Category: Labor & Employment

EEOC Sues McDonald’s for Disability Discrimination

mcdonalds logoFast Food Giant Denied Sign Language Interpreter for Deaf Applicant

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — McDonald’s Corporation and McDonald’s Restaurants of Missouri violated federal law by refusing to accommodate and hire a deaf applicant, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

According to the suit, Ricky Washington, who is deaf, applied online for a job at a McDonald’s restaurant in Belton, Mo. in June 2012. Washington indicated on his application that he attended Kansas School for the Deaf. Washington also said he had previous job experience working as a cook and clean-up team member at a McDonald’s restaurant in Louisiana in 2009. When the Belton restaurant manager learned Washington needed a sign language interpreter for his job interview, she canceled the interview and never rescheduled it, despite Washington’s sister volunteering to act as the interpreter. Restaurant management continued to interview and hire new workers after Washington made several attempts to schedule an interview.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in employment and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for job applicants so they will have equal opportunities during the application process. EEOC filed its lawsuit (EEOC v. McDonald’s Corporation, et al, 4:15-cv-01004-FJG) in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief, including training for all McDonald’s managers on accommodations for applicants with disabilities, particularly those who are deaf.

EEOC St. Louis District Director James R. Neely, Jr. said, “Removing obstacles in the hiring process for people with disabilities is a national priority for EEOC. All employers, but especially large ones, should join with the agency to make sure everyone has equal access to the employment process.”

“People with disabilities have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country,” added EEOC Regional Attorney Andrea G. Baran. “Providing equal employment opportunities to all job applicants – including those with disabilities – is not just the law, it is good for our economy and our workplaces.”

According to company information, McDonald’s is a global fast food provider that serves over sixty-nine million customers per day in 100 different countries.  The Belton, Mo. restaurant is owned and operated by the corporation’s world-wide headquarters in Oak Brook, Illinois.

Eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring is one of six national priorities identified by EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP).

The St. Louis District Office oversees Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma and a portion of southern Illinois.

EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.

The original content can be viewed here.

© Copyright U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

EEOC’S Lawsuit Against Costco to Proceed

Costco smallA federal district court judge ruled that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) claim that Costco violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to prevent a male customer from stalking and harassing a female employee at the company’s Glenview, Ill. warehouse will be decided by a jury.

Judge Ruben Castillo, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago, denied Costco’s motion for summary judgment on EEOC’s claim it failed to protect one of its former employees from a sexually hostile work environment. The decision in EEOC v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 14-cv-6553, was entered on Dec. 16, 2015. The court announced it will select a jury trial date at a status hearing in January.

The court said it found evidence the employee was subjected to harassing behavior by a customer for more than a year, including ominous staring, unwanted physical touching, unwanted requests for dates and overly intrusive personal questions. The court found evidence the customer interactions continued to escalate, even though he had been talked to by Costco’s managers and the Glenview police to avoid her. The court also concluded that, added together and given the length of time over which the incidents occurred, they amounted to a level of a hostile work environment.

The court also found evidence Costco failed to take reasonable steps to stop the harassment, noting that Costco waited more than a year to ban the customer from the store. The court granted summary judgment for Costco on EEOC’s constructive discharge claim.

Costco is an international membership warehouse retailer which, according to its website, has over 650 locations worldwide, annual revenues over $100 billion, and over 125,000 employees in the United States.

EEOC’s Chicago District Office is responsible for processing discrimination charges, administrative enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and North and South Dakota, with area offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. This information was previously published on the EEOC website, www.eeoc.gov.

Article By U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
© Copyright U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

DOL’s Recent Guidance on State Retirement Initiatives for Private Sector Employees Part II: Interpretive Bulletin

140px-US-DeptOfLabor-Seal.svg__0This post continues our two-part series discussing the Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) recent guidance on state retirement initiatives. The first part of this series, “The Proposed Rule—State-Sponsored IRAs,” discusses the DOL’s proposed rule that would create an ERISA “safe harbor” for state-sponsored IRAs. In Part II, we discuss the DOL’s Interpretive Bulletin (Interpretive Bulletin), which addresses other types of state retirement initiatives for workers in the private sector.

The Interpretive Bulletin sets out, in a summary format, the DOL’s views on state-offered 401(k) plans for private sector employees and other state initiatives. Beginning with the DOL’s strong support for ERISA-covered plans (for reasons including the availability of employer contributions, higher contribution limits, and the protection of ERISA accounts from creditors), the Interpretive Bulletin surveys a range of current and potential state-sponsored programs and offers the DOL’s views on how ERISA coverage may apply to each of these initiatives.

The Interpretive Bulletin reviews programs in

  • Washington State, where the state’s proposed retirement program is not considered to be an ERISA-covered plan, but instead by design establishes a marketplace for the offering of ERISA plans and IRAs;

  • the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where a state law allowing nonprofit organizations to adopt a contributory retirement plan developed and administered by the state is shown as an example of how states may set up their own 401(k) prototype plans for private employers to adopt; and

  • the State of Maryland, where a Governor’s Task Force report considered the possibility of the state establishing and obtaining IRS tax qualification for a state multiple-employer plan (MEP).

The DOL closes by providing its views on ERISA preemption, including the view that the types of programs outlined in the Interpretive Bulletin would not be preempted by ERISA because they do not “undermine ERISA’s exclusive regulation of ERISA-covered plans” and that they “contemplate a state acting as a participant in a market rather than as a regulator.”

Several issues addressed in the Interpretive Bulletin are giving rise to debate, including the DOL’s view that a state’s unique “representational interest in the health and welfare of its citizens” allows a state to sponsor an MEP for in-state employers. What is new here is that the DOL is providing states a different standard for the establishment of an MEP than the “employment based nexus” standard that the DOL established for private enterprises that wish to do the same. This issue is critical because MEPs can have streamlined regulatory reporting and disclosure requirements, allowing them to provide competitive cost savings to adopting employers. Another issue to watch is the DOL’s query (included as a footnote in the bulletin) on whether state sovereign immunity laws need to be reviewed in light of ERISA’s remedial provisions.

While the DOL’s Interpretive Bulletin became effective on November 18, 2015, the impact of the Interpretive Bulletin and the proposed rules on IRAs are worth keeping an eye on. We recognize that change is often the rule and not the exception, but how these state-sponsored programs will play out has yet to be determined. A significant impact to the retirement industry could be on the horizon.

In addition to this DOL guidance package discussed in this series, there is also talk of possible legislative proposals, and the Treasury Department recently announced the federal myRA program as a voluntary national initiative.

Article By Marla J. Kreindler & Matthew J. Chapman of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

© 2015 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.

EMPLOYERS: The #ElderlyChristmasSongs Hashtag Is Trending On Twitter

We have posted numerous blogs discussing the need for employers to stay on top of what is trending on the Internet. Why? Because trending topics can sometimes lead to controversial discussions that might not be consistent with an employer’s EEO Policy. As a result, we explained that it would be prudent to understand what may be the current topic being discussed around the watercooler.

Here is a follow up to those posts. The #ElderlyChristmasSongs hashtag is currently trending on Twitter. What is the relevance of this topic to employers? A quick search shows that a lot of the content posted can be construed as inappropriate and/or discriminatory (although presumably meant to be humorous).  It’s the middle of the work day where we are – so we can only presume a lot of this content is being posted by employees in the workplace.

Remember: The Age Discrimination in Employment Act and many state laws prohibit discrimination based on age.  The more questionable content generated in the workplace, the better chance an employee can argue there is evidence of a convincing mosaic of discrimination tolerated by the employer. Be sure to remind employees of your company’s EEO policy if you come across any inappropriate content and/or discussions. And, as always, be sure to stay on top of trends that may have an impact in the workplace.

Article By Peter T. Tschanz of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
© 2015 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Holiday Party Checklist—Plan Ahead to Minimize Employer Risks

Delicious food, fine wines, music, camaraderie, laughter – all ingredients for a great holiday get-together.  What could go wrong?  Too much, unfortunately.  Employees may drink too much, act inappropriately, offend co-workers or guests, hurt themselves or others, or even start a brawl. Depending on the circumstances, your company may find itself potentially liable for the inappropriate or unlawful actions of your employees at company-sponsored parties.  You can help minimize the risks associated with holiday parties by following these five tips.

  • Avoid or Limit Alcohol

Employers face potential liability when providing alcohol at a company holiday event when someone gets hurt due to drunk driving, falling down, etc., or when inappropriate behavior crosses the line from embarrassing to unlawful, such as sexual harassment or violence during an argument.  You can limit your company’s exposure for such conduct by either banning alcohol entirely (we know that may not be well-received in some situations), or limiting each person’s consumption through the use of drink tickets or a 2-drink limit.  If you choose to allow alcohol at your events, don’t allow free access to the alcohol (e.g., open bar, self-serve beer or unlimited wine bottles).  Instead have a professional, licensed bartender serve the alcohol as they are trained not to over-serve patrons.  Be sure to offer plenty of food and non-alcoholic beverages.  Arrange for taxis or hotel stays if someone over-indulges.  Schedule the event during the week so folks are less inclined to get carried away. Set an end time for the party and shut down the bar at least a half hour before the event closes.  Do not authorize or condone “after parties.” Finally, designate some supervisors or managers to refrain from drinking alcohol to make sure things don’t get out of hand.

  • Keep Harassing Behavior in Check

Make sure that your sexual harassment policy is up-to-date and that it applies to company parties, even if held off company premises.  Send out a reminder to employees in advance of the party that all company policies, including those prohibiting harassment and other inappropriate conduct, apply to the party. Consider making the event a family party where employees may bring their spouse, significant other, or children as the presence of family members and children often deters inappropriate behavior which could give rise to a harassment complaint.  Make sure that supervisors and managers watch out for potentially harassing conduct and are trained to intervene as necessary.

  • Respect Religious Differences and Keep the Party Neutral 

Although many holidays toward the end of the year are religious in nature, be sensitive to your employees’ varying religious beliefs and avoid any conduct that could be construed as favoring one religious group over another.  Refrain from calling your party a “Christmas Party” and stick with the neutral “Holiday Party” instead.  Do not make attendance at the company-sponsored events such as parties, volunteer activities, food drives or other holiday outings mandatory.  Make sure the timing of the company party does not exclude any employees for religious reasons.  For example, because the Jewish Sabbath starts on Friday night, a party on a Friday evening may exclude Jewish employees.  Avoid decorating with religious symbols, such as nativity scenes, menorahs or angels.  There are plenty of neutral decorations, such as snowflakes, holly and reindeer, that can be used instead.

  • Be Wary of Gift Exchanges

Gift exchanges between employees may seem innocuous enough, but consider the potential issues a gift exchange may cause.  Employees may not be able to afford to participate, even within a recommended cost guideline.  Other employees may give sexy or “funny” gifts that end up offending others.  The best practice is to avoid a company or department sponsored gift exchange altogether.  If you decide to allow one among your employees, make sure it is entirely voluntary and no one is pressured or made to feel uncomfortable for not participating.  Set cost guidelines and remind participants that gifts must be appropriate for the workplace.

  • Remember Wage and Hour Laws

If you assign any non-exempt employees to plan, prepare for and staff the party, their hours are likely work hours for which they must be paid.  For example, if your office receptionist is required to be at the door of your holiday party to greet guests and hand out name tags, that individual is likely working and you need to include those hours in his or her weekly work hours when determining regular and overtime wages.  You do not need to pay employees who are attending the party if their attendance is voluntary and they are not expected to provide services that benefit your organization.

Follow this checklist and you’ll avoid last minute holiday headaches and keep your organization out of trouble.

Article By Mark Wiletsky of Holland & Hart LLP

Copyright Holland & Hart LLP 1995-2015.

January 2016 Visa Bulletin Update

The Department of State’s (DOS) January 2016 Visa Bulletin showed minor movements in the employment-based visa categories. The most significant movement was in the Indian EB-2 category which advanced by another 8 months, to Feb. 1, 2008 (the December 2015 bulletin showed a 10 month jump). There was also movement in the Dates for Filing in the employment-based categories, except in both of the “All Chargeability Areas” and “Mexico” EB-3 and Other Workers categories, which moved from Sept. 1, 2015, to Jan. 1, 2016.

The January Visa Bulletin also advised about the upcoming, scheduled expiration of the immigrant investor pilot program (EB-5 Visas) on Dec. 11, 2015, unless Congress acts to extend these programs. The Visa Bulletin states that no I5 visas may be issued overseas, or final action taken on adjustment of status cases, after Dec. 11, 2015. The cut-off date for this category has been listed as “unavailable” for January. Congress is currently considering an extension of the I5 visa category, but there is no certainty when such legislative action may occur. If there is legislative action that extends this category for FY-2016, the cut-off dates would immediately become “current” for January, for all countries except China-mainland born I5.

Final Action Dates for Employment-Based Preference Cases

imm blog 1

Dates for Filing of Employment-Based Visa Applications

imm blog 2

Article By Patricia A. Elmas of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

©2015 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

Regulating Recording Features of Personal Wearable Technology in Workplace

With each passing day, personal wearable technology, like the Apple Watch and Google Glass, becomes more mainstream and technologically advanced.  Employers should be aware of the challenges posed by employees wearing their technology into the workplace.  Businesses have already had to consider decreased productivity, exposure to computer viruses, and potential data breaches caused by personal wearable technology in the workplace. In addition, employers are now wondering if personal wearable devices are being used to discretely and instantaneously record events and copy information in the workplace. Several employment laws are implicated when employers seek to regulate the recording features of personal wearable technology in the workplace.

Restrictions on personal wearable technology in the workplace are subject to Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, which prohibits workplace rules and policies that chill discussions among non-management employees about wages, working conditions, work instructions, and the exercise of other concerted activities for mutual aid or protection.  NLRB General Counsel Memorandum No. 15-04  contains examples of both over broad and lawful work rules restricting recording devices in the workplace.  These examples are instructive when drafting employment policies restricting personal wearable devices.

Under Section 7, employers may prohibit employees from copying or disclosing confidential or proprietary information about the employer’s business, using wearable technology or otherwise.  Employers may also prohibit employees from taking, distributing, or posting on social media pictures, video, and audio recordings of work areas while on working time, so long as the policy carves an exception for conduct protected by Section 7.  The exception should expressly cite specific examples of permitted recordings, such as “taking pictures of health, safety and/or working condition concerns or of strike, protests and work-related issues and/or other protected concerted activities.”  Existing employment policies restricting personal cell phone and camera use in the workplace should be updated to include restrictions on the use of recording features of wearable technology.

The recording features of personal wearable technology also provide new methods and means for employees to engage in unlawful workplace harassment and other workplace misconduct.  Employers should consider revising their anti-harassment and conduct policies to prohibit the use of wearable technology, including its recording features, in an unlawful manner.  As technology continues to evolve, so too should employment policies, to address the use of such personal devices in the workplace.

Article By Stan Hill of Polsinelli PC
© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

Client, Staffing Agency and E-Verify: What’s Permissible?

E-Verify LogoCompanies facing an I-9 audit by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can be subject to heavy fines and penalties. Some companies that use staffing agencies may especially be concerned about their potential liability, particularly if they believe, after Browning-Ferris, they may be considered a joint employer with their staffing agencies due to the specific facts of the contract.  Can such a business, for its protection, demand that the staffing agency use E-Verify for all individuals placed with the client?

The issue of whether a business may demand that the staffing agency use E-Verify for all staffed individuals implicates the I-9 anti-discrimination provisions that the Department of Justice enforces.  A staffing agency may enroll in E-Verify as an employer or as an E-Verify employer agent with limited participation of hiring sites, but may not designate those hiring sites based on the national origin or citizenship status of employees hired at those sites. If the staffing agency only uses E-Verify at certain sites, it may create the appearance of a discriminatory practice, leading to complaints by employees.

Despite that, a recent TAL, a technical assistance letter, provided general guidelines for staffing agencies in this situation. It first reiterated compliance with the anti-discrimination provisions is required, but also stated that, to the extent E-Verify is used selectively by the staffing agency to meet the client’s demands for reasons “wholly unrelated” to the workers’ citizenship status or national origin, it likely will not violate any anti-discrimination provisions. As with guidance on other employment issues to employers, careful written documentation of the client’s legitimate reasons for the request, wholly unrelated to the citizenship status or national origin of the workers, is essential.

Article By Doreen D. Dodson of Polsinelli PC

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California 

Cal/OSHA Proposes Workplace Violence Prevention Standards in Health Care

California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal/OSHA”) has made the Golden State the first in the nation to propose standards specifically aimed at protecting health care workers against workplace violence.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rate of injuries and illnesses from violence in the health care industry is more than three times greater than that for all private industries. Supporters of California’s proposed standards argue that these statistics indicate workplace violence is a serious occupational hazard for health care workers, warranting the need for hospitals and other healthcare facilities to develop and implement a workplace violence prevention plan.

The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration provides guidance and training materials to combat workplace violence in the healthcare industry, but it has no specific regulations in place. Instead, it relies on the General Duty Clause, Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, to cite employers for hazards involving workplace violence.

In California, as a result of petitions to the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board by two health care worker unions, and subsequent advisory committee meetings held by the Cal/OSHA, the state passed legislation in September 2014, requiring that standards be issued to address Workplace Violence Prevention in Health Care. The Board recently released the proposed standards to the public for comment. A public hearing on the proposal is scheduled for December 17, 2015. The new standards must be adopted by July 1, 2016.

In the proposed standards, workplace violence “is defined as any act of violence or threat of violence that occurs at the work site,” including “the threat or use of physical force against an employee that results in, or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, psychological trauma,” or an “incident involving the threat or use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon.” In all instances, under the proposed standards, it is immaterial whether the employee sustains an injury. The definition encompasses four types of violent encounters, whether committed by: (1) someone with “no legitimate business;” (2) a person who is the beneficiary of the services provided; (3) a current or past employee; or (4) someone who “has a personal relationship with an employee.”

The proposed regulations apply to hospitals and other health care facilities, such as outpatient medical offices and clinics; home health care and home-based hospice; paramedic and emergency medical services; field operations (e.g., mobile clinics); drug treatment programs; and, ancillary health care operations.

The cornerstones of the proposed regulations address:

  1. Establishing a workplace violence prevention plan that includes active employee involvement;
  2. Identifying and evaluating environmental risk factors, such as employees working in isolated locations, poor illumination or blocked visibility, lack of physical barriers and escape routes, obstacles and impediments to accessing alarm systems and storage of high-value items, currency or pharmaceuticals;
  3. Identifying and evaluating patient-specific workplace violence risk factors by utilizing assessment tools, decision trees, or algorithms;
  4. Correcting hazards related to workplace violence in a timely manner and implementing corrective measures, such as: providing line of sight or other communication in all areas in which patients may be present; configuring spaces so that employees have access to doors and alarms; removing or fastening furnishings and other objects so they cannot be used as weapons; creating a security plan for prevention of the transport of unauthorized firearms and other weapons in the facility; maintaining sufficient staffing; and maintaining an alarm system;
  5. Providing specific training and education to all health care workers who provide direct care to patients at least annually;
  6. Setting up a system to respond to and investigate violent incidents and situations or the risk of violent incidents and situations;
  7. Assessing annually the program and making improvements to help prevent workplace violence; and
  8. Making and retaining records for five years of any violent incident against a hospital employee, regardless of whether an injury was sustained.

The proposed regulations also require that a covered healthcare facility report violent incidents to Cal/OSHA. If the incident results in injury, involves the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or presents an urgent or emergent threat to the welfare, health or safety of hospital personnel, the healthcare facility must report the incident to Cal/OSHA within 24 hours. All other incidents of violence must be reported to Cal/OSHA within 72 hours.

Starting in 2017, Cal/OSHA will post a report on its website containing information regarding the total number of workplace violence reports and which specific healthcare facilities filed reports, the outcome of any related inspection or investigation, the citations levied against a facility based on a violent incident and any recommendations by Cal/OSHA on the prevention of violent incidents.

Article By Nickole C. Winnett of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2015

UK Holiday Pay Inactivity – Inertia or Strategy?

We were in the hallowed legal portals of Farringdon’s Bleeding Heart Restaurant last week for a client dinner on the still vexed issue of holiday pay. “Hallowed legal portals”, because so far as I know, no other restaurant has been cited so frequently in the employment law reports as just the only place to go for a decent spot of covenant-busting and a little post-prandial breach of fiduciary duties.  They also do a very good coffee.

We had to open with an acknowledgement – that despite the absolute nature of my recollection, Peter O’Toole had not said in the film Lawrence of Arabia that “doing nothing was generally best”. Apparently it was Anthony Quayle.  Pressing on despite this setback, our dinner guests considered with the kind contribution of a senior member of the Engineering Employers Federation’s Employment Policy Team whether doing nothing could really remain a sensible holiday pay position at this stage, a full year after the EAT’s decision in Bear Scotland.

Despite the breadth of sectors represented, including retail, financial services, recruitment and advertising, there was a remarkable commonality of view. While it was of course sensible to be providing behind the scenes for some possible accrued holiday pay liability, none of our guest organisations had yet sought any negotiation or reached any agreement with staff representatives (unionised or not) about the inclusion of overtime or commissions in holiday pay calculations.   Despite this inaction, only one of our attendees had had a Tribunal claim on the point.  This is a function perhaps of the relatively limited quantum of most holiday pay claims per individual, a sum which will often be less than the Tribunal fees incurred in making the claim in the first place.

We floated the proposition that an employee’s entitlement to an allowance for commission or overtime in his holiday pay should depend upon his being able to show (at least on a balance of probabilities) that he would have earned that extra money had he not been on leave, i.e. that he had suffered some actual loss. Most of our attendees seemed willing to take that loss as a given based on recent average overtime or commissions rates. Where such extra earnings are pretty regular and pretty consistent, that might well be a sensible approach.  However, the financial services attendee, being from a sector which pays fewer but larger supplementary sums above salary, could see some mileage in this argument.  If such a lumpy payment fell within the reference period for the holiday pay calculation, it could seriously distort the figure and turn it into a number wholly unconnected with what the employee would actually have earned had he not been on leave.  None of the cases or commentaries have yet mentioned this possibility (apart from the most throw-away line in the Acas Guidance http://www.acas.org.uk/holidaypay). Nonetheless, it will surely gain new legs as an idea if and when the Government confronts the reality of drafting legislation to define a “normal pay” formula which works equally well over the myriad different shapes and sizes of supplementary payment arrangements in the UK market.

Might some clarity on this be derived from Mr Cameron’s impending begging session in Europe? His original podium-thumping was about procuring material changes to the Working Time Directive as applicable to the UK, but his formal overture was watered down to a gripe about lessening employer red tape.  The collective view around our table was that the EU will listen politely to Mr C and give him nothing.  The more cynical among our guests (that is to say, all of them) considered that he would then introduce some “clarificatory” amendments to the Working Time Regulations which would make little or no actual impact on employers but could be presented to a puzzled electorate as an indication of the merits of his tough stance in Europe.

I asked our guests at the outset of the dinner what they wanted from it. Almost exclusively it was reassurance that they were not alone or acting foolishly in doing nothing about holiday pay at this stage.  In cases where there are no unions, no pressing reputational issues and no easy means of determining what supplement to holiday pay would be appropriate anyway, it was reassurance which we were happy to give.

Article By David Whincup of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

© Copyright 2015 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP