed plan, minimum wage would increase to $10/hour on July 1, 2019. Minimum wage would then increase by a dollar per year as follows:

  • 1/1/2020 – $11
  • 1/1/2021 – $12
  • 1/1/2022 – $13
  • 1/1/2023 – $14
  • 1/1/2024 – $15

Note that this increase will be delayed for some workers. Seasonal workers and employees at businesses with five or few workers won’t be eligible for the $15 minimum wage until 1/1/26. Agricultural workers will also be subject to different rules. More details on the plan will certainly follow in the coming weeks.

 

© 2019 Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C. All Rights Reserved
Read more news on minimum wage increases on the National Law Review’s Employment Law Page.

What’s the Lowdown on the Shutdown?

The partial government shutdown continues. The shutdown has captured the attention of Washington politicians and the media, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of federal employees who are currently furloughed or working without pay.

For employers, the shutdown has some important implications. While the Department of Labor (DOL) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) are fully funded through October 2019, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is not.

As a result of the lack of funding, the EEOC is closed until further notice.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR EMPLOYERS? A FEW THINGS:

  • The EEOC will not begin processing new employment discrimination cases until it reopens.
    However, the EEOC has been clear that the shutdown will not extend the statute of limitations for employees to file charges (300 days for Wisconsin employees). Employees who are close to the filing deadline are being encouraged to file charges by mail while the EEOC’s online portal remains closed to the public. Presumably, charges postmarked within the statute of limitations will be considered timely; however, this extra step may discourage some employees from filing claims.
  • Deadlines assigned to employers cannot be ignored on account of the shutdown.
    For example, a notice of charge dated December 21, 2018 with a position statement due date of January 21, 2019 cannot be ignored. Just as employees remain subject to the statute of limitations for their claims, so too are employers required to continue to meet their deadlines. If an extension is required, you should contact legal counsel as soon as possible. Generally, EEOC staff will not be able to respond to communications.
  • Pending EEOC charges will be suspended during the shutdown.
    This includes claims currently under investigation and those in the EEOC’s mediation program. Likewise, all EEOC litigation will be suspended except in cases where a continuance has not been granted.
  • The government shutdown does not affect state law discrimination claims.
    The Wisconsin Equal Rights Division (ERD) continues to accept discrimination claims, including those normally cross-filed with the EEOC. Employers must continue to respond to communications from the ERD.

Past experience suggests that if and when the EEOC reopens for business, there will be a significant backlog of cases to sort through. Employers should therefore expect the EEOC’s actions and communications to lag in 2019 as the agency works to get caught up on processing, investigating, and resolving cases.

 

Copyright © 2019 Godfrey & Kahn S.C.
This post was written by M. Scott LeBlanc of Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

Read more labor and employment news on the National Law Review’s labor and employment type of law page.

Scan Your Practices: Illinois Supreme Court to Resolve Biometric Privacy Standard

Fingerprinting, retina scans, and voiceprints – practices once reserved for FBI agents, criminals, and Jason Bourne – are now widely used by companies of all sizes. These “biometric identifiers” are collected, often by employers, to provide for workplace efficiencies such as clocking time and ensuring secure access to sensitive locations. Or they may be used by businesses looking to track and identify customers. Whatever the case may be, collection and use of biometric identifiers are landing companies in legal hot water.

There has been a frenzy of class action lawsuits filed under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) in recent weeks, in anticipation of a pending decision from the Illinois Supreme Court regarding the statute’s scope. BIPA provides a roadmap for how to lawfully gather, store, and destroy biometric data. When companies flout these requirements, they expose themselves to legal liability.

Compliance with BIPA is not terribly difficult. A private entity must: 1) develop a written policy, available to the public, that establishes a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric data; 2) provide information to the subject in writing, and obtain a written release before collecting and using biometric information; 3) safely store and prevent disclosure or dissemination of the biometric data to unauthorized third parties; and 4) destroy the biometric data when there is no longer a reason for keeping it, or within three years of the individual’s last interaction with the entity, whichever comes first.

The statute provides that “any person aggrieved by a violation” of these rules can bring suit. The tricky question, which the Illinois Supreme Court will soon answer, is who is a person aggrieved? Is someone aggrieved if a private entity technically violates the statute, but does not otherwise cause harm to the individual through unauthorized dissemination or disclosure of his or her biometric data? If a company forgets to obtain written authorization, but otherwise posts appropriate notices and protects the security of the data, are its employees or customers aggrieved persons?

The answer once appeared favorable to companies. In Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, the Second District Appellate Court held that “a plaintiff who alleges only a technical violation of the statute without alleging some injury or adverse effect is not an aggrieved person” under BIPA. In other words, technical violations of the statute, without any accompanying harm, did not pave the way for litigation.

At the end of 2018, however, the First District Appellate Court, in Sekura v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan, Inc., signaled a more relaxed, plaintiff-friendly standard by agreeing that an injury to a privacy right may be enough to maintain a lawsuit. Though that case also involved allegations of actual harm (unauthorized disclosure of the data to third parties), it created a fissure and undermined whatever comfort came from knowing that technical violations alone would not produce viable lawsuits. And, while the federal courts sitting in Illinois continue to dismiss these cases for lack of constitutional standing, the majority of BIPA cases are filed and remain in state court, where state precedent controls. Companies will seldom find themselves in the more favorable federal venue.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs in Rosenbach appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on this issue at the end of November 2018. The central question the court will soon answer is what type of harm must be alleged in order for a plaintiff to maintain suit under BIPA: Are allegations of mere technical violations enough, or must a plaintiff allege a more particular harm? BIPA aficionados across the state are waiting with bated breath to learn the answer.

In the meantime, companies would be wise to review their biometric data notification, collection, storage, and destruction practices. In many ways, regardless of Rosenbach’s outcome, companies need to be extremely vigilant in deciding whether to collect biometric data in the first place and, if so, in developing and implementing careful practices to ensure full compliance with BIPA. Even if the Illinois Supreme Court ultimately concludes that technical violations alone are not actionable, shrewd plaintiffs and their attorneys will not hesitate to articulate allegations of harm beyond mere technicalities. Now is the time to scan your practices.

 

© 2019 Much Shelist, P.C.
This post was written by Laura A. Elkayam and James L. Wideikis of Much Shelist, P.C.
Read more on emerging employment law issues at the National Law Review’s Employment Law Resources Page.

Under Developing IRS Guidance (Not Final), an Employer Would Be Able to Fully Satisfy ACA’s Employer Mandate Without Maintaining Group Health Plan

Takeaway Message: A recent IRS notice provides a future path for employers to avoid ACA employer mandate penalties by reimbursing employees for a portion of the cost of individual insurance coverage through an employer-sponsored health reimbursement arrangement (HRA). While the notice is not binding and at this stage is essentially a discussion of relevant issues, it does represent a significant departure from the IRS’s current position that an employer can only avoid ACA employer mandate penalties by offering a major medical plan.

Background: As described in more detail in a previous update, the ACA currently prohibits (except in limited circumstances) an employer from maintaining an HRA that reimburses the cost of premiums for individual health insurance policies purchased by employees in the individual market. Proposed regulations issued by the IRS and other governmental agencies would eliminate this prohibition, allowing an HRA to reimburse the cost of premiums for individual health insurance policies (Individual Coverage HRA) provided that the employer satisfies certain conditions.

The preamble of the proposed regulations noted that the IRS would issue future guidance describing special rules that would permit employers who sponsor Individual Coverage HRAs to be in full compliance with the ACA’s employer mandate (described below). As follow up, the IRS recently issued Notice 2018-88 (the Notice), which is intended to begin the process of developing guidance on this issue.

On a high level, the ACA’s employer mandate imposes two requirements in order to avoid potential tax penalties: (1) offer health coverage to at least 95 percent of full-time employees (and dependents); and (2) offer “affordable” health coverage that provides “minimum value” to each full-time employee (the terms are defined by the ACA and are discussed further in these previous updates).

Offering Health Coverage to at Least 95 Percent of Full-Time Employees: Both the proposed regulations and Notice provide that an Individual Coverage HRA plan constitutes an employer-sponsored health plan for employer mandate purposes. As a result, the proposed regulations and Notice provide that an employer can satisfy the 95 percent offer-of-coverage test by making its full-time employees (and dependents) eligible for the Individual Coverage HRA plan.

Affordability: The Notice indicates that an employer can satisfy the affordability requirement if the employer contributes a sufficient amount of funds into each full-time employee’s Individual Coverage HRA account. Generally, the employer would have to contribute an amount into each Individual Coverage HRA account such that any remaining premium costs (for self-only coverage) that would have to be paid by the employee (after exhausting HRA funds) would not exceed 9.86 percent (for 2019, as adjusted) of the employee’s household income. Because employers are not likely to know the household income of their employees, the notice describes that employers would be able to apply the already-available affordability safe harbors (described in more detail here) to determine affordability as it relates to Individual Coverage HRAs. The Notice also describes new safe harbors for employers that are specific to Individual Coverage HRAs, intending to further reduce administrative burdens.

Minimum Value Requirement: The Notice explains that an Individual Coverage HRA that is affordable will be treated as providing minimum value for employer mandate purposes.

Next Steps: Nothing is finalized yet. Employers are not permitted to rely on the proposed regulations or the Notice at this time. The proposed regulations are aimed to take effect on January 1, 2020, if finalized in a timely matter. The final regulations will likely incorporate the special rules contemplated by the Notice (perhaps with even more detail). Stay tuned.

 

© 2019 Foley & Lardner LLP
This post was written by Jessica M. Simons and Nick J. Welle of Foley & Lardner LLP.

Partial Government Shutdown Causes Full-Blown Headache for Employers Using E-Verify

If you are an employer that is obligated to or has chosen to use E-Verify, then you have probably already received this message from the E-Verify website: “NOTICE: Due to the lapse in federal funding, this website will not be actively managed. This website was last updated on December 21, 2018, and will not be updated until after funding is enacted. As such, information on this website may not be up to date. Transactions submitted via this website might not be processed, and we will not be able to respond to inquiries until after appropriations are enacted.”

But what does this notice actually mean for your business? As long as the shutdown remains in effect, you will not be able to:

  • enroll in the program

  • access your E-Verify account

  • create a case in E-Verify

  • take action on a case you previously submitted

  • add, delete, or edit accounts

  • terminate accounts

  • run reports

Also during this time, your employees will not be able to resolve any E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmations (TNCs) they received prior to the shutdown. Indeed, the number of days E-Verify is not available will not count toward the days employees have to begin the process of resolving their TNCs.

So, what should you do with your new hires given that you cannot create a case in E-Verify within the three business days required?

  • Make sure you are still completing I-9s in a timely manner. The shutdown does not affect the three business days you have to obtain and verify documentation in Section 2 or any other I-9 obligations.

  • Do not take any adverse action against employees who have open cases in E-Verify.

  • Create a list of all employees hired during the time period E-Verify has been inoperable, and make a notation that the reason the employees were not run through E-Verify is due to the government shutdown.

  • Take the time now to establish a system for running these employees through E-Verify once the system becomes available. Absent other instructions from USCIS, you will most likely be choosing the “other” drop-down field when asked why the case was not created within three days and typing in “government shutdown.”

  • If you’re a federal contractor with a Federal Acquisition Regulation E-Verify clause, think about getting confirmation in writing from your contracting officer that the E-Verify deadlines are extended. Or, if the officer is not available, at least create documentation that you have inquired about this.

© 2019 Jones Walker LLP
This post was written by Laurie M. Riley and Mary Ellen Jordan of Jones Walker LLP.

Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance Amended With Annual Increases

Any employer working with the city of Los Angeles should be aware of recent amendments to the Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance, which lays out annual cash wage increases, time off and health benefits.

The Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance (LWO) applies to city contractors and ensures that employees working on city contracts are paid the city’s set living wage (which consists of a cash wage rate and an employer’s health related benefits contribution) and are provided with time off as required by the LWO (at least 96 compensated hours off and 80 uncompensated hours off).

Effective October 15, 2018, the city amended the ordinance to require employer contractors to pay their non-airport employees the following wage going forward:

  • On July 1, 2019, the wage rate for an Employee shall be no less than $14.25 per hour.
  • On July 1, 2020, the wage rate for an Employee shall be no less than $15.00 per hour.
  • July 1, 2022, and annually thereafter, the hourly wage rate paid to an Employee to be adjusted.

In addition to the above base wage, employers must provide health benefits of at least $1.25 per hour to employees towards the provision of health care benefits for employees and their dependents.

For example, if an employer does not currently provide an employee with health benefits as provided in Section 10.37.3 of this article, the employee must be paid an additional wage rate of $1.25 per hour for a total of $14.50 per hour (based on the current $13.25 per hour base rate).

Employers working with Los Angeles Airport Employees must comply with separate wage rates. Effective July 1, 2018 (and adjusted annually thereafter), airport employees must be paid at minimum $13.75 per hour in cash wages and $5.24 per hour in health benefits, for a total economic package of $18.99. The term “total economic package” is not defined in the ordinance. However, it is traditionally interpreted to mean “health related” benefits. “Health related” is defined liberally to include vacation time, health insurance, sick pay, etc.

Because the LWO’s wage rate increases annually, California employers thinking about entering into collective bargaining agreements should consider including flexible language around the annual rate increase.

 

© 2019 Barnes & Thornburg LLP
This post was written by Michael Lee and Barnes & Thornburg LLP.