Category: Labor & Employment

Yes, Your March Madness Office Bracket is Technically Illegal

march madness office bracket
marc

March Madness has arrived!  The 2017 NCAA Basketball Tournaments tip-off tonight (March 15) and continue through the Women’s and Men’s National Championship Games on April 2 and 3 respectively.  With this, comes the American tradition of companies and their employees betting on tournament outcomes through office bracket pools.

As lawyers, we have to point out that your company’s March Madness pool is very likely illegal under at least three federal gambling laws (the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, the Interstate Wire Act of 1961, and the Uniform Internet Gambling Enforcement Act) and many state laws.  And we would be remiss to not mention that there is a parade of horribles that could happen from permitting such workplace wagering.

With that said, the more practical reality is that office pools have become a widely-practiced and culturally accepted form of gambling, law enforcement authorities seem to have little interest in enforcing laws that technically prohibit them, and many employers view these office pools as a workplace morale booster.

For those employers – seemingly, most all of them – who will not shut down this popular practice, here are some best practices to help mitigate legal issues when sponsoring or allowing office pools:

  • Make sure that all entry fees are distributed solely to the winner or winners of the pool.  An employer, or employees organizing a pool, should never take a “cut” of entry fees.  Under various anti-gambling laws, profiting from the pool in this way raises a host of issues.

  • Limit pools to offices within a particular state.  Doing so may prevent the pool from violating federal laws, as they generally require the transmission of money or communications across state lines to be applicable.

  • Make participation completely voluntary and limit entry fees to nominal amounts.  Expensive or compelled buy-ins may encourage the predilections of employees who are problem gamblers, and expensive buy-ins may tempt those employees responsible for collecting and distributing entry fees to surreptitiously take a “cut.”  Compelled buy-ins could implicate wage and hour and religious anti-discrimination laws.  Following these guidelines helps ensure that an office pool is low-stakes and simply intended to promote friendly rivalry.

  • Do not retaliate against or single-out employees who may complain to the pools.  There are plaintiff’s lawyers out there who will try to tether an internal complaint of unlawful activity to later adverse action against the complainer.

  • Prohibit employees from gambling in other pools on company time or through company equipment.  Apart from a workplace pool, employees may choose to participate in other pools with non-employees, and there are many options to do so online (including through company-issued or owned computers).  These other pools can raise additional concerns about potential violations of the law, to the extent they involve large wagers, are structured to profit the organizer, or involve interstate communications.  Consequently, for reasons of both legality and ensuring employee productivity, employers are best served by a policy that prohibits employee gambling in other pools on company time or company equipment.

  • Consider sponsoring a free pool that provides a non-monetary award.  Although employees may not find it as interesting, an employer concerned about the legality of its office pool may consider sponsoring a pool that is free to enter, with a non-monetary award (a gift card or some other prize) for the winners.  The lack of an exchange of money in such a pool may avoid the reach of potentially applicable anti-gambling laws.

Putting legality aside, it is well-established that employee productivity takes a hit during March Madness, particularly since it is now possible to watch games online through work computers or personal mobile devices, and permitting an office pool could encourage distraction.

To accommodate employee interest in the tournaments while reducing productivity loss employers should consider airing the games in a breakroom or lunchroom. At the same time, add sports broadcasts and websites to blocked sites on company systems that monitor and limit Internet use on company-owned computers, systems and devices (certainly, gambling and unlawful activity websites should be blocked year-round).  And if productivity becomes a problem, communicate policies addressing these concerns to employees, including policies restricting viewing to non-break times or reminding employees (including those tempted to duck out early to catch a game) of applicable attendance and punctuality policies.

As March Madness begins, we wish you the home court advantage.

ARTICLE BY Mark E. Terman & Dennis M. Mulgrew, Jr. of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

©2017 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved

How Does Supreme Court’s Remand of Transgender Discrimination Case Impact Wage-and-Hour Class Actions?

supreme court transgender discriminationOn March 6, 2017, the Supreme Court, in a one-sentence summary disposition, remanded the case of Gloucester County Sch. Bd. v. G.G. to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit “for further consideration in light of the guidance document issued by the Department of Education and Department of Justice on February 22, 2017.”  For those unfamiliar with Gloucester County, the case involves a public school’s obligations to a transgender student under Title IX and, in particular, whether Title IX’s prohibition against sex discrimination requires a school to treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity when providing sex-separated facilities, such as toilets, locker rooms, and showers.

So what does this have to do with wage-and-hour class actions?  As it turns out, in Gloucester County, the Supreme Court was poised to consider the scope, and perhaps the continuing viability, of the Auer doctrine, which frequently comes into play in wage-and-hour litigation.  Under the Auer doctrine, courts generally will enforce an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations unless that interpretation is “plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.”  In wage-and-hour class actions, this often results in cases being decided based on guidance issued by the Department of Labor through opinion letters, its Field Operations Handbook, and other sources.

This deference to the Department of Labor can be frustrating for employers and attorneys practicing wage-and-hour law because the guidance issued by the Department of Labor often changes with each new Presidential administration.  For example, an entire industry can decide to classify a group of employees as exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements based on an opinion letter from the Department of Labor only to learn years later that the Department has withdrawn the opinion letter after the start of a new administration.  If courts are obligated under Auer to defer to these shifting interpretations issued by the Department of Labor, it can create a great deal of uncertainty for employers seeking to comply with the FLSA and for parties litigating wage-and-hour class actions.

In the long term, eliminating or narrowing the Auer doctrine could provide more consistency for employers and litigants.  With the remand of Gloucester County, that is unlikely to happen in the near future.  In the short term, however, the continuing viability of the Auer doctrine may benefit employers who are hopeful that the Department of Labor, under the Trump administration, will take a more employer-friendly view of certain regulations.  For now, the Department of Labor remains free to shape FLSA through opinion letters and other guidance documents and without having to resort to the time-consuming process of issuing revised regulations.

ARTICLE BY Jeffrey L. Rudd  of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2017

Puerto Rico Enacts Equal Pay Law, Prohibits Employers from Inquiring about Past Salary History

Puerto Rico Equal PayAlmost two months after signing sweeping employment law reform, Governor Ricardo Rosselló has signed Puerto Rico Act No. 16 of March 8, 2017, known as the “Puerto Rico Equal Pay Act.” Act 16 is effective immediately.

Although modeled after the federal Equal Pay Act, Act 16 goes further, limiting instances in which employers can inquire into an applicant’s salary history, among other key provisions.

Pay Discrimination Prohibition. Like the federal Equal Pay Act, Act 16 establishes a general prohibition of pay discrimination based on sex among employees in jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex.

Past Salary History Inquiries Prohibited. Act 16 prohibits employers from inquiring into an applicant’s past salary history, unless the applicant volunteered such information or a salary was already negotiated with the applicant and set forth in an offer letter, in which case an employer can inquire or confirm salary history.

Pay Transparency. Act 16 forbids employers from prohibiting discussions about salaries among employees or applicants, with certain exceptions for managers or human resources personnel. It also contains an anti-retaliation provision protecting employees who disclose their own salary or discuss salaries with other employees, object to any conduct prohibited by the law, present a claim or complaint, or participate in an investigation under Act 16.

Remedies and “Self-Evaluation Mitigation.” Available remedies for victims of pay discrimination include back pay and an equal amount as a penalty. Double compensatory damages also are available as remedies. The additional back pay penalty can be waived if the employer demonstrates that, in the year prior to the presentation of a salary claim, the employer voluntarily undertook a “self-evaluation” of its compensation practices and made reasonable efforts to eliminate pay disparities based on sex. The self-evaluation or mitigating measures cannot be used as evidence of violation of the law for events that take place within six months after the self-evaluation’s completion or within one year of the self-evaluation if the employer has commenced reasonable and good faith mitigating measures. The Puerto Rico Secretary of Labor is tasked with preparing and distributing uniform guidelines for employer self-evaluations.

The Department of Labor is authorized to prepare interpretive regulations and must commence a statistical study into pay inequality among men and women. The federal EPA and its regulations will be used as reference in interpreting Act 16.

The penalty provisions of Act 16 will not be effective until March 8, 2018, to permit employers to take any mitigating measures.

ARTICLE BY Maralyssa Álvarez-Sánchez & Juan Felipe Santos of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2017

Congress Boots “Blacklisting” Regulation and Sends it to President’s Desk

Congress Capitol blacklistingOn March 6, 2017, on a narrow straight party line vote of 49–48, the U.S. Senate passed a Congressional Review Act (CRA) Joint Resolution of Disapproval, which moots Executive Order (EO) 13673, “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces“—also referred to as government contractor “blacklisting”— and which revoked its implementing regulations and Labor Department guidance. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the joint resolution, H.J. Res. 37 on February 2, 2017. The next step is to send the Joint Resolution of Disapproval to the president for signature.

If signed by the president, the CRA Joint Resolution of Disapproval prohibits the future re-issuance of a federal regulation in the same or substantially similar form without authorization of Congress.

President Obama signed EO 13673 on July 31, 2014, and implementing regulations were issued in final on August 24, 2016. The EO and its implementing regulations would require federal contractors and subcontractors to notify federal contracting officers of violations and “administrative merits determinations” of 14 federal labor and employment laws, and their state equivalents, including wage and hour, discrimination, union organizing, and collective bargaining, and workplace safety and health laws.

Key Takeaways

The resolution of disapproval does not repeal the executive order; it only disapproves of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (published at 81 Fed. Reg. 58562) to implement the EO, which the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) finalized on August 25, 2016. Nevertheless, the joint resolution has the effect of essentially repealing the EO or rendering it moot. President Trump is expected to revoke the EO in a separate action

In addition, the resolution will prohibit the paycheck transparency provision of the EO from being implemented. (A district court temporarily enjoined the other provision of the EO; the joint resolution also renders this injunction moot.)

This resolution of disapproval should relieve government contractors of having to implement the provisions requiring them to disclose labor law violations and revamp their payroll systems to meet the requirements of the EO’s paycheck transparency provisions. Not only would we expect the president to sign the resolution, but we also anticipate, at some point, that Executive Order 13673 will be rescinded and that the Labor Department will withdraw its guidance.

ARTICLE BY Harold P. Coxson & Alfred B. Robinson, Jr. of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

© 2017, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

Immigration Fact and Fiction for the U.S. Employer: Know Your Rights – 5 Things to Tell Your Foreign National Employee in the Current Climate

foreign national employeeOn February 21, 2017, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released two memoranda signed by DHS Secretary Kelly addressing immigration enforcement.  While a sitting President cannot independently modify laws or regulations without going through the normal rule making process, he/she can significantly alter policy and enforcement priorities.  These two memoranda are a clear example of a shift in focus.  While the memos largely address individuals who are undocumented, your foreign national employees may be collaterally impacted as a result of being inadvertently involved in an enforcement action, when encountering an emboldened DHS officer or even in dealing with local police officials, given their new immigration related authority.

We provide a brief overview of several issues one may encounter.  We will provide additional information in subsequent postings as these directives, and others, continue to evolve.

1. Fact or Fiction, Can Your Foreign National Employee be Detained by DHS?

The new Kelly memos make it clear that the previous administration’s “catch and release” program is over.  The administration vows to deter illegal immigration by aggressively detaining noncitizens and expanding the categories of individuals who are considered priorities for removal.   The broad language of the memos suggest that  a foreign national employee could be detained and deported if he/she is convicted of a criminal offense, charged with a criminal offense, or even has committed acts that could rise to a chargeable criminal offense.  Assuming your employee has proper visa classification and he/she has been maintaining status, all should be OK.

As the law requires, we recommend all foreign nationals carry with them, at all times, proof of immigration status.  This means if your employee is a nonimmigrant worker (H-1B, L-1B, E-3, etc.) he/she should carry his/her Employment Authorization Document, I-94 card, passport with entry stamp, or other proof of lawful presence (or at least a photocopy of the relevant documents and be able to access the original quickly if needed).  If your employee is a Lawful Permanent Resident, he/she should carry his/her greencard (or at least a photocopy and be able to access the original quickly if needed).  Employees should have handy the name and contact information of their supervisor or HR representative who can also verify their employment details.

2. Fact or Fiction, Can the Company Continue to Employ a Foreign National Worker Authorized to Work Pursuant to DACA (Deferred Action Childhood Arrivals)?

As per the Questions and Answers guidance provided by DHS subsequent to the release of the memos, DACA continues as a program.  That means that if your employee is a DACA beneficiary and is employed pursuant to a valid Employment Authorization Document (EAD), you can continue to employ him/her and they can continue to renew their work permit.   This may change in the near future but for now it stands.

Some leaked Executive Orders (EO) have included provisions to end “amnesty programs.”   If this should happen, a DACA beneficiary will lose his/her permission to work in the United States.  Short of marrying a U.S. citizen, most DACA participants have no other immigration relief or form of work eligibility.  We have some hope that when implementing any new executive orders, the government will allow the “Dreamers” to continue working at least through the expiration of their current EADs so that both employers and employees alike are not impacted suddenly.

3. Fact or Fiction, Can the Company’s Foreign National Employees Continue to Travel Abroad?

Yes, but customs officers at airports and other ports of entry may question the employee about their immigration status and underlying eligibility for that status.   If the employee is selected for a longer interview during the admission process, he/she will be sent to a “secondary inspection” area.  While United States citizens have the right to have an attorney present during questioning, non-citizens generally do not have such a right while the officer determines whether or not to admit the foreign national employee.

Please advise your employees that if a DHS officer’s questions have to do with anything other than the foreign national’s immigration status, he/she does have the right to an attorney but it is unlikely that such requests will be granted until after the questioning is completed.

Also, employers should be warned that we expect a new Executive Order (EO) re-implementing the “travel ban” will be issued next week.   While foreign nationals of the 7 countries noted in the previous EO, namely Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, will be surely impacted, it is possible the new EO will extend a “travel ban” to other countries.  As such, we recommend foreign nationals from these 7 countries not travel abroad at this time, and we will keep you updated as the new EO is released to warn potentially additional foreign national employees against travel.

4. Fact of Fiction, Can a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Officer Review My and/or a Foreign Employee’s Personal Electronic Devices and /or Social Media Accounts?

Since 2008, it has been the position of CBP that it may, upon a “reasonable suspicion”, inspect electronic devices, such as phones and laptops.  Moreover, this can result in CBP confiscating the devices for several weeks or months.  As such, employees should take proactive steps to ensure the confidentiality of client, customer and proprietary information.   This means that phones and computers should contain only information that is needed for the business trip. Some employers may want to provide laptops and phones that are used solely for business trips and do not contain any sensitive information.   Basically, if the employee does not need the device or information for the trip – it should be left at home.

With respect to social media, CBP Officers have recently been requesting passwords to review an applicant for admission’s social networking activity.  In addition, social media questions – while not yet mandatory – have been added to the ESTA online application.  ESTA provides visa free travel to nationals of certain designated countries.  As such, it appears that the trend will continue so employees should continue to utilize social media judiciously and remember that no post in cyber space is confidential.

5. Fact of Fiction, Do These Changes Impact a Foreign Worker’s Privacy Rights?

The memorandum addressing this issue states that DHS will no longer afford Privacy Act rights and protections to individuals who are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents.  Since 2009, DHS has treated personally identifiable information (PII) as subject to the Privacy Act. PII includes information that is collected, used, maintained, or disseminated and includes U.S. citizens and LPRs, as well as visitors and undocumented persons.

Non-U.S. persons have had the right of access to their PII and the right to amend their records, absent an exemption under the Privacy Act.   It is unclear whether the 2009 guidance will remain in place until the DHS Privacy Office develops new guidance and it is unclear what DHS intends as to the scope, purpose, and intent of the new guidance.   For example, if your foreign national employee commits a crime or is even suspected of committing a crime as determined by an immigration officer, the employee’s name may be placed on a list which DHS will be begin publishing and making public soon.

Conclusion

Most employers are committed to having a diversity of talent and to the fair and equal treatment of all employees, whatever their background, so perhaps this is a good time to share such a message with your employees.  It is probably beneficial to include that as an employer, the company will aim to support and protect colleagues, regardless of their race, country of origin, and religion or belief system, and that the previous (and perhaps future) executive orders, as well as memoranda are only likely to affect a small minority of employees but are still taken very seriously.  Confirming that impacted employees can reach out to local HR partners or managers if they have questions or concerns is highly reassuring to most employees.

ARTICLE BY David Grunblatt & Erica Loomba of Proskauer Rose LLP
© 2017 Proskauer Rose LLP.

Are You Still Minding the Gap? A Check-Up for Navigating Line Between Political and Hate Speech and Workplace Acceptability

megaphone political speech hate speechIn December 2015, we broadly reviewed concerns and compliance issues for employers when managing employees engaged in workplace political speech or those accused of engaging in “hate” speech in the workplace. A brief scan of headlines so far into 2017 reveals more than 900 instances of alleged violence, hate speech, and harassment in and out of workplaces reported since late January. Human Resource professionals and in-house counsel may wonder, again—what are the company’s obligations and duties to our employees?

A quick review: “Political activity” and “political affiliation” are only protected statuses for certain employees and in certain locales. Courts have held the First Amendment protects public employees from their employers using political affiliation as a basis for employment decisions. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 expressly prohibits political affiliation discrimination toward federal employees. Several states have passed their own statutes concerning private-sector employees:

  • Michigan prohibits direct or indirect threats against employees for the purpose of influencing their vote;

  • Oregon prohibits threatening loss of employment in order to influence the way an employee votes on any candidate or issue;

  • Florida considers it a felony criminal offense to discharge or threaten to discharge an employee for voting, or not voting, in any election (municipal, county or state) for any candidate or measure submitted for a public vote;

  • Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia prohibit employers from posting or distributing notices threatening to close their businesses or lay off employees if a particular candidate is elected; and

  • California, Colorado, New York, North Dakota, and Louisiana have passed laws deeming it illegal for an employer to retaliate against an employee for off-duty participation in politics or political campaigns.

Several cities, such as Lansing, Michigan; Madison, Wisconsin and Seattle, Washington, protect political affiliation similar to protections afforded race, sex, age and disability, even for private sector employees.

Beyond these mandated protections, private sector employees should be mindful of workplace speech and conduct. For example, managers and supervisors who express any type of political opinion to subordinate employees may expose themselves to subsequent claims they acted out of bias against those employees on the basis of other protected statuses. How could an employee draw such a connection in his or her allegation? As we saw in the most recent election cycle, some political candidates across all levels (local, state and federal) voiced strong opinions about race relations, foreign relations policy, religious freedom, Second Amendment rights, immigration, LGBT rights and other issues directly related to characteristics protected by federal, state or local workplace anti-discrimination laws. Dropping into a workplace political debate with a subordinate employee about a candidate, elected official, political party, cause or other political issue risks allowing that employee to associate expressed opinions with some type of prohibited discriminatory bias.

Best Practices Check-up

  1. Understand there could be laws relating to workplace political speech or activities in your location;

  2. Educate managers and supervisors regarding what laws impact the workplace as well as the employer’s workplace culture; training can form a vital line of defense by limiting potential exposure before it has a chance to evolve;

  3. Remind managers and supervisors how personal opinions can be viewed by subordinate employees as a form of prohibited workplace bias; and

  4. Encourage managers and supervisors to resist being drawn into workplace political discussions, particularly with subordinate employees.

Should an employee file an internal complaint alleging a workplace hate-based incident, conduct a measured, consistent investigation to determine what (happened), who (was targeted) and if hate speech or other actions (based on a protected class or against company culture) is likely to have occurred. Resist assumptions.

If the investigation yields a conclusion that inappropriate behavior occurred, initiate appropriate actions to (1) hold employees appropriately accountable (for example, through formal warning up to discharge) and (2) decrease the likelihood of repeated incidents. Resist any media, or social media, attention that can serve to derail thoughtful consideration of the facts and promote an atmosphere leading to impulsive decisions.

ARTICLE BYJay M. Dade of Polsinelli PC

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

FY 2018 H-1B Visa Season Has Started!

h1-b visa seasonPetitions for new H-1B visas are eligible to be filed on April 1, 2017, for federal FY 2018 beginning October 1, 2017. There are a limited number of new H-1B visas each year (65,000 and an additional 20,000 for foreign nationals with a U.S. Master’s degree or higher), which historically is used up within days of the start of the filing period. Last year, 236,000 applications were filed for the 85,000 slots. Now is the time to review your hiring needs.

Given the changing immigration landscape, you should also think about whether you want to file H-1B petitions for foreign students working on Optional Practical Training (OPT) and for employees working in TN or other treaty-based statuses who might be affected by upcoming changes and who you wish to retain.

There are considerable pre-filing requirements, so it is important to get started in order to meet the April 1st deadline.

ARTICLE BY Forrest G. Read IV of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2017

United Auto Workers Announces ‘Buy Union American-Made’ Ad Campaign

american-made carsLooking to piggyback off the “keep jobs in America” theme touted by President Trump, the United Auto Workers (UAW) Union announced an ad campaign that urges people to buy union- and American-made cars.  UAW President Dennis Williams said the campaign could be similar to the “Look for the Union Label” jingle in in the 1970s in support of the now-defunct International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union. “If it’s not built in the United States, then don’t buy it,” Williams said in news reports.

Williams clarified that the union is urging consumers to buy union-made vehicles first, then those made at non-union factories in the U.S. The union-made then American-made caveat could put the UAW in a tricky spot with Detroit automakers, however, as five of the top eight cars on the 2016 American-Made Index by Cars.com are made by either Toyota or Honda. The Toyota Camry, built in Georgetown, Kentucky, and Lafayette, Indiana, tops the list. By contrast, the popular Ford F-150 pickup did not make the list because it fell below the 75-percent eligibility threshold for domestic-parts content.

The UAW did not specify when the ads might start running or how much they might cost. Presumably, the ads would be funded with UAW members’ dues, which average about two hours’ pay per month.

ARTICLE BY John T.L. Koenig of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

© 2017 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Paying Bonuses to Non-Exempt Employees: Avoiding Class-Wide Overtime Violations

overtimeEmployers generally recognize that their non-exempt employees must receive overtime premiums on their base pay – in most cases, their hourly wage – when they work overtime. However, not all employers are as well attuned to the requirement that overtime premiums may also be required on other, “supplemental” components of compensation to nonexempt employees. Bonuses are a common example.

By law, employers are required to pay overtime premiums on non-discretionary bonuses to non-exempt employees when those employees have worked overtime during the timeframe for which the bonus is paid (i.e., whether it is paid on a monthly, quarterly, annual, or other basis). The legal risks involved in violating overtime laws when it comes to non-discretionary bonuses is exacerbated by the fact that this violation is typically repeated as to other non-exempt employees who receive bonuses from the employer. As such, this is a type of violation that plaintiffs’ attorneys often look to bring on a class, collective, and/or representative basis.

However, as suggested by the reference above to “non-discretionary” bonuses, employers are not required to pay an overtime premium on all bonuses. Certain types of bonuses (and other “supplemental” forms of compensation) are excluded from the overtime premium requirement. Federal regulations, which California and other states follow in making these determinations, provide that discretionary bonuses may be excluded. However, this exclusion is very limited. Moreover, like many things in the law, the line between a “discretionary” and a “non-discretionary” bonus is not always clear. Accordingly, employers face risks when they do not pay overtime premiums on bonuses on the premise that the bonus falls under the definition of a “discretionary” bonus. Amongst the guidance provided by federal regulations is that “the employer must retain discretion both as to the fact of payment and as to the amount until a time quite close to the end of the period for which the bonus is paid. The sum, if any, to be paid as a bonus is determined by the employer without prior promise or agreement . . . If the employer promises in advance to pay a bonus, he has abandoned his discretion with regard to it.” Conversely, “[a]ttendance bonuses, individual or group production bonuses, bonuses for quality and accuracy of work, bonuses contingent upon the employee’s continuing in employment until the time payment is to be made and the like” fall in the “non-discretionary” category.

Employers who pay “holiday” or “end of the year” bonuses should also be cognizant of the potential requirement to pay overtime premiums on these payments. Federal regulations provide that “gifts made at Christmas time or on other special occasions, as a reward for service, the amount of which are not measured by or dependent on hours worked, production or efficiency” are excluded from overtime premium requirements. However, in a similar vein, if the amount of the gift, holiday or special occasion award is determined by hours worked, production, or efficiency, this exclusion is lost.

Ultimately, employers who pay bonuses and other forms of “supplemental” compensation to non-exempt employees should be cognizant of the potential requirement to pay overtime premiums on these payments and should consider seeking legal guidance in connection with their bonus programs. The need for proper guidance is especially important due to the class, collective, and/or representative action risks presented by violating this aspect of the law.

ARTICLE BY S. Sean Shahabi of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2017

Update: DOL Regulation For Employers Who Use Direct Deposit and Payroll Debit Cards Invalidated

payroll card DOLOn February 16, 2017, the New York State Industrial Board of Appeals invalidated and revoked the NYS Department of Labor regulations we wrote about previously (and updated here) governing payment of wages by direct deposit or payroll debit card. The regulations were scheduled to take effect on March 7, 2017.

As we described in detail in our previous posts, the new regulations would have required employers to provide notice to employees and obtain consent from those who elected to receive wages via direct deposit or payroll debit card. In addition, the regulations would have imposed various restrictions on the terms of use and the fees associated with payroll debit cards.

In its decision, the Board determined that the regulations exceeded the scope of the DOL’s authority and imposed prohibitions that are beyond its purview. Specifically, the Board likened the fees associated with payroll debit cards to the fees associated with checking accounts and licensed check cashers, which are not subject to regulation by the DOL. The Board concluded that the regulations “go beyond regulation of the employment relationship and into the area of banking law, which is outside [the DOL’s] competence and expertise in the regulation of employment and occupational safety and health.” Further, the Board noted that the policy concern which the regulation sought to address – namely, that low wage workers without access to traditional bank accounts will be coerced into receiving wages by payroll debit card – is already covered by Section 192 of the Labor Law, which governs the payment of wages and which requires advance consent from an employee before an employer can pay wages via payroll debit card.

The DOL has not yet indicated whether it will appeal this decision, but we will be sure to keep you updated on any new developments. In the meantime, employers who have taken steps to comply with the regulations can press pause on those plans, but should ensure that their procedures for payment of wages are in compliance with all other applicable laws and regulations.

ARTICLE BY Michael S. Arnold & Brie Kluytenaar of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

©1994-2017 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.