Category: Labor & Employment

California Employers: New Poster to be Posted April 1, 2016

Did you recently update your workplace posters? Time to do it again.

In California, all employers have obligations to satisfy workplace posting, such as posting information related to wages, hours and working conditions. The workplace posters must be placed in an area frequented by employees where these posters may be easily read during the workday.

As a result of new amended regulations pertaining to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) going into effect on April 1, 2016, certain covered employers must post a new poster on April 1, 2016. Employers with 5 or more employees (full-time or part-time) are covered by the FEHA and must post a specific notice, which replaces Pregnancy Disability Leave (“PDL”) Notice A. This new poster, titled “Your Rights and Obligations as a Pregnant Employee,” provides clarifications of the PDL, including, but not limited to, the following:

  • Eligible employees are entitled up to four months of leave per pregnancy, and not per year;

  • The four months means the working days the employee would normally work in one-third of a year or 17 1/3 weeks; and

  • PDL does not need to be taken all at once, but can be taken on an as-needed basis as required by the employee’s health care provider.

For a copy of this poster, click here.

Under the California Code of Regulations, “[a]ny FEHA-covered employer whose work force at any facility or establishment is comprised of 10% or more persons whose spoken language is not English shall translate the notice into every language that is spoken by at least 10 percent of the workforce.”  The Spanish version of the foregoing notice should be available soon here.

Any time employers are required to update their posters and/or new (or amended) regulations are issued, employers should take the opportunity to ensure their workplace posters and their employee handbooks and policies are up to date and compliant.

Article By Pascal Benyamini of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

©2016 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved

U.S. Department of Labor Issues Final Rule Greatly Expanding Scope of Reportable “Persuader” Activities

DOLOn March 23, 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a final rule, first proposed in June 2011, requiring employers and their labor relations consultants, including law firms, to report to DOL any agreements pursuant to which the consultant undertakes activities with “an object directly or indirectly to persuade employees concerning their rights to organize and bargain collectively.” Reports are to be filed electronically and are subject to immediate public access. Failure to report is subject to criminal sanctions.

The new rule reverses a decades-old DOL interpretation of the “advice” exception to reporting requirements. Previously, if the agreement between the employer and consultant involved nothing more than the consultant providing the employer with materials or advice that the employer had the right to accept or reject, so long as the consultant had no direct contact with employees, no report was required.

The new rule requires an employer to report on Form LM-10 and consultants to report on Form LM-20 information relating to the scope of the agreement and fees paid for the provision of both direct and indirect persuader materials or activities.

The new rule narrows the “advice” exception to oral or written recommendations from the consultant regarding a decision or course of conduct by the employer including, for example, counseling a business about its plans to undertake a particular course of action, legal vulnerabilities and how they may be minimized, identification of unsettled areas of the law and representation of the employer in disputes or negotiations that may arise.

The greatly expanded definition of reportable persuader activities, provided the object is to directly or indirectly persuade employees concerning their rights to organize and bargain collectively, includes, among many other activities:

  • Planning, directing or coordinating activities undertaken by supervisors or other employer representatives with employees.

  • Providing persuader materials or communications to the employer in oral, electronic or written form for dissemination or distribution to employees, including drafting and revising of such materials. (The sale, rental or other use of “off the shelf” persuader materials not created for the particular employer is excluded, unless the consultant assists the employer in selecting materials).

  • Conducting a seminar for supervisors or other employer representatives if the seminar includes development of anti-union tactics and strategies.

  • Developing or implementing personnel policies or actions which have a direct or indirect object of persuading employees concerning their rights to organize and bargain collectively.

The rule is applicable to agreements and payments made on or after July 1, 2016. Legal challenges and an attempt to block enforcement of the new persuader rules are a certainty—the outcome is not.

Article By Thomas E. Obenberger of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

Busted [Bracket]: Facebook Posts From Employee’s Vacation Undermine FMLA Claims

Ah, the tell-tale signs of March are here.  The winter is starting to dissipate in the northern climes, we’ve set the clocks forward, and Syracuse is bound for another Final Four run.  Unfortunately, most teams won’t be so lucky and many coaches will soon find themselves on a beach.  And why not?  After a long, hard-fought season that fell just a bit short, might as well take a warm-weather vacation – go for a quick swim, maybe hit the amusement park, and take a few pictures of all the fun in the sun and post them to Facebook.  Sounds like a marvelous idea for many NCAA coaches, but not so much for employees out on FMLA leave.  The plaintiff in Jones v. Gulf Coast Health Care of Delaware, a recent case out of a Florida federal court, learned this the hard way.

Background

Rodney Jones, an employee of Accentia Health, took 12 weeks of FMLA leave for shoulder surgery, but was unable to provide a “fitness for duty” certification because, his doctor said, he needed additional therapy on his shoulder.  Accentia permitted him to take an additional month of non-FMLA leave.  Towards the end of his FMLA leave and during his non-FMLA leave, Jones took trips to Busch Gardens in Florida and to St. Martin.  Jones posted several pictures of his excursions to Facebook – including, for example, pictures of him swimming in the ocean (this, of course, during the time in which he was supposed to be recovering from shoulder surgery).

Accentia discovered the photos Jones posted to Facebook and provided him with an opportunity to explain the pictures.  When he could not do so, Accentia terminated his employment.  Jones then sued Accentia, claiming it interfered with his exercise of FMLA rights and retaliated against him for taking leave under the FMLA.

Termination Not Illegal

The court sided with Accentia.  First, Jones’ interference claim failed because Accentia provided him with the required 12 week leave and did not unlawfully interfere with his right to return to work thereafter.  Accentia had a uniform policy and practice of requiring each employee to provide a “fitness for duty” certification before returning from FMLA leave.  When Jones failed to provide such certification at the end of his FMLA leave, he forfeited his right to return under the FMLA.

Second, Jones’ retaliation claim failed because he failed to show Accentia terminated his employment because he requested or took FMLA leave.  Rather, Accentia terminated his employment for his well-documented conduct during his FMLA leave and non-FMLA leave.

Takeaways

This case provides several important lessons for employers.

  1. It is important to provide employees with an opportunity to explain conduct that appears to be an abuse of their FMLA leave entitlement. Employers who defend FMLA retaliation cases based on their “honest belief” that employees were misusing FMLA are much more likely to succeed if they conduct a thorough investigation into the employee’s conduct and give the employee an opportunity to explain the conduct.

  2. Ensure that any “fitness for duty” certification requirement applies uniformly to all similarly-situated employees (e., same job, same serious health condition) who take FMLA leave. The court in this case found that Jones’ interference claim failed, in part, because Accentia’s “fitness for duty” certification requirement applied to all employees similarly-situated to Jones.  Had it enforced this policy on an ad hoc basis, the outcome may have been different.

Article By Daniel R. Long of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
©1994-2016 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

An OSHA Violation Today Can Cost You Almost 80% More in Penalties After August 1, 2016

osha-logoThe maximum penalty that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) can assess for a violation of an OSHA standard has been a constant source of consternation within the agency as well as with workers’ rights advocates. The statutory maximum, which currently is set at $70,000 for willful and repeat violations and $7,000 for serious and other than serious violations, has remained unchanged since 1990. The Protecting America’s Workers Act (PAWA), first introduced by Senator Edward Kennedy in 2004, and reintroduced in each congressional session since 2004, sought to increase the maximum amount of statutory penalties as well as make other changes to the Occupational Safety and Health Act. In each congressional session, PAWA died in committee.

But a little known section of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which authorized funding for federal agencies through September 30, 2017, will change all of this.

Section 701 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 contains the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Improvements Act of 2015, which requires OSHA and most other federal agencies to implement inflation-adjusted civil penalty increases. The Inflation Adjustment Act requires a one time “catch-up adjustment” that is based upon the percent change in the Consumer Price Index in October of the year of the last adjustment and October, 2015. Subsequent annual inflation adjustments are also required.

On February 24, 2016, the Office of Management and Budget issued guidance on the implementation of the Inflation Adjustment Act. This guidance set the catch-up adjustment multiplier for OSHA penalties at 1.78156 – which roughly equates to an increase in the maximum penalty per violation as follows:

An OSHA Violation Today Can Cost You Almost 80% More in Penalties After August 1, 2016

The Inflation Adjustment Act allows OSHA to request a reduced catch-up adjustment if it demonstrates the otherwise required increase of the penalty would have a negative economic impact or that social costs would outweigh the benefits. But given published comments from OSHA administrators over the years, which were openly critical of the current statutory maximum amount, the prospect for any such reduction request is remote.

OSHA is required to publish the new penalty levels through an interim final rule in the Federal Register no later than July 1, 2016. The new penalty levels will take effect on August 1, 2016. Because OSHA is subject to a six-month statute of limitations, it is possible that violations occurring on or after March 2, 2016 will be subject to the new maximum penalty amounts if OSHA uses the entire six month period before issuing the citation and assessment of penalties.

The Inflation Adjustment Act does not impact OSHA’s discretion to reduce a proposed penalty in accordance with its current procedures, which take into account the size of the employer, the gravity of the violation, the employer’s history of prior violation, good faith compliance and “quick fix” abatement measures. The Act also does not govern those States which have OSHA approved plans. However, because States have to establish that their plan is as effective as federal OSHA, one would expect that OSHA will develop guidance that requires the States to increase their maximum penalty levels to comport with the new federal penalty amounts.

In the meantime, employers would be well-advised to conduct a self-audit of their workplace safety programs to ensure compliance with applicable state and federal OSHA standards.

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California
  • See more at: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/osha-violation-today-can-cost-you-almost-80-more-penalties-after-august-1-2016#sthash.BKZUg7Sa.dpuf

Burrito Bowls, Guacamole, &. . .Tweets? NLRB Judge Finds Social Media Policy Unlawful

There’s more bad news this week for restaurant chain Chipotle Mexican Grill, but this time it has nothing to do with the food.

Last year, we heard about an NLRB decision upholding an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) finding that the restaurant had committed an unfair labor practice. According to the decision, Chipotle had allegedly threatened and interrogated employees who engaged in discussions about their pay. The employee at issue in the case had worked at a Chipotle restaurant in St. Louis, Missouri. He was also a union member who participated in strikes and was involved with the “Show Me 15” campaign for a higher minimum wage.

That decision is currently pending appeal, and Chipotle has suffered another NLRB loss this week. An ALJ ruled against the restaurant and found an unfair labor practice charge for what the judge described as the company’s unlawful social media code of conduct. The case involves a Chipotle employee in Havertown, Pennsylvania, named James Kennedy. By way of background, Chipotle employs a national social media strategist who is responsible for reviewing employees’ social media posts to determine whether any of them violate the company’s social media policy.

In early 2015, some of Kennedy’s tweets were reviewed by the strategist, including one where Kennedy had replied to a few customers’ tweets. For example, in response to a customer who tweeted “Free chipotle is the best thanks,” Kennedy tweeted “nothing is free, only cheap #labor. Crew members only make $8.50hr how much is that steak bowl really?” Then, replying to a tweet posted by another customer about guacamole, Kennedy wrote “it’s extra not like #Qdoba, enjoy the extra $2.”

Chipotle’s social media strategist emailed the regional manager, forwarded the tweets, and told the manager to ask Kennedy to delete the tweets and to review the company’s social media policy with him. Kennedy was subsequently terminated following a dispute with management over an unrelated issue.

The ALJ evaluated whether Chipotle maintained an unlawful social media policy based on the following provisions:

  • If you aren’t careful and don’t use your head, your online activity can also damage Chipotle or spread incomplete, confidential, or inaccurate information.
  • You may not make disparaging, false, misleading, harassing or discriminatory statements about or relating to Chipotle, our employees, suppliers, customers, competition, or investors.

Generally a violation of the act based on an unlawful work rule is dependent upon a showing of one of the following: “(1) employees would reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity; (2) the rule was promulgated in response to union activity; or (3) the rule has been applied to restrict the exercise of Section 7 rights.” Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646, 646–647 (2004). The ALJ found that the company’s social media policy failed on the first and third prongs.

Picking apart the provision, the ALJ relied on other Board decisions which found rules prohibiting “derogatory” statements to be unlawful. The ALJ also took issue with the prohibition on “false” statements, saying, “[M]ore than a false or misleading statement by the employee is required; it must be shown that the employee had a malicious motive.” The ALJ also found no relief based on the policy’s disclaimer which said “This code does not restrict any activity that is protected or restricted by the National Labor Relations Act, whistleblower laws, or any other privacy rights.”

Although the employee was not ultimately terminated for posting the tweets, employers can still get in trouble with the NLRB where social media policies are concerned. Considering NLRB decisions regarding work rules and handbook policies apply regardless of whether the employees are unionized. We’ll follow this case as it makes its way to the full Board.

Article By Jackie S. Gessner of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

© 2016 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Burrito Bowls, Guacamole, &. . .Tweets? NLRB Judge Finds Social Media Policy Unlawful

There’s more bad news this week for restaurant chain Chipotle Mexican Grill, but this time it has nothing to do with the food.

Last year, we heard about an NLRB decision upholding an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) finding that the restaurant had committed an unfair labor practice. According to the decision, Chipotle had allegedly threatened and interrogated employees who engaged in discussions about their pay. The employee at issue in the case had worked at a Chipotle restaurant in St. Louis, Missouri. He was also a union member who participated in strikes and was involved with the “Show Me 15” campaign for a higher minimum wage.

That decision is currently pending appeal, and Chipotle has suffered another NLRB loss this week. An ALJ ruled against the restaurant and found an unfair labor practice charge for what the judge described as the company’s unlawful social media code of conduct. The case involves a Chipotle employee in Havertown, Pennsylvania, named James Kennedy. By way of background, Chipotle employs a national social media strategist who is responsible for reviewing employees’ social media posts to determine whether any of them violate the company’s social media policy.

In early 2015, some of Kennedy’s tweets were reviewed by the strategist, including one where Kennedy had replied to a few customers’ tweets. For example, in response to a customer who tweeted “Free chipotle is the best thanks,” Kennedy tweeted “nothing is free, only cheap #labor. Crew members only make $8.50hr how much is that steak bowl really?” Then, replying to a tweet posted by another customer about guacamole, Kennedy wrote “it’s extra not like #Qdoba, enjoy the extra $2.”

Chipotle’s social media strategist emailed the regional manager, forwarded the tweets, and told the manager to ask Kennedy to delete the tweets and to review the company’s social media policy with him. Kennedy was subsequently terminated following a dispute with management over an unrelated issue.

The ALJ evaluated whether Chipotle maintained an unlawful social media policy based on the following provisions:

  • If you aren’t careful and don’t use your head, your online activity can also damage Chipotle or spread incomplete, confidential, or inaccurate information.
  • You may not make disparaging, false, misleading, harassing or discriminatory statements about or relating to Chipotle, our employees, suppliers, customers, competition, or investors.

Generally a violation of the act based on an unlawful work rule is dependent upon a showing of one of the following: “(1) employees would reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity; (2) the rule was promulgated in response to union activity; or (3) the rule has been applied to restrict the exercise of Section 7 rights.” Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646, 646–647 (2004). The ALJ found that the company’s social media policy failed on the first and third prongs.

Picking apart the provision, the ALJ relied on other Board decisions which found rules prohibiting “derogatory” statements to be unlawful. The ALJ also took issue with the prohibition on “false” statements, saying, “[M]ore than a false or misleading statement by the employee is required; it must be shown that the employee had a malicious motive.” The ALJ also found no relief based on the policy’s disclaimer which said “This code does not restrict any activity that is protected or restricted by the National Labor Relations Act, whistleblower laws, or any other privacy rights.”

Although the employee was not ultimately terminated for posting the tweets, employers can still get in trouble with the NLRB where social media policies are concerned. Considering NLRB decisions regarding work rules and handbook policies apply regardless of whether the employees are unionized. We’ll follow this case as it makes its way to the full Board.

Article By Jackie S. Gessner of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

© 2016 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

IRS Expands Ability of Safe Harbor Plan Sponsors to Make Mid-Year Changes

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently issued Notice 2016-16, which provides safe harbor 401(k) plan sponsors with increased flexibility to make mid-year plan changes.  Notice 2016-16 sets forth new rules for when and how safe harbor plan sponsors may amend their plans to make mid-year changes, a process which traditionally has been subject to significant restrictions.

Background

“Safe harbor” 401(k) plans are exempt from certain nondiscrimination tests (the actual deferral percentage (ADP) and actual contribution percentage (ACP) tests) that otherwise apply to employee elective deferrals and employer matching contributions.  In return for these exemptions, safe harbor plans must meet certain requirements, including required levels of contributions, the requirement that plan sponsors provide the so-called “safe harbor notice” to participants, and the requirement that plan provisions remain in effect for a 12-month period, subject to certain limited exceptions.

Historically, the IRS has limited the types of changes that a safe harbor plan sponsor may make mid-year due to the requirement that safe harbor plan provisions remain in effect for a 12-month period.  The 401(k) regulations provide that the following mid-year changes are prohibited, unless applicable regulatory conditions are met:

  • Adoption of a short plan year or any change to the plan year

  • Adoption of safe harbor status on or after the beginning of the plan year

  • The reduction or suspension of safe harbor contributions or changes from safe harbor plan status to non-safe harbor plan status

The IRS has occasionally published exceptions to the limitations on mid-year changes.  For example, plan sponsors were permitted to make mid-year changes to cover same-sex spouses following the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in United States v. Windsor in 2013.

Aside from these limited exceptions, safe harbor plan sponsors were generally not permitted to make mid-year changes.  This led to some difficulties for plan sponsors, particularly in situations where events outside the plan sponsor’s control might ordinarily cause a plan sponsor to want to make a mid-year plan change.

Permissible Mid-Year Changes

Notice 2016-16 clarifies that certain changes to safe harbor plans made on or after January 29, 2016, including changes that alter the content of a plan’s required safe harbor notice, do not violate the safe harbor qualification requirements simply because they occur mid-year.  A “mid-year change” for this purpose includes (1) a change that is first effective during a plan year, but not effective at the beginning of a plan year, or (2) a change that is effective retroactive to the beginning of the plan year, but adopted after the beginning of the plan year.

Mid-year changes that alter the plan’s required safe harbor notice content must meet two additional requirements:

  1. The plan sponsor must provide an updated safe harbor notice that describes the mid-year change and its effective date must be provided to each employee required to receive a safe harbor notice within a reasonable period before the effective date of the change.  The timing requirement is deemed satisfied if the notice is provided at least 30 days, and no more than 90 days, before the effective date of the change.

  2. Each employee required to be provided a safe harbor notice must also have a reasonable opportunity (including a reasonable time after receipt of the updated notice) before the effective date of the mid-year change to change the employee’s cash or deferred election.  Again, this timing requirement is deemed satisfied if the election period is at least 30 days.

Mid-year changes that do not alter the content of the required safe harbor notice do not require the issuance of a special safe harbor notice or a new election opportunity.

Prohibited Mid-Year Changes

Certain mid-year changes remain prohibited, including:

  • A mid-year change to increase the number of years of service that an employee must accrue to be vested in the employee’s account balance under a qualified automatic contribution arrangement (QACA) safe harbor plan

  • A mid-year change to reduce the number of employees eligible to receive safe harbor contributions

  • A mid-year change to the type of safe harbor plan, such as changing from a traditional 401(k) safe harbor plan to a QACA

  • A mid-year change to modify or add a matching contribution formula, or the definition of compensation used to determine matching contributions if the change increases the amount of matching contributions

  • A mid-year change to permit discretionary matching contributions

In addition, mid-year changes that are already subject to conditions under the 401(k) and 401(m) regulations (including changes to the plan year, the adoption of safe harbor status mid-plan year, and the reduction or suspension of safe harbor contributions, as described above) are still prohibited, unless applicable regulatory conditions are met.  These changes are also not subject to the special notice and election opportunity requirements.

Conclusion

Notice 2016-16 fundamentally changes the rules regarding mid-year changes to safe harbor 401(k) plans.  Prior to Notice 2016-16, mid-year changes were assumed to be impermissible, subject to the limited exceptions described above.  Going forward, however, mid-year changes that are not specifically prohibited are permitted, so long as the notice requirements, where applicable, are met, and other regulatory requirements are not violated.

Notice 2016-16 should prove particularly helpful for safe harbor plan sponsors that have struggled with the limitations imposed on safe harbor plans by the inability to make mid-year changes when non-safe harbor plans would do so (for example, if a record-keeper changes administrative procedures or other events outside the plan sponsor’s control require mid-year changes).  However, safe harbor plan sponsors wishing to make mid-year changes will still need to consult with advisors to determine whether a proposed amendment is permissible, or whether the amendment is subject to additional regulatory requirements.  In addition, plan sponsors wishing to make a mid-year change that would alter the plan’s required safe harbor notice content must assume the additional cost of issuing a special safe harbor notice and must plan ahead to make sure the supplemental notice is delivered on time.

The IRS is also requesting comment on additional guidance that may be needed with respect to mid-year changes to safe-harbor plans, and specifically as to whether additional guidance is needed to address mid-year changes relating to plan sponsors involved in mergers and acquisitions or to plans that include an eligible automatic contribution arrangement under Section 414(w) of the Internal Revenue Code.  Comments may be submitted in writing not later than April 28, 2016.

Article By Jeffrey M. Holdvogt, Stephen Pavlick, PC & Sarah G. Raaii of McDermott Will & Emery
© 2016 McDermott Will & Emery

Taco Bell Employees Likely Are Not Celebrating Their “Victory” in California Meal and Rest Period Class Action

More than a few media sources have reported on the March 10, 2016 wage-hour “victory” by a class of Taco Bell employees on meal period claims in a jury trial in the Eastern District of California.  A closer review of the case and the jury verdict suggests that those employees may not be celebrating after all — and that Taco Bell may well be the victor in the case.

The trial involved claims that Taco Bell had not complied with California’s meal and rest period laws. The employees sought meal and rest period premiums and associated penalties for a class of employees that reportedly exceeded 134,000 members.

Now, it is certainly true that, at trial, a class of employees prevailed on a claim that Taco Bell did not comply with California meal period laws for a limited period of time (2003-2007), when Taco Bell reportedly provided employees with 30 minutes of pay when they were not able to take meal periods, rather than the full one-hour of pay provided for by California law.

And it is certainly true that the class of employees was awarded approximately $496,000 on that claim.

But as it appears that there were more than 134,000 employees in the class, a few punches on the calculator show that, on average, each employee would receive approximately $3.

Perhaps more importantly, while it may have lost on that one claim, Taco Bell prevailed on the remaining claims in the case where the class alleged that Taco Bell had violated both meal and rest period laws as to its employees, including a claim that Taco Bell had not provided meal periods in compliance with the law for a period of approximately 10 years (2003-2013).   That claim alone likely would have resulted in a jury verdict of several million dollars had the employees prevailed on it.  But they did not.  Taco Bell did.

In other words, in a case where the employees were presumably asking a jury for several millions of dollars for alleged violations dating back to George W. Bush’s first term as President, they were only awarded approximately $496,000.

In the grand scheme of a class action, where employers must constantly weight the costs of litigation with the benefits of settlement, that is a small sum.  It is likely an amount Taco Bell gladly would have paid to settle the case.  In fact, one would have to speculate that $496,000 is likely much less than the amount Taco Bell actually offered the employees and their attorneys to resolve the case in mediation or otherwise.

So while the media may be reporting that this is a “victory” for Taco Bell employees, those employees, who will receive $3 each on average, may not see it that way.  Instead, they may well be questioning the lead plaintiffs and their attorneys about how much Taco Bell offered at the settlement table, if it was rejected, and why.

(And before anyone responds, “But the employees’ attorneys will get their attorneys fees,” we’re talking about the recovery for the employees themselves. If the real victors in the case are the attorneys, that’s another issue, isn’t it?)

Article By Michael S. Kun of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

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

NIOSH Issues Suggestions to Help Workers Adapt to the Time Change

Spring is in the air and with it comes the time change to account for daylight savings.  Do not forget to set your clocks forward one hour this Sunday, March 13, 2016 or at least be ready for your smart devices to change their time spontaneously.

However, according to NIOSH, the time change can create real risks to workplace health and safety:

It can take about one week for the body to adjust the new times for sleeping, eating, and activity (Harrision, 2013). Until they have adjusted, people can have trouble falling asleep, staying asleep, and waking up at the right time. This can lead to sleep deprivation and reduction in performance, increasing the risk for mistakes including vehicle crashes. Workers can experience somewhat higher risks to both their health and safety after the time changes (Harrison, 2013). A study by Kirchberger and colleagues (2015) reported men and persons with heart disease may be at higher risk for a heart attack during the week after the time changes in the Spring and Fall.

Employers are encouraged to remind workers of the upcoming time change and that it can have effects on the mind and body for several days following the change.  NIOSH suggests that employees should consider reducing demanding physical and mental tasks as much as possible the week of the time change to allow oneself time to adjust.  See all of NIOSH’s guidance here.

Article By Matthew Linton of Holland & Hart LLP

Copyright Holland & Hart LLP 1995-2016.

Sick Leave and Minimum Wage Update: Oregon, Vermont, Santa Monica

On Wednesday, Oregon Governor Kate Brown signed into law legislation that increases that state’s minimum wage from $9.25 to up to $14.75 by 2022, the highest of any state.  The first increases go into effect on July 1, 2016.  Under SB 1532 [PDF], minimum wage rates vary based upon the employer’s location, as set forth in the table below.  Beginning in 2023, the rate will be indexed to inflation.  The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries has been charged with adopting rules for determining an employer’s location.

Oregon, Vermont, Santa Monica

In addition, Santa Monica, California quietly passed a law raising the minimum wage and mandating paid sick leave starting July 1, 2016, adding to the regulatory maze for employers with employees in California.  As currently written, Santa Monica’s sick leave law tracks San Francisco’s (arguably the most generous sick leave law in the nation), in that it does not contain an annual accrual or use cap.  Instead, employees are allowed to accrue paid sick leave at the rate of one hour for every 30 hours worked, up to 40 hours (if the employer has 1-25 employees in Santa Monica) or 72 hours (if the employer has 26 or more employees in Santa Monica).  If the employee reaches that cap, then uses some sick leave, the employee begins accruing leave again, up to that cap.  In addition, employees are entitled to roll over all accrued, unused sick leave to the next year. As with the San Francisco ordinance, this creates difficulties for employers who wish to front-load a predetermined amount of sick leave (a practice that is permissible under California and many other sick leave laws).  Of note, the City has established a working group to review and recommend technical adjustments to the adopted ordinance.  The sick leave law goes into effect on July 1, 2016.

The Santa Monica law also establishes a minimum wage for employees who work at least two hours per week in Santa Monica.  Large employers—those with 26 or more employees in Santa Monica—must pay a minimum wage of $10.50/hour beginning on July 1, 2016, increasing annually to $15.00/hour on July 1, 2020.   Small employers—those with 25 or fewer employees in Santa Monica—must pay a minimum wage of $10.50/hour beginning on July 1, 2017, increasing annually $15.00/hour on July 1, 2021. Beginning July 1, 2022, and each year thereafter, the minimum wage will increase based on Consumer Price Index (CPI).   The working group is also reviewing the minimum wage portion of the law.

Finally, Vermont is on the verge of becoming the fifth state (following California, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Oregon) to require private employers to provide paid sick leave for employees.  All that is left is for Governor Shumlin to sign the legislation [PDF], which he is expected to do.  Vermont’s sick leave law differs somewhat from laws in other jurisdictions in that 1) it only requires paid sick leave for employees who work an average of at least 18 hours/week, 2) employees accrue sick leave at a rate of one hour for every 52 worked (one hour for every 30 worked is the most common rate of accrual) and 3) it allows employees to use leave to accompany a parent, grandparent, spouse or parent-in-law to long-term care related appointments.

In addition, the law has a stepped approach for implementation.  First, for small employers (those with 5 or fewer employees) the law does not go into effect until January 1, 2018; the effective date for all other employers is January 1, 2017.  Second, through December 31, 2018, employees may only accrue and use up to 24 hours of paid sick leave per year; beginning January 1, 2019, that amount increases to 40 hours per year.

Article By Shennan Harris of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

© Copyright 2016 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP