Category: Labor & Employment

Stop! Texas Federal Court Enjoins New FLSA Overtime Rules

Texas DOL FLSA overtime rulesWe have written often in the past several months about the new FLSA overtime rules that were scheduled to go into effect in little more than a week, dramatically increasing the salary thresholds for “white collar” exemptions and also providing for automatic increases for those thresholds.

In our most recent piece about the important decisions employers had to make by the effective date of December 1, 2016, careful readers noticed a couple of peculiar words — “barring … a last-minute injunction.”

On November 22, 2016, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Texas entered just such an injunction, enjoining the Department of Labor from implementing the new rules on a nationwide basis.

“The court determines that the state plaintiffs have satisfied all prerequisites for a preliminary injunction,” wrote United States District Court Judge Amos Mazzant III. “The state plaintiffs have established a prima facie case that the Department’s salary level under the final rule and the automatic updating mechanism are without statutory authority.”

The state plaintiffs had argued that the Department of Labor usurped Congress’ authority in establishing new salary thresholds. Finding that the Department had overstepped its bounds, Judge Mazzant wrote, “If Congress intended the salary requirement to supplant the duties test, then Congress and not the department, should make that change.”

The injunction could leave employers in a state of limbo for weeks, months and perhaps longer as injunctions often do not resolve cases and, instead, lead to lengthy appeals. Here, though, the injunction could spell the quick death to the new rules should the Department choose not to appeal the decision in light of the impending Donald Trump presidency. We will continue to monitor this matter as it develops.

To the extent that employers have not already increased exempt employees’ salaries or converted them to non-exempt positions, the injunction will at the very least allow employers to postpone those changes. And, depending on the final resolution of this issue, it is possible they may never need to implement them.

The last-minute injunction puts some employers in a difficult position, though — those that already implemented changes in anticipation of the new rules or that informed employees that they will receive salary increases or will be converted to non-exempt status effective December 1, 2016.

Whether employers can reverse salary increases they have already implemented is an issue that should be addressed carefully with legal guidance.

As for those employers that informed employees of changes that would go into effect on December 1, 2016, they, too, should seek legal guidance as to how to communicate with employees that those announced changes will not go into effect at that time.

While the FLSA rules are now enjoined, employers must now be mindful not only of morale issues that might result from not providing employees with raises that were implemented or announced, but also of potential breach of contract claims.

ARTICLE BY Michael S. Kun of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

©2016 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

New Form I-9 Must Be Used By January 22, 2017

USCIS Form i-9This week, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released a new version of its Form I-9, the Employment Eligibility Verification form. All U.S. employers must begin using the new Form I-9 after January 22, 2017.

Currently, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducts over 3,000 I-9 employer audits annually, and immigration enforcement is anticipated to increase due to the Trump presidency. In January, Holland & Hart will host a webinar explaining the changes to the Form I-9 and discussing what immigration reforms employers should expect in a Trump presidency.

Form I-9 Changes

The new version of the Form I-9 includes some clarifications as well as some changes designed to make the form easier to fill out electronically. Completing the Form I-9 electronically will require downloading the latest version of Adobe Reader. Form I-9s completed electronically will still need to be printed and signed by the employee and employer agent by hand. One of the changes is in Section 1 which now asks for “other last names used” rather than “other names used.”

Enhancements for easier completion of the form include drop-down lists and calendars for entering dates, the addition of prompts to help ensure that information is entered properly, on-screen instructions for each field, and easy access to the full instructions. It also includes an option to clear the form and start over. Other changes you’ll find on the new I-9 include:

  • Question regarding whether a preparer or translator was used

  • Space to enter multiple preparers and translators

  • A supplemental page for the preparer/translator

  • Creation of a QR code once the Form I-9 is completed electronically

  • A field to enter additional information such as E-Verify confirmation numbers, termination dates and correction notes, and

  • Separating the full instructions from the form itself.

Reminder of I-9 Process

As you may know, the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), prohibits employers from hiring employees, including U.S. citizens, without first verifying their identity and checking that they have proper authorization to work in the United States. The Form I-9 ensures that you have completed this necessary verification for all new hires. USCIS provides the following useful graphic to show the proper timing and process for completing Form I-9s for each newly hired employee:

Labor, Chart

What You Need To Do

You have just over two months to switch to the new Form I-9, so it is best to put procedures in place now to make that switch for all new hires to ensure compliance.

ARTICLE BY Roger Y. Tsai of Holland & Hart LLP
Copyright Holland & Hart LLP 1995-2016.

Election 2016, Title VII and Sexual Orientation, DOL Persuader Rule: Employment Law This Week – November 21, 2016 [VIDEO]

dol persuader rule employment lawElection 2016: New Laws Impacting Employers

Our top story: Election Day brings a wave of new laws affecting employers. While all eyes were on the battle for the White House, voters in a number of states approved new legislation that will directly impact employers. Arizona and Washington will soon require paid sick leave for workers, as well as minimum wage increases. Medical marijuana is now legal in Arkansas, Florida, and North Dakota, while recreational use was approved in California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada. The new laws in Arkansas and Maine explicitly prohibit employment discrimination against medical marijuana users.

Federal Court Agrees with EEOC: Title VII Covers Sexual Orientation

In another move toward sexual orientation protections in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has denied a motion to dismiss a sexual orientation case brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), one of several claims that the agency is pursuing across the country. The employer in this case had argued for dismissal because it claimed that Title VII’s prohibition of sex discrimination does not apply to sexual orientation discrimination. The court found that sexual orientation discrimination is a “subset of sexual stereotyping” covered by Title VII. This same issue is currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Second and Seventh Circuits, in cases where the district courts ruled that sexual orientation discrimination is not prohibited by Title VII.

DOL’s Amended Persuader Rule Is Permanently Blocked

A federal court in Texas has permanently enjoined the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) from enforcing its 2016 amended Persuader Rule, after concluding that the amended rule is unlawful. The decision applies nationwide, making permanent a preliminary injunction that the court issued in June. The rule would have required employers to report payments made to consultants, including lawyers, in connection with even indirect efforts to influence employees’ opinions on labor unions and a wide range of employment matters.

Fourth Circuit Rules That Nursing-Home Nurses Are Not “Supervisors”

The Fourth Circuit recently upheld a conclusion by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) that registered nurses and licensed practical nurses at a nursing home in South Carolina can unionize because they do not exercise enough independent judgment to be supervisors. The Fourth Circuit deferred to the NLRB’s position that employees do not exercise independent judgment because their decisions are controlled by company policies or rules. Because the nurses’ supervision mainly consisted of making sure that nursing assistants followed written rules and did not discipline assistants on their own, the nurses did not exercise independent judgement and, therefore, were not supervisors.

Tip of the Week

Lenora Billings-Harris—Diversity Strategist, an award-winning international speaker, and the author of The Diversity Advantage—is here with some advice on how to combat unconscious bias.

ARTICLE BY George Carroll Whipple, III of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
©2016 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

Same Sex and LGBT Protection Rights Flourish – Except in Workplaces?

In the last 20 years, the legal landscape has shifted dramatically for lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender (LGBT) individuals. In 1996, the Supreme Court used the Equal Protection Clause to invalidate an amendment to Colorado’s Constitution that would have prevented any branch or political subdivision of the state from protecting individuals against sexual orientation discrimination.1 Several years later, the Court determined that individuals’ rights to liberty under the Due Process Clause gave them the full right to engage in private consensual sexual conduct without the government’s intervention.2 Then, in 2013, the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, finding that it violated the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.3 And finally, just last year, the Supreme Court ruled that under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, same-sex couples had the right to marry in every state.4

While each of these decisions had a profound impact on the lives of many Americans, none increased the workplace protections of LGBT employees under federal anti-discrimination laws. As a panel of the Seventh Circuit recently pointed out, “[m]any citizens would be surprised to learn that under federal law any private employer can summon an employee into his office and state, ‘You are a hard-working employee and have added much value to my company, but I am firing you because you are gay.’”5

In fact, every circuit court that has been asked whether Title VII – the federal law that prohibits discrimination against an employee because of his race, color, religion, sex or national origin – covers discrimination based on sexual orientation has answered the question “no.”6 However, in reaching this conclusion, every court has unequivocally condemned the practice of sexual orientation discrimination as unwise, unfair and immoral. So why the disconnect?

As most courts see it, the issue is that Title VII does not explicitly prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, and Congress has attempted for decades to pass legislation that would expand Title VII to cover sexual orientation discrimination but has come up short.7 Also, most states have not passed legislation that covers such discrimination.

But all of this is not to say that LGBT employees are without recourse. Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, Title VII has covered claims by employees who were discriminated against because they did not conform to traditional gender stereotypes.8 In Price Waterhouse, Ann Hopkins failed to make partner at her accounting firm and was told she could improve her chances next time if she would walk, talk and dress more femininely, get her hair styled, and wear jewelry. The Supreme Court said this sort of gender stereotyping constitutes discrimination because of sex under Title VII.9

What arose from Price Waterhouse is a line of cases that protect LGBT employees from gender stereotyping discrimination but not from discrimination based on sexual orientation. The courts following this approach are forced to distinguish between behavior that would fall into the gender stereotyping category and be protected from those which would fall into the sexual orientation discrimination category and not be. At best, this is a difficult task. At worst, it’s an exercise in futility.

Some courts, unwilling or unable to differentiate between the two categories, have discarded this approach all together. For these courts, if it appears that the employee is trying to recast a sexual orientation discrimination case as one for gender stereotyping, they will deny all relief. In other words, these courts reject employees’ claims of gender stereotyping, as meritorious as they may be, when it appears the claims are intertwined with a sexual orientation discrimination claim.10

This could be primed for a change, though. While courts seem confused as to Title VII’s scope, the EEOC has no doubt: sexual orientation discrimination is, the EEOC says, discrimination because of sex. In Baldwin v. Foxx,11 the EEOC came to this conclusion for three main reasons. First, it concluded that “sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination because it necessarily entails treating an employee less favorably because of the employee’s sex.”12 To make its point, the EEOC gave the example of a woman who is suspended for placing a photo of her female spouse on her desk, and a man who faces no consequences for the same act. Second, it explained that “sexual orientation discrimination is also sex discrimination because it is associational discrimination on the basis of sex,” in which an employer discriminates against lesbian, gay, or bisexual employees based on who they date or marry.13 Finally, the EEOC described sexual orientation discrimination as a form of discrimination based on gender stereotypes in which employees are harassed or punished for failing to live up to societal norms about appropriate masculine and feminine behaviors, mannerisms and appearances.14 In emphasizing this last point, the EEOC rejected the numerous court decisions that have tried to distinguish between gender non-conformity claims and those for sexual orientation discrimination.

In its guidance on the subject, the EEOC has tracked the Baldwin decision and said that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal under Title VII. In litigation involving the EEOC, it has pushed this tripartite approach with varying success. While no circuit court has followed Baldwin or the EEOC’s guidance, a number of district courts have taken notice. Courts in Alabama, the District of Columbia, California, Oregon and Pennsylvania have all sided with the EEOC’s position and found that Title VII does prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.15 So, at least in these courts, an employer may be held liable for discrimination based on sexual orientation, just like any other protected category under Title VII.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not weighed in on this important topic to resolve the tension between the circuit courts and the EEOC (and certain district courts). It’s hard to say whether the Supreme Court will decide this issue soon, but the Court’s interest in cases addressing LGBT rights, such as the Gloucester County School Board v. G.G. case (involving issues of a school district’s obligations to a transgender student) that will be addressed this term, makes it likely that this issue will come before the Court eventually.

So until the Court decides whether Title VII prohibits sexual orientation discrimination, what’s an employer to do? After all, a mistake here –- even one made in good faith — could cost an employer Here are three things employers can do right now to minimize their liability:

  • Update your anti-harassment policy to include sexual orientation. While the weight of legal authority says that LGBT employees do not have claims for sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII, that trend is shifting. The EEOC’s position is clearly at odds with most of the case law, but as the agency enforcing federal discrimination laws, it has the authority to file lawsuits against employers who thumb their noses at it. A number of lower courts have listened, holding that Title VII does prohibit sexual orientation discrimination. Even if you disagree with the EEOC’s position, do you want to be the long and expensive test case that goes to the Supreme Court?

  • Train your employees on your policies. A written policy isn’t any good unless your employees –– particularly your managers –– know about it. It’s smart to periodically train your employees on sexual and other types of harassment. Make training on sexual orientation discrimination part of it. Ensure your employees know that your company prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation just as it does discrimination on other protected bases.

  • Make sure to follow through. It’s easy to talk the talk, but make sure you walk the walk. Just as you should not tolerate racial slurs and derogatory comments about women in the workplace, employees need to know that offensive comments about gay, lesbian and transgender individuals are also out of bounds. If someone makes a complaint of sexual orientation discrimination, management should investigate and take prompt remedial action, just as it would with any other type of complaint.

When it comes to LGBT rights and protections, the legal world is in a state of flux. For employers, that means a lot of uncertainty, but you don’t have to be held captive by uncertain times. Be proactive now and help limit the potential of future liability.

1. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). 

2. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578 (2003). 

3. United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013). 

4. Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2696 (2015). 

5. Kimberly Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, No. 15-1720, slip op. at 33 (7th Cir. Aug. 1, 2016). 5.  

6. Id. at 6. 

7. See, e.g., Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013, H.R. 1755, 113th Cong. (2013). 

8. 490 U.S. 228, 251 (1989).

9. Id. at 251. 

10. See, e.g., Vickers v. Fairfield Med. Ctr., 453 F.3d 757 (6th Cir. 2006). 

11. EEOC Appeal No. 0120133080, 2015 WL 4397641 (July 16, 2015). 

12. Id. at 5. 

13. Id. at 6. 

14. Id. 

15. Isaacs v. Felder Services, LLC, 143 F. Supp. 3d 1190 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 29, 2015) (holding claims of sexual orientation-based discrimination cognizable under Title VII); Terveer v. Billington, 34 F. Supp. 3d 100 (D.D.C. 2014) (same); Heller v. Columbia Edgewater Country Club, 195 F. Supp. 2d 1212, 1222 (D. Or. 2002) (“Nothing in Title VII suggests that Congress intended to confine the benefits of that statute to heterosexual employees alone.”); Videckis v. Pepperdine Univ., 150 F. Supp. 3d 1151 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2015) (finding sex discrimination necessarily includes sexual orientation discrimination under Title IX); Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Scott Medical Health Center, No. 16-225 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 2016) (denying defendant’s motion to dismiss and finding that allegations of sexual orientation discrimination are covered by Title VII). 

OSHA Clarifies Discipline, Retaliation and Drug Testing Commentary

When the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) released its 2016 final rule requiring the electronic reporting of workplace injury and illness reports, it included controversial provisions on discriminatory discipline, retaliation, and even post-incident drug testing by employers. The uproar was instantaneous, with industry groups quickly filing lawsuits challenging OSHA’s authority to enforce the rule. Originally scheduled to go into effect on August 10th, the effective date for the new anti-retaliation rule was pushed back by OSHA until November 1st, and more recently, until December 1st.

In the interim, Dorothy Dougherty, OSHA’s Deputy Assistant Secretary, issued an interpretation memorandum designed to explain the anti-retaliation and injury reporting procedures in more detail. The interpretation may help clarify what your organization must do in order to comply with the final rule – even if it doesn’t make the rule more palatable.

Reasonable Procedures For Employees To Report Workplace Injuries/Illnesses labor law elections

An employer violates OSHA’s new final rule if it either fails to have a procedure for employees to report work-related injuries or illnesses, or its reporting procedure is unreasonable. OSHA states that this requirement is not new, as it was implicit in the previous version of the rule. But now, it is an explicit employer requirement.

OSHA considers a reporting procedure to be reasonable if it is not unduly burdensome and would not deter a reasonable employee from reporting an injury or illness. Examples of what it considers reasonable and unreasonable are as follows:

Reasonable

  • Requiring employees to report a work-related injury or illness as soon as practicable after realizing they have a reportable incident, such as the same or next business day, when possible

  • Requiring employees to report work-related injuries or illnesses to a supervisor through reasonable means, such as by phone, email or in person.

Unreasonable

  • Requiring ill or injured employees to report in person if they are unable to do so

  • Disciplining employees for failing to report “immediately” if they are incapacitated because of the injury or illness

  • Disciplining employees for failing to report before they realize they have a work-related injury that they are required to report

  • Unnecessarily cumbersome or an excessive number of steps to report a work-related injury or illness

In short, if your procedure allows employees to report workplace injuries and illnesses within a reasonable amount of time after they realize they have experienced a reportable event, and the procedure does not make employees jump through too many hoops, it will be reasonable and comply with the final rule.

Anti-Retaliation Provision Explained

Retaliating against employees for reporting work-related injuries or illnesses has long been unlawful. To issue a citation under section 1904.35(b)(1)(iv), OSHA must have reasonable cause to believe that an employer retaliated against an employee by showing:

  1. The employee reported a work-related injury or illness;

  2. The employer took adverse action against the employee (i.e., action that would deter a reasonable employee from accurately reporting a work-related injury or illness); and

  3. The employer took the adverse action because the employee reported a work-related injury or illness.

As in most employment retaliation cases, the third element on causation is often the toughest to prove. The determination is made on a case-by-case basis, depending on the specifics facts in any particular case.

OSHA has focused its commentary primarily on three types of potentially retaliatory actions—discipline policies, incentive programs, and post-accident drug testing. OSHA’s recent interpretation helps shed light on how employers should address these three issues to avoid a citation for a violation of the anti-retaliation rule.

Disciplining Employees For Violating Work Safety Rules

Employers violate the anti-retaliation provision by disciplining or terminating employees for reporting a work-related injury or illness. But, if an employer has a legitimate business reason for imposing discipline, such as the employee’s violation of a workplace safety rule, then there is no retaliation and no violation.

OSHA states that the primary inquiry is whether the employer has treated other employees who similarly violated a safety rule the same way – in other words, did the employer impose the same adverse action regardless of whether the other employees reported a work-related injury or illness. If the rule is consistently applied, then no retaliation exists. However, if the employer disproportionately disciplined employees for violating a rule when they reported workplace injuries, or the employer ignored violations of the safety rule when there was no injury or illness, OSHA may find that the actual reason for the discipline was the reported injury or illness rather than the rule violation.

Incentive Programs

OSHA does not prohibit employers from having safety-related incentive programs. But, it does prohibit employers from withholding a benefit or otherwise penalizing an employee because of a reported injury or illness. OSHA provides this example: if an employer raffles off a $500 gift card at the end of each month in which there are no workplace injuries, such an incentive program would violate the anti-retaliation provision as it withholds the incentive (i.e., the $500 gift card) when an employee reports a work-related injury. On the other hand, an acceptable alternative would be for the employer to raffle off a gift card each month in which employees universally comply with legitimate safety rules, such as using required fall protection and following lockout-tagout rules. The key is whether the employer is withholding a benefit because of a reported work-related injury. Incentive programs that penalize the reporting of injuries and illnesses are likely to result in an OSHA citation.

Post-Accident Drug Testing

One of OSHA’s more troubling and confusing anti-retaliation position is its stance that drug testing employees who report a work-related injury or illness can be considered retaliation. Many employers impose drug testing following any workplace accident or incident that results in injuries. OSHA states that while it does not prohibit employers from drug testing employees who report work-related injuries, employers must have an objectively reasonable basis for such testing.

So what is an objectively reasonable basis for testing? OSHA states that it will consider factors including whether the employer has a reasonable basis for concluding that drug use could have contributed to the injury or illness, whether other employees involved in the incident that caused the injury were also tested (or whether only the employee who reported an injury was tested), and whether the employer has a heightened interest in determining if drug use could have contributed to the injury due to the hazardousness of the work being performed.

In addition, OSHA will consider whether the drug test is capable of measuring impairment at the time the injury occurred, where such test is available. In its interpretive memo, though, OSHA states that at this time, the agency will consider this factor for tests that measure alcohol use, but not for tests that measure the use of any other drugs.

The bottom line is that OSHA is looking whether an employer is using drug and/or alcohol testing as a form of discipline against employees who report a workplace injury, which would be retaliation. Consequently, post-accident drug testing is permitted if all workers involved in the accident are tested in order to gain insight into the cause of the accident. But drug testing an employee whose injury could not possibly be related to drug use, such as a repetitive strain injury, would be seen as retaliation. 

Key Takeaways

Assuming that the anti-retaliation rules survive their legal challenges, employers should prepare to implement a reasonable procedure for employees to report work-related injuries and illnesses. Organizations should review any safety-related incentive programs and remove any punitive effects or withholding of benefits/incentives if an employee reports a workplace injury. When adopting and enforcing drug testing policies, be certain to test all workers involved in a workplace incident, not just those who were injured or reported an injury. And last but not least, be very mindful when deciding to discipline or terminate an employee who has reported a workplace injury or illness. Without a legitimate, well-document business reason for the discipline that is unrelated to the injury report, you may find your business cited for retaliation.

ARTICLE BY Matthew Linton of Holland & Hart LLP
Copyright Holland & Hart LLP 1995-2016.

Texas Judge Not Persuaded, Permanently Enjoins DOL’s New Reporting Rule

Stop, Rain, DOL Persuader ruleIn a major victory for the business community, Judge Sam R. Cummings of the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a permanent nationwide injunction blocking the Department of Labor (DOL) from enforcing its new “persuader” rule. National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Perez, et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00066. The rule attempted to expand disclosure requirements by employers and their consultants (including attorneys) related to union-organizing campaigns.

The new rule, which Judge Cummings had preliminarily enjoined prior to its effective date of July 1 of this year, would have greatly increased the reporting requirements under Section 203 of the Labor Management and Reporting Disclosure Act. That section requires employers and their labor relations consultants to disclose the terms (including financial terms) of any arrangement by which the consultant provides services that are intended to directly or indirectly persuade employees concerning their rights to organize a union or to bargain collectively with their employer.

For years, the DOL took the position that no reporting was required unless the consultant had direct contact with employees by way of in-person meetings, telephone calls, letters, or emails. Similarly, no reporting was required if the consultant’s activities were limited to providing sample materials such as speeches, postings, letters to employees, and the like that the employer was free to accept, reject, or modify.

However, the new persuader rule expanded the disclosure requirements to include indirect contact with employees by the consultant, including:

  • Directing, planning, or coordinating the efforts of managers to persuade employees

  • Providing materials such as speeches, letters, or postings that are intended to persuade employees

  • Conducting union avoidance seminars if the consultant assists the employer in developing anti-union strategies

  • Developing personnel policies intended to persuade employees in the exercise of their organizational or collective bargaining rights.

The attorneys general for 10 states as well as various business groups challenged the new rule as infringing on employers’ First Amendment rights and conflicting with the attorney-client privilege. Judge Cummings agreed that the rule is unlawful and should be set aside. Presently, it is unknown if DOL intends to appeal Judge Cummings’ order.

ARTICLE BY Henry W. Sledz Jr. of Schiff Hardin LLP

© 2016 Schiff Hardin LLP

Workplace Law Under President-Elect Donald Trump: What to Expect

labor law elections

President-elect Donald Trump will assume office on January 20, 2017, with a Republican majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. While it is difficult to predict whether the new administration will be able to deliver on President-elect Trump’s campaign promises, we can expect significant policy and enforcement shifts. For example, judicial appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts will have significant and far-reaching implications. This analysis focuses on the likely dramatic impact of the Trump Administration on workplace law.

Courts

The U.S. Supreme Court has been operating with eight justices since the sudden passing of Justice Antonin Scalia in February. There also are many judicial vacancies on the federal bench. President-elect Trump likely will appoint judges more inclined to preserve the strict certification standards for class actions and rein in novel interpretations of laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (e.g., on disparate impact and reasonable accommodation issues).

Government Enforcement

Federal agencies increasingly have been aggressive and controversial in their enforcement methods. Under new leadership in the Department of Labor (DOL), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), among others, one can expect a return to traditional, more conservative theories of discrimination previously recognized by federal courts. We may see the EEOC ease its systemic discrimination enforcement activity and enforcement position on the ADA, Title VII, and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. An important issue to watch is the EEOC’s position on Title VII’s application to LGBT issues. Corporate diversity and inclusion programs are not likely to be affected by the new administration, as they are driven much more by demographic changes in the population, labor force, and marketplace and risk management considerations, and much less by federal law and policy in the short-term.

Further, the focus of current controversial regulatory action will change. New DOL leadership may revisit recent DOL proposed or implemented regulations, including those subject to court injunctions. Congress may also now pass legislation to repeal the new DOL overtime rule that raises the salary level for exempt employees effective December 1, 2016, and President-elect Trump might agree. Ongoing challenges to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) final rules (e.g., silica and the electronic recordkeeping rule) may result in settlements that lessen the regulatory impact of the rules. Aggressive enforcement coupled with significant publicity and fines have been key tools implemented by the current administration. Under new leadership, these agencies may ease back on such aggressive approaches and offer greater cooperation to the employer community as they try to balance the purposes of the law with business realities.

Executive Orders and Actions

President-elect Trump has announced an intention to undo President Barack Obama’s Executive Orders, many of which impose significant employment-related prohibitions and requirements on government contractors. The new administration likely will rescind at least some of those Executive Orders, chief among them the controversial Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order.

In addition, President-elect Trump has stated he will reverse the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) Executive Actions. It is unclear whether this would only address the enjoined executive relief programs or also include revocation of work authorization documents for currently eligible workers under DACA.

EEO-1 Pay Data Reporting

Final rules revising the EEO-1 report to add W-2 earnings and work hours reporting are scheduled to go into effect in early 2018. The new administration may consider rescinding the changes before first reporting is due in 2018 or revising the reporting to ease the burden on employers.

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)

Currently, the NLRB has a 2-1 Democratic majority, with two vacant seats. Since the President traditionally has had the opportunity to appoint Board members to achieve a majority along political lines, the open seats likely will be filled by Trump appointees. This will create a more business-oriented NLRB. A new Board with a Republican majority is likely to revisit recent NLRB rules and decisions, including those covering (1) class action waivers, (2) joint employers, (3) inclusion of temporary workers in bargaining units with an employer’s regular workers, (4) quickie elections, (5) expansion of protected concerted activity (e.g., its impact on workplace policies), (6) definition of appropriate bargaining units, and (7) status of college/university adjunct faculty, graduate students, and student athletes. The new Board also may not make additional changes the current Board would make, such as extending Weingarten rights to non-union workplaces and making misclassification of employees as independent contractors a separate violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In addition, the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) “persuader” regulations, which are currently enjoined, may be revisited.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Dodd-Frank Act

During the campaign, President-elect Trump singled out the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 (DFA) as making it impossible for banks to lend money to businesses for the purpose of creating jobs. A repeal of the DFA might encourage Congress and the Securities and Exchange Commission to rely more heavily on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) whistleblower provisions and thus mandate that corporate compliance programs, as developed by publicly traded companies, be increasingly robust, providing for greater “self-regulation.” Further SEC enforcement actions regarding confidentiality agreements likely will decrease.

Affordable Care Act (ACA)

President-elect Trump has vowed to repeal and replace the ACA. The extent to which this comes to fruition, the timing of any dismantling efforts, and the types of replacements that are offered will be of utmost importance to employers. While there has been much mentioned in broad brush strokes about a full repeal, it is unlikely that that can or will occur. Alternatives, such as the reliance on private healthcare savings accounts, market-based universal coverage and allowing for insurance plans to be offered across state lines have been floated, however, there is no Republican consensus on what the path away from the ACA will look like. Employers will be eager to see what is done to change and lessen employer obligations under the ACA, but for the meantime, will have to stay the course.

Fiduciary Rule

The DOL’s fiduciary rule concerning the expanded definition of who is considered a fiduciary under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Internal Revenue Code, as well as certain exemptions addressing conflicts of interest, also may be subjected to increased scrutiny in light of the President-elect’s opposition to the current administration’s financial initiatives and, more generally, “unnecessary” regulations. It is hard to determine at this point where these types of regulations on fiduciary status and conduct will rank among a long list of priorities for the new administration.

Federal Tax Reform

President-elect Trump has promised sweeping federal tax reform, including tax cuts for corporations. While the viability of implementing such changes rests with the Republican Congress, the lack of specificity as to what tax reform would look like under the new administration leaves many questions. These questions include how tax reform may affect benefits plans and arrangements, such as qualified retirement plans, fringe benefits, and executive compensation arrangements.

E-Verify

The new administration may focus on expanding enforcement of existing immigration laws in the workplace, which may include encouraging more employers to use E-Verify under existing law, as well as working with Congress to expand mandatory use of E-Verify. Under current federal law, E-Verify is voluntary for employers, except as mandated by executive order for federal government contractors.

International

The new administration may suspend temporarily the issuance of visas to certain countries and regions designated as high risk. President-elect Trump has indicated he will ask the Department of State, Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Justice to begin a comprehensive review of high-risk visa cases to develop a list of regions and countries for which visa issuance will be suspended until a proven and effective vetting mechanism is implemented. Individuals from countries such as Syria, Iraq, Libya, and other designated high-risk areas, or individuals who have traveled to such countries, will face even longer delays obtaining visas for both short- and long-term travel to the U.S. In addition, global mobility may be affected if the U.S. restricts or delays business visas, resulting in reciprocal treatment by the affected countries.

U.S. companies operating in major European markets and other countries with strong labor interests may encounter increasingly complex labor relations and works council issues, as the United States is perceived as more nationalistic and less deferential to local employee protections. Further, there may be increasing pressure from foreign vendors, suppliers, customers, and employees on U.S. companies to certify that they will comply with ILO standards.

Post-Employment Restrictions

The new administration is unlikely to continue attempts to prohibit non-compete agreements we have seen from the White House over the past months, at least on a federal level. On a state level, legislatures still may respond to the Obama Administration’s “call to action” and introduce measures to curb the use of non-compete agreements, as, for example, has been promised by New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

The “Antitrust Guidance for Human Resource Professionals,” issued by the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, is not likely to continue as a priority for the new administration. The guidance promised criminal prosecution of human resource professionals who, for example, enter into “naked” no-poach agreements.

Trade Secret Protection

Adding to the bi-partisan federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, which provided a civil right of action under the Economic Espionage Act, a new administration may adopt protectionist policies, bringing further enforcement efforts to misappropriation of trade secrets flowing to foreign powers, including to China.

Cybersecurity

President-elect Trump has expressed a desire to reduce, rather than increase regulation. However, political party hacking and unfavorable email dumps from WikiLeaks, coupled with continued data breaches affecting privacy and public sector entities, may prompt the new President and Congress to do more. Politics aside, cybersecurity is a top national security concern, and it is having a significant impact on private sector risk management strategies and individual security.

DOL Opinion Letters

The long-standing practice of the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the DOL issuing official opinion letters regarding application of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) upon which employers rely may make a comeback. In recent years, the DOL had stopped issuing opinion letters, choosing instead to issue less frequent “Administrator Interpretations” with wider applicability and scope, but less specificity. Two significant Administrator Interpretations concerned “joint employment” and “independent contractor” status under the FLSA. Both have been viewed as clear efforts to expand the rights of workers under the law and place additional burdens on employers. New opinion letters are issued on a variety of topics and could scale-back or withdraw the Obama Administrator Interpretations, permitting employers greater flexibility in using independent contractors and giving business more certainty in expanding through use of franchises.

White Collar

The President-elect has been critical of excessive and unnecessary government regulation in such areas as health care, energy, and the environment. We may see a decreased investigatory focus in these areas, and fewer federal prosecutions of health care organizations, pharmaceutical companies, and manufacturers.

Focused on security and protecting the homeland, the new administration may enhance emphasis on international terrorism investigations, import/export violations, and immigration offenses.

Given his pledge to improve life in “inner city” areas, we should expect greater resources and attention to be devoted to the prosecutions of criminal activity by violent gangs and an effort to address crimes that affect the daily lives of the residents of America’s cities.

***

An important question for many, especially those that operate in multiple states and must comply with the current patchwork of state laws on data breach and sick leave, for example, is whether a federal law that supersedes state law is likely. With Republicans in control of the executive and legislative branches, that remains to be seen.

ARTICLE BY Howard M. Bloom & Philip B. Rosen of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2016

Arizona Voters Approve Paid Sick Leave for Employees and Minimum Wage Increase

Arizona Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Time OffThe election results are in, and President-elect Donald Trump’s victory over Secretary Hillary Clinton has the nation abuzz and undoubtedly will for the foreseeable future.  However, the Presidential race was not the only notable race or measure on the ballot.  Although the dust hasn’t quite settled from last night’s historic vote, there a number of approved ballot measures that employers will need to understand and prepare for immediately.

Specifically, in Arizona, the Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Time Off Initiative, also known as Proposition 206, passed by a 59% to 41% margin.  The paid sick time component of the law will go into effect July 1, 2017, while the minimum wage increase begins in just a few months by raising the Arizona minimum wage to $10.00 per hour effective January 1, 2017.

The first component of the new Arizona law inserts Article 8.1 entitled “Earned Paid Sick Time” into Section 5, Title 23, Chapter 2 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.  The new paid sick time law applies to covered employers regardless of the number of employees; a covered employer with at least one Arizona employee is obligated to comply with the law.  Accrued paid sick time may be used for the employee for his or her own mental or physical illness, injury or health condition; or to care for a family member’s – as the term family member is defined under the statute – mental or physical illness, injury or health condition.  Here are the major points of emphasis:

All employees will accrue paid sick time at a minimum rate of one hour for every 30 hours worked for the employer.

Employees of an employer with 15 more employees may cap maximum annual accrual of paid sick time at 40 hours, while smaller employers may cap the maximum annual accrual at 24 hours.

Employees who are exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”) will be assumed to work 40 hours in each work week for purposes of calculating paid sick time accrual, unless their normal work week is less than 40 hours, in which case earned paid sick time accrues based on actual hours worked.

Unused earned paid sick time must be carried forward to the following year consistent with the accrual limits of the statute. Employers may forego this requirement by following a procedure specified in the statute.

A 90-day probationary period for new employees may apply to the use, but not accrual, of paid sick time.

The new law includes specific employee protections making it unlawful for an employer to retaliate or discriminate against an employee for exercise of his or her use of paid sick time.

Further complicating the new law will be the statutory provision allowing employers to do away with the accrual method in favor of simply providing an employee at the beginning of the year all earned paid sick time that an employee is expected to accrue during the year.  (This provision brings Arizona’s law relatively on par with neighboring California’s paid sick time law.)  The new Arizona law contains other provisions explaining issues such as an employer’s ability to pay its employees for earned, unused paid sick time rather than carrying it forward to the next year; notice required by the employee for use of paid sick time; and the employer’s ability to request documentation to verify proper use of paid sick time.   Notably, the law does not require the payment of accrued but unused paid sick time upon termination of employment.

Employers should note that the provisions of the new paid sick time law are minimum requirements, and nothing in the new law prevents an employer from establishing a more generous policy or continuing one already in place.

The second component of the new Arizona law adjusts Arizona Revised Statute § 23-363 to require a gradual increase of Arizona’s minimum wage beginning this coming January.  Arizona’s new minimum wage will be $10.00 per hour effective January 1, 2017.  Thereafter, the minimum wage will be raised to $10.50 effective January 1, 2018, $11.00 effective January 1, 2019, and $12.00 per hour effective January 1, 2021.  Beginning in 2021, the minimum wage will continue to be adjusted annually based on Arizona’s cost of living.  Employers with employees who customarily and regularly receive tips as part of their income may continue to pay employees $3.00 less than the minimum wage in accordance with Arizona’s minimum wage act if the employer can prove the employee is earning at or beyond the minimum wage after tips are counted.

Arizona’s passing of Proposition 206 continued a national trend of answering demands for paid sick time and increasing the minimum wage.  Maine and Colorado also agreed to raise the minimum wage, while Washington voters approved of both a minimum wage increase and to provide paid sick leave for employees in similar fashion to Arizona’s measure.

Arizona employers are encouraged to reach out to local employment attorneys for additional guidance or as questions may arise.

ARTICLE BY Daniel B. Pasternak of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
© Copyright 2016 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

UK Employee Classification: Uber Drivers Uber Happy

Uber employee ClassificationAs you may have seen from the extensive press coverage, the UK Employment Tribunal has delivered its much anticipated judgment in Aslam and Farrar v Uber. The case was about whether Uber drivers are self-employed contractors, or are “workers” with rights to minimum wage, statutory holidays, sick pay and breaks, amongst other workers’ rights.

In Depth

A “worker” is someone who has entered into a contract to personally do work for, or provide services to, a third party. This contract can be implied and does not have to be in writing. If that third party is a customer of the individual’s business undertaking, however, then that individual is self-employed.

Determining the status of the relationship between businesses and those they engage involves the Employment Tribunal looking beyond the terms and conditions in place between the parties to the reality of the relationship. The Tribunal will look at a number of factors to determine the true status of the relationship, but what really matters is the Tribunal’s view of how much control the business exerts over the individual, and whether or not that tips the balance away from the individual truly having the autonomy of being self-employed.

Uber’s Position

Uber said that it did not have the necessary control over drivers because

  • It is just a “platform” (through the Uber app) that links fare-paying customers to Uber drivers, rather than a transportation business.

  • Once linked, the Uber driver uses his/her own vehicle to take the customer to the requested destination.

  • There is no obligation on the drivers to work and drivers are not performance managed or subject to disciplinary procedures, although they do receive a “rating” from customers at the end of the journey.

  • Uber does not “pay” the drivers.  The drivers receive the fare paid by the customer (collected by Uber through the platform), after the deduction of Uber’s service fee. The service fee to Uber is taken as payment for the use of the app.

  • The drivers pay for the vehicle, the expenses associated with running that vehicle and their own taxi licenses.

  • It is the end-user (Uber’s customers) who contract with the drivers; they engage the drivers as self-employed contractors.

  • The drivers accept their self-employed status for tax purposes.

  • The drivers are permitted to work for other organisations, including direct competitors of Uber; they are not required to work exclusively for Uber.

The Employment Tribunal’s Decision

The Tribunal was not persuaded by Uber’s arguments nor, in relation to some aspects, Uber’s perspective on how its business operated. The Tribunal found that Uber was, indeed, running a transportation business through which the drivers provided skilled labour, from which Uber profited. The key factors were

  • That the drivers can only use the Uber app on Uber’s terms.

  • Uber interviews and “recruits” the drivers.

  • Uber handles customer complaints and often compensates customers following these complaints. Uber’s findings in respect of customer complaints are not always shared with the driver.

  • Uber accepts liability for losses, e.g., refunds to passengers, which would usually fall to a driver who was genuinely self-employed.

  • Uber does pay the drivers.

  • Uber’s ratings system (whereby the customer would rate the driver following the completion of a journey), is essentially a performance management procedure that could result in the driver being disconnected from the app.

  • Fares are fixed by Uber.

  • The language used by Uber in its PR communications is inconsistent with their argument that the drivers are self-employed.

What’s Next?

Uber has confirmed to customers and the press that it will be appealing the decision. In order to get an appeal off the ground, however, Uber will need to identify an error of law in the Tribunal’s judgment, or show that it had reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal could have reached on the facts.

How Does This Affect My Business

The analysis of an individual’s employment status will depend on the facts of each individual case. The Uber judgment therefore does not necessarily mean that all companies within the gig economy, or who engage self-employed contractors, must now give these individuals workers’ rights.

It does, however, serve as a useful reminder to review your workforce, consultancy/contractor agreements and other documents/communications and processes. Keep in mind, however, that were there to be a dispute over the status of the working relationship, a tribunal or HMRC would look beyond the contractual documents to the true relationship of the parties.

ARTICLE BY Katie L. Clark & Paul McGrath of McDermott Will & Emery

© 2016 McDermott Will & Emery

Non-Competes Call to Action, Transgender Bathrooms, Texas Court Blocks Blacklisting Rule: Employment Law This Week November 7, 2016 [VIDEO]

White House Issues Call to Action on Non-Competes

Our top story: The White House issues a call to action. The administration is calling on states to combat what it describes as the “gross overuse of non-compete clauses today.” The statement recommends legislation banning non-competes for certain categories of workers and prohibiting courts from narrowing overly broad agreements. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman answered the call immediately, announcing that he would introduce relevant legislation in 2017.

“President Obama’s call to action encouraged states to take action to do three things. One, to ban non-competes for certain types of employees, such as low-wage earners; two, to increase transparency in the way that employers communicated with employees about non-competes; and three, to incentivize employers to write non-competes that are enforceable. … It used to be that non-competes were subject to scrutiny in the courtroom, but now we’re seeing that scrutiny also in the media and in the political arena. … With scrutiny of non-competes occurring in additional fora, it’s important for employers to review their non-competes, both to make sure that they are enforceable and to make sure that they’re administered to appropriate levels of employees.”

High Court Will Hear Transgender Bathroom Case

The Supreme Court will examine the definition of “sex discrimination.” The High Court has agreed to hear a case involving a transgender student and his use of the boys’ bathroom at school. The legal issue at the center of the case is the interpretation of regulations implementing Title IX, which bans sex discrimination in schools. The Department of Education has put out guidance interpreting “sex discrimination” to include claims based on gender identity, and the Fourth Circuit deferred to that interpretation in this case. This case could have implications for other laws that prohibit sex discrimination, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Texas Court Blocks Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Regulations

Federal contractors get a reprieve from the “blacklisting” rule. A Texas federal court issued a temporary nationwide injunction on portions of the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule. The executive order includes controversial disclosure requirements for government contractors and restrictions on arbitration. The district court ruled that the prohibition on certain arbitration agreements conflicted with the Federal Arbitration Act, and the reporting requirements could allow contractors to be disqualified from obtaining contracts without due process.

New York City Council Passes First Freelancer Wage Protection Law

The New York City Council has passed the nation’s first legislation bolstering protections for freelancers. The “Freelance Isn’t Free” Act, which passed unanimously, implements penalties for employers who do not pay freelance workers within 30 days of services rendered. In addition, the Act requires a written contract for freelance work worth $800 or more. The contract must include an itemized accounting of the work to be performed and the rate of pay. Mayor Bill de Blasio is expected to sign the bill.

Tip of the Week

Brian Chevlin, Senior Vice President and General Counsel for Pernod Ricard USA, is here with some advice on how to build a committed legal team through a culture of appreciation.

ARTICLE BY

George Carroll Whipple, III
Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
©2016 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.