Tag: employees

Colorado Employers Can Fire Workers for Off-Duty Medical Marijuana Use

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled on June 15, 2015, that an employee can be fired for using medical marijuana even though the drug is legal in Colorado and the employee was not at work at the time. The unanimous decision upholds lower courts’ opinions that an employer has the right to terminate an employee for violating a company’s zero-tolerance policy for controlled substances, despite a Colorado law protecting employees from being punished for legal, off-duty activities.

This decision is significant because it confirms an employer’s right to terminate an employee who violates a company’s drug policy, notwithstanding Colorado’s legalization of marijuana. Colorado is one of only four states to date to legalize marijuana for both medical and recreational use. The Court’s ruling, which is similar to a California decision, provides support and guidance for non-Colorado employers who may have employees travelling to Colorado for work or recreation. Other states are in various stages of considering legalizing medical and/or recreational marijuana.

At issue before the state’s highest court was a suit filed by Brandon Coats, a former employee of Dish Network, LLC, whose employment had been terminated by Dish after a random drug test revealed the presence of THC, the psychoactive chemical in marijuana, in Coats’ system. Coats was a registered medical marijuana patient who consumed medical marijuana at home, and after work, and in accordance with his license and Colorado state law.

In his suit against Dish for wrongful termination, Coats argued that the company violated Colorado’s “lawful activities statute,” which makes it an unfair and discriminatory labor practice to discharge an employee based on the employee’s “lawful” outside-of-work activities. Dish filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Coats’ medical marijuana use was not lawful for purposes of the statute under either federal or state law. The trial court granted Dish’s motion and dismissed Coats’ claim.

The Colorado Court of Appeals, in a split decision, affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of Coats’ lawsuit, but on a different ground. It found that because the use of marijuana is prohibited under the federal Controlled Substances Act, Coats’ conduct was not a “lawful activity” protected by the Colorado statute. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that “lawful” for purposes of Colorado’s “lawful activities statute” means activities that comply with applicable law, including state and federal law. Because Coats’ use of medical marijuana was unlawful under federal law, it was not protected under the Colorado statute.

ARTICLE BY Kimberly A. Smiley, Bradley M. Bakker, John P. Hasman, Jeremy M. Brenner, Shelley I. Ericsson & Bradley S. Byars of Armstrong Teasdale
Eric Walters and Calvin Matthews also contributed to this article.
© Copyright 2015 Armstrong Teasdale LLP. All rights reserved

Protect Workers From The Number One Cause of Workplace Deaths – Distracted Driving

Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

Distracted driving is the number one cause of workplace deaths in the United States.  OSHA has partnered with the National Safety Council to call employers’ attention to this issue and urge the adoption of safe driving policies.  Failure to adopt and enforce such policies in the workplace leads to tragic results and OSHA has made it perfectly clear that employers who do not take this issue seriously should expect OSHA citations.  On its distracted driving webpage, the agency has stated that employers “have a responsibility and legal obligation to have a clear, unequivocal, and enforced policy against texting while driving.”

But to truly protect your employees from the hazards of distracted driving, your policy should cover more than just texting.  A comprehensive policy should cover all employees, both handheld and hands-free devices, company vehicles, company cell phones and all work-related communications.  All employees should be forbidden to use cell phones, hands-free devices, and any other mobile electronics while operating a vehicle when:

  • the vehicle is owned, leased, or rented by the employer

  • a personal motor vehicle is used in connection with company business

  • the motor vehicle is on the employer’s property

  • the cell phone or mobile electronic device is owned or leased by the employer

  • the cell phone or mobile electronic device is used to conduct company business

Employers should strongly discourage distracted driving by incorporating written safe driving policies into employee handbooks, providing training on these policies during worker orientation, and providing annual refresher training.  Safe communication practices should be put in place such as established procedures, times, and places for drivers’ safe use of cell phones and other electronic devices for communicating with supervisors, customers, and others.  To the extent that the employer has any programs in place that could incentivize employees to use cell phones or other electronic devices while driving, they should be eliminated.

Finally, safe driving policies must be enforced – it is not enough simply to write a policy and provide employee training.  As we have all become so dependent on our cell phones and other mobile electronic devices, it is likely that some employees will resist or simply ignore these policies, but enforcement is necessary to truly improve employee safety.  Accordingly, employers should reprimand employees who violate safe driving policies and those reprimands should involve serious penalties, including, where appropriate, termination.  There is no way to protect employees from every hazard they may encounter on the road, but implementing a strong safe driving program will go a long way towards decreasing the likelihood of a workplace tragedy on the road.

ARTICLE BY

Valerie Butera
Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

Mergers and Acquisitions and the Affordable Care Act

Giordano Halleran Ciesla Logo

As most employers already know, the Affordable Care Act (a/k/a ObamaCare or the ACA) now imposes health care insurance coverage requirements upon certain employers which have a certain number of full time and full time equivalent employees (“FTEs”).  Therefore, it is imperative that consideration be given to whether parties involved in any merger or other acquisition transaction are currently subject to the requirements of the ACA (and if so, whether they are in compliance with such requirements), or will otherwise be subject to the requirements of the ACA following the consummation of the transaction.

If the buyer or seller company is a “small business,” meaning the company has less than 50 FTEs, it should not be subject to the ACA.   However, a determination has to be made as to whether or not individuals who are treated as independent contractors are, for the purposes of the ACA, truly independent contractors, or rather are deemed to be employees.  While the ACA makes reference to certain federal statutes with respect to this determination, it is clear that the Obama administration has uniquely and aggressively interpreted the ACA to accomplish its objectives.  In those circumstances where the seller or buyer company is below 100 FTEs for the year 2015, the company will be exempt from the requirements of the ACA for the year 2015, but subject to the ACA thereafter.  Even in those circumstances where companies clearly are subject to the ACA, the question then becomes whether or not all of the individuals who provide services to that company are classified appropriately (employees v. independent contractors), and whether the requirements of the ACA have been complied with regarding those individuals.

A new level of complexity has been added in this area by a relatively recent interpretation of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in a franchise case dealing with the classification issue, in which the NLRB found that the various employees of the franchisees were also employees of the franchisor.  This could automatically create, for any national franchise, a situation where the local franchisee meets the large employer threshold of the ACA, and therefore would be liable to comply with the requirements of the ACA.  Obviously, the position taken by the NLRB will be contested and is a long way off from being established as binding law upon all employers.  Notably, this very issue has already been addressed in various state courts.  For instance, in contrast to the NLRB decision, the California State Supreme Court recently determined in a 4 to 3 decision that the employees of a franchisee are also not employees of the franchisor.

While the ACA references certain federal statutes for determining whether or not an individual is an employee, in the recent case of Sam Hargrove, et al. v. Sleepy’s, LLC , the New Jersey Supreme Court has advised the Third Circuit that for the purposes of the wage and hour laws, the interpretation should follow New Jersey case law, which provides a much stricter definition for independent contractors than the federal law.  Only time and litigation will tell what interpretation will be made under the ACA for the purposes of determining whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor with respect to the determination as to whether the employer is a small business subject to the ACA and whether or not an individual is entitled to health care coverage.

In summary, careful consideration must be made in any merger or acquisition transaction as to whether the seller company in an asset purchase or equity purchase is, or the combined company in any merger, consolidation or similar combination will be, subject to the onerous requirements of the ACA based on the number of FTEs of the company.   In order to make such a determination, further consideration will need to be made into applicable case law as to whether or not individuals who are designated as independent contractors of the company are truly independent contractors, or rather should be deemed to be employees of the company for purposes of the ACA.  However, because the law in this area is not entirely settled and continues to evolve, companies involved in merger or acquisition transactions and companies contemplating merger or acquisition transactions will need to stay informed on these issues.

ARTICLE BY

Ari G. Burd
Patrick S. Convery
OF
Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C.

Uber Argues That Its Drivers Are Not Employees

In a case pending in California federal court, Uber is arguing that its drivers are not employees. O’Connor et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 3:13-cv-03826 (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 16, 2013). Uber drivers have sued the company in a putative class action that alleges that they were short-changed because they received only a portion of the 20 percent gratuity paid by passengers.

In response, Uber recently filed a motion for summary judgment that argued that its drivers are not employees because they do not provide services to Uber. Rather, Uber provides a service to its drivers, because drivers pay for access to “leads,” or potential passengers, through the Uber application, and therefore, like passengers, drivers are customers who receive a service from the company. Uber also argued that even if drivers are deemed to provide services to Uber, they do so as independent contractors, not employees. This is because, Uber contends, the company provides drivers with a lead generation service but does not control the manner or means of how they work, and therefore, Uber is in a commercial rather than an employment relationship with its drivers.

This is not the first and likely not the last of Uber’s legal troubles in California. Passengers have also filed a proposed class action over the 20 percent gratuity, and last week, San Francisco and Los Angeles District Attorneys have hit Uber with a consumer safety suit over how it screens its drivers. There will surely be more to come as we watch what happens with Uber in California.

ARTICLE BY

Rachel T. Segal
OF
Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Employers: How Prepared Are You for Ebola?

Morgan Lewis logo

Rapidly changing circumstances raise workplace questions.

The Ebola epidemic in 2014 has already been confirmed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) as the worst in history. The extent of this outbreak is still unknown, as reports of Ebola transmissions continue not only in West Africa but also (for the first time in history) inside U.S. and European borders. Because of the potential risks in a globalized economy, the U.S. government, its various agencies, and employers alike are now scrambling to ensure that appropriate rules and procedures are in place to prevent any further exposure to the disease. Reactions have been swift and fluid as officials learn more about the presence of the virus in West Africa and beyond and as they develop strategies to respond. Among the federal agencies that have already taken action, the CDC has recently issued “tightened” guidance for proper personal protective equipment (PPE) in the healthcare industry, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued guidance covering a number of workplace safety issues. The situation is changing rapidly and further action is expected by the U.S. government, especially after the White House announced the appointment of an Ebola Response Coordinator (or Ebola Czar).

In the United States, employers are facing challenges and questions on how to best address a wide variety of issues, including workplace safety, travel policies, employee relations, leaves of absence, and refusal to work requests. Whether responding to Ebola or other emergencies, employers should use protocols that include emergency preparedness and response plans, such as assigning responsibilities, assessing the hazard, conveying effective communications, and implementing security measures to address those key issues. In the meantime, here is what you need to know right now.

OSHA’s Interim Guidance

OSHA quickly released interim guidance for workers within the United States that focuses on those in industries most likely to be affected by the Ebola crisis:

  • Healthcare workers

  • Airline and other travel industry personnel

  • Mortuary and death care workers

  • Laboratory workers

  • Border, customs, and quarantine workers

  • Emergency responders

  • Employers in critical infrastructure/key resource sectors, such as bus drivers and pharmacists

Employers in these key industries must evaluate how they currently respond to emergencies and if those preparedness and response plans are adequate or need modification, particularly when assessing hazards specific to their jobsites (OSHA lists industry-specific information on its website). These employers should explore ways to proactively combat and contain the virus, such as obtaining PPE, implementing cleaning and sanitation procedures, and evaluating whether engineering controls, such as pressurized glass, respirators, and decontamination devices, should be used. If an employer happens to be a hospital or similarly licensed accredited facility, state licensing and other laws as well as accreditation bodies may require those organizations to activate emergency preparedness plans. Employers should communicate with their workers and train them about sources of Ebola and any required precautions.

On its newly released website dedicated to Ebola, OSHA has asserted jurisdiction over potential worker exposure via several regulations already in place. Most notably, the Ebola virus has been classified as a “bloodborne pathogen” under OSHA’s Bloodborne Pathogens standard,[1] which explicitly covers pathogens like hepatitis B virus (HBV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The Bloodborne Pathogens standard imposes a range of requirements on employers whose workers can be reasonably anticipated to contact blood or other potentially infectious materials (OPIM), such as saliva and semen. Covered employers must train employees, prepare exposure control plans, and use “universal precautions,” engineering and work practice controls, PPE, and housekeeping measures to contain the virus. Employers must also offer medical evaluations, blood tests, and follow-up evaluations after any worker is exposed to blood or OPIM. The standard contains many other nuanced requirements, including carefully documenting compliance measures. Given the complexities of the regulation, employers are strongly encouraged to seek legal advice if workers could anticipate exposure and to seek emergency, medical, and legal advice if any work-related exposure to blood or OPIM occurs.

Beyond this standard, OSHA has reminded employers that—when undertaking precautions for contact-transmissible diseases and any bioaerosols containing the Ebola virus—they must comply with OSHA’s (1) Respiratory Protection standard[2] if respirators are used on the job and (2) PPE standard[3] wherever PPE is used as a precaution. Finally, OSHA reiterated that it may issue citations against employers under the General Duty Clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970[4]—OSHA’s “catch all” provision, which is used if no other regulation applies and where an employer allegedly fails to keep its workplace free of recognized hazards that can cause death or serious bodily harm to workers.

CDC Involvement

The primary U.S. agency embroiled in the fight against Ebola is the CDC. Of the many steps taken by the CDC in this effort, highlights of the latest guidance and advice are outlined below.

“Tightened Guidance” on PPE for U.S. Healthcare Workers

Following widespread criticism after two nurses contracted Ebola while treating a patient in Dallas, Texas, the CDC released on October 20 “tightened guidance” for PPE used by healthcare workers while caring for patients with Ebola. According to the CDC, three guiding principles control: (1) Employees must receive rigorous and repeated training to fully understand how to use PPE, (2) no skin can be exposed when PPE is worn, and (3) a trained monitor must be present to supervise all workers as they put on or take off PPE. The CDC also described “different options for combining PPE to allow a facility to select PPE for their protocols based on availability, healthcare personnel familiarity, comfort and preference while continuing to provide a standardized, high level of protection for healthcare personnel.” Among the recommendations for monitoring the safe use and removal of PPE, the CDC provides advice on step-by-step PPE removal, as well as disinfection of gloved hands.

In addition to PPE, the CDC further underscored other critical prevention activities to respond to the Ebola risk, including (1) prompt screening and triage of potential patients, (2) designating site managers who have the responsibility to ensure proper implementation of precautions, (3) limiting personnel in the isolation room, and (4) effective environmental cleaning. Employers in the healthcare industry should be aware that the CDC has highlighted management responsibility “to provide resources and support for the implementation of effective prevention precautions” and that management “should maintain a culture of worker safety in which appropriate PPE is available and correctly maintained, and workers are provided with appropriate training.” For more information and advice for healthcare workers, visit the CDC’s website.

Health and Travel Advisories

Given the severity of the risk that Ebola poses, the CDC has issued health and travel alerts, which it will continue to update as the situation develops. In the wake of various governors, particularly those from New York, New Jersey, and Illinois, having announced plans to quarantine health workers traveling from West Africa who treated Ebola patients, the CDC has also updated its guidance on October 27 regarding the monitoring and movement of persons with potential Ebola exposure. The guidance applies to anyone who recently traveled to West Africa and may have been exposed to Ebola and includes newly created tiered categories of risk, ranging from high to no risk and based on exposure to Ebola. Depending on the risk category, the CDC recommends that state and local health authorities isolate travelers who are exhibiting signs of illness or conduct “active” or “direct active” monitoring of signs and symptoms of Ebola for other at-risk individuals.

Health officials will make at least daily contact with these travelers, requiring travelers to disclose (1) temperatures and any other Ebola symptoms, such as headache, diarrhea, and vomiting, and (2) intent to travel out of state. For individuals who are under direct active monitoring, the CDC recommends that discussions with the individual include plans to work, travel, take public transportation, or go to busy public places to determine whether these activities are allowed.

Employers, and particularly employers with an international presence, should closely monitor these CDC travel advisories,[5] as well as advisories published by the World Health Organization (WHO).[6] Employers should evaluate their own travel policies and alerts against those published by the CDC and the WHO.

Protecting Employees from Impacted Regions from Harassment and Protecting the Confidentiality of Medical Information

Like the CDC, employers must respect workers’ privacy—and, particularly, the confidentiality of their medical information pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)—and they must also comply with rules and guidance from OSHA, the CDC, and other agencies. Employers should balance their need to ensure workplace safety with their obligation to avoid unnecessary or overbroad medical inquiries, which are prohibited by the ADA. Of course, if an employee is exhibiting symptoms of Ebola exposure, it is appropriate to urge him or her to see a doctor. However, the decision to send an employee for a medical exam or to request medical documentation should be based on objective information—not unfounded fears that may or may not be grounded in reality. As an example, without some reason to believe there has been Ebola exposure, it could be risky to request medical information simply because an employee visited an Ebola-impacted region.

Employers should also take caution and consult legal counsel before they send home an employee suspected of Ebola exposure. The decision to remove an employee from the workplace for medical reasons must based on objective belief that the employee may present a direct threat of significant, imminent harm to himself or herself or others. These decisions should not be based on rumor or unfounded concerns.

To address these issues, employers should train human resources employees about the CDC guidance so they can understand the medical and scientific realities of Ebola exposure and, therefore, be prepared to respond appropriately if employees express concern about a coworker believed to be at risk for Ebola exposure. Similarly, employers should take all necessary steps to ensure that employees who are, or who are perceived to be, from regions impacted by Ebola do not experience harassment based on race, national origin, or any perceived medical condition.

HIPAA

The Ebola situation has also introduced some Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) interpretation questions for employers that are Covered Entities—such as healthcare providers—but also for those that sponsor a Covered Entity group health plan. HIPAA protects an individual’s protected health information (PHI), which includes, for example, medical, demographic, and other identifying information. HIPAA restricts Covered Entities from disclosing PHI about a worker or plan participant, except in limited circumstances. To date, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has not indicated that the Ebola crisis will change its enforcement or interpretation of HIPAA. The HIPAA Privacy Rule and Security Rules, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, will still apply to Covered Entities. Although narrow exceptions exist for use or disclosure for certain public health purposes, this exception will likely only apply in limited situations for limited organizations. Covered Entities should review their policies and procedures to determine if and how infectious diseases, particularly Ebola, are addressed. They should also train their Privacy Employees—workers who act on behalf of the Covered Entity—to continue to protect an individual’s PHI. Before disclosing any PHI, Covered Entities should exercise caution and consult with legal counsel to confirm that a use or disclosure will not constitute a HIPAA violation.

Labor Relations

In light of the media furor from various healthcare and service workers’ unions regarding Ebola risks to workers, employers should also expect to receive collective bargaining demands related to training, adequate safety procedures, and protective equipment and medical services provided to exposed employees, potentially including demands for leave (whether paid or unpaid). Employers should be proactive, therefore, in reaching out to union representatives of healthcare workers to develop protocols on how best to handle these types of issues, and, given the labor laws, should not act unilaterally, even if well intentioned and even if the to-be-implemented protocols are favorable to employees. Employers should also review their current collective bargaining agreements for any clauses or language requiring the employer to implement procedures related to infectious diseases or the safety of their workers. Finally, even nonunion workers can exercise rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to engage in concerted activity for their mutual aid and protection if workers fear their safety is not adequately protected. A refusal to work because of safety concerns related to Ebola, therefore, could be protected under the NLRA, and employers should carefully consider this issue prior to implementing discipline to employees for refusing to work.

Immigration

In coordination with the CDC, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) implemented a set of travel restrictions[7] involving additional screening and protective measures for travelers from Ebola-affected countries at U.S. ports of entry. Travelers to the United States who are arriving directly or indirectly from Liberia, Sierra Leone, or Guinea will undergo enhanced screening that includes the following:

  • Identifying and interdicting travelers from the Ebola-affected countries.

  • Isolating these travelers from the rest of the traveling public while the individual completes a questionnaire and contact information form.

  • Medically trained personnel will take the traveler’s temperature. If the traveler has a fever or other symptoms, or may have been exposed to Ebola, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will refer the traveler to the CDC for a public health assessment. The CDC will then determine whether the traveler can continue to travel, should be taken to a hospital for further evaluation, or should be referred to a local health department for further monitoring.

  • Encouraging the traveler to seek healthcare at the first sign of any potential illness.

If CBP discovers that a traveler has been in one of the three countries in the prior 21 days, he or she will be referred for additional screening, and, if necessary, the CDC or other medical personnel in the area will be contacted pursuant to existing protocols. The enhanced screening is in place at the five U.S. airports that account for 94% of travelers flying to the United States from Ebola-affected countries. The airports are John F. Kennedy International, Newark Liberty International, Washington Dulles International, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International, and Chicago O’Hare International. DHS has authority under existing law to deny admission to individuals who represent a public health threat.

Given the rapidly changing circumstances, employers are faced with many labor and employment challenges to consider.

[1]. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1030.

[2]. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.134.

[3]. 29 C.F.R. 1910.132.

[4]. View the act here.

[5]. View the advisories here.

[6]. View the advisories here.

[7]. View the restrictions here.

ARTICLE BY

Jonathan L. Snare
Joyce A. Cowan
Eric S. Bord
Ross H. Friedman
Michelle Seldin Silverman
Georgina L. O’Hara
OF
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Second Circuit Finds that Entry-Level Audit Associates at Accounting Firm are Exempt from Federal Overtime Requirements

Sheppard Mullin Law Firm

In Pippins v. KPMG LLP, No. 13-889 (2d Cir. July 22, 2014), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously held that entry-level audit associates (“Plaintiffs”) at KPMG LLP qualify for the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (“FLSA”) “learned professionals” overtime exemption.  The Second Circuit explained that, while the closely-supervised employees were “the most junior members” of the KPMG accountancy team and did not “make high-level decisions,” their work still required sufficient knowledge and judgment to qualify for the exemption.

The FLSA exempts employers from paying overtime to workers whose “primary duty” is “the performance of work requiring advanced knowledge in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction.”  Such workers may qualify for the FLSA’s “learned professional” exemption provided that their work is: (i) “predominantly intellectual in character, and requires the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment”; (ii) in a “field of science or learning,” such as accounting; and (iii) of a type where “specialized academic training is a standard prerequisite for entrance into the profession.”

While the parties in Pippins agreed that accounting qualifies as a field of “science or learning” under the FLSA, the Second Circuit’s decision provides guidance for employers seeking to determine whether an employee’s position may meet the other two necessary elements for the learned professional overtime exemption to apply.

The “Discretion and Judgment” Prong

Noting the lack of guidance in the FLSA’s regulations expounding on the “discretion and judgment” prong, the Court held that, in the learned professionals context, employees need not “exercise management authority,” particularly where they work for firms that provide professional services to other businesses, such as KPMG.  Rather, “what matters is whether [employees] exercise intellectual judgment within the domain of their particular expertise.”  As applied to the field of accounting, the Court explained that accounting requires the consistent application of a “professional skepticism” throughout the process of collecting and analyzing data in order to ensure that audits expose potential financial irregularities or accounting improprieties.

The Plaintiffs maintained that they merely exercised simple “common sense,” made only “obvious” observations, followed strict templates and guidelines, and exclusively conducted routine work that was reviewed by supervisors before being assimilated into final audit reports.

However, the Court largely characterized Plaintiffs’ contentions as “confus[ing] being an entry-level member of a profession with not being a professional at all.”  Indeed, the Court observed that the existence of guidelines and supervision is characteristic of professional firms and organizations and is simply intended to provide training and ensure quality work.  The fact that junior professionals are subject to close supervision and must adhere to guidelines “does not relegate [them] to the role or status of non-professional staff.”  The Court further explained that employees can “exercise professional judgment when their discretion in performing core duties is constrained by formal guidelines or when ultimate judgment is deferred to higher authorities.”

With respect to Plaintiffs, the Court found that their use of templates, the specific guidelines they were required to follow and the supervision of their work, did not deprive them of the need to exercise professional skepticism throughout the auditing process.  In the Court’s view, the Plaintiffs were still required to exercise their specialized knowledge of accounting in order to determine when to deviate from such guidelines, or when to bring questions to superiors. “It is a hallmark of informed professional judgment,” the Second Circuit explained, “to understand when a problem can be dealt with by the professional herself, and when the issue needs to be brought to the attention of a senior colleague with greater experience, wisdom, or authority.”

The “Specialized Academic Training” Prong

With respect to the “specialized academic training” prong of the learned professional exemption, the Court held that “the requirement will usually be satisfied by a few years of relevant, specialized training,” and that “a bachelor’s degree in a germane field [often] suffices.”   By contrast, the Second Circuit observed that generic, non-specialized educational requirements, such as a requirement that an employee possess a general bachelor’s degree in “any field,” are insufficient to establish the prerequisite.  Finally, the Court explained that to determine whether the exemption applies, the educational prerequisites for entry into the particular profession must be customary.  Because the audit associates were generally required to either be eligible or nearly eligible to become licensed Certified Public Accountants (“CPAs”) and the “vast majority” of them possessed accounting degrees and could take the CPA exam, the Court held that the Plaintiffs work required specialized educational instruction.

Plaintiffs contended, however, that they did not meet the specialized academic training requirement because their job duties didn’t actually call on them to employ the knowledge they acquired in the course of their studies.  The Court acknowledged the potential merit of this argument in the case of  a well-educated professional who is never expected to draw on her education in practice.  However, the Court quickly dispatched the argument as it pertained to Plaintiffs, finding that the “average classics or biochemistry major” would not be able to adequately perform or fully understand the auditors’ work functions.

Conclusion

The Pippins decision offers greater clarity to employers in  applying the “learned professional” exemption.  The decision establishes that, even where low-level employees are closely supervised, regularly perform routine tasks, and follow established templates and guidelines, their work can still demand enough professional judgment to qualify them as learned professionals.

ARTICLE BY

Kevin J. Smith
Jonathan Sokolowski
Of:
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

EEOC Expands Reach of Pregnancy Discrimination Act

Michael Best Logo

On July 14, 2014 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued its first “enforcement guidance” on the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”) since 1983.  One of the more significant aspects of the Guidance is the EEOC’s view of an employer’s duty to accommodate pregnant workers under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The EEOC now takes the position that employers must accommodate a pregnant employee’s work restrictions to the same extent it accommodates non-pregnant employees with similar restrictions.

This means, in the EEOC’s view, that employers who offer light duty work to individuals injured on the job must also offer light duty work to pregnant employees with work restrictions, regardless of the fact that the light duty policy only applies, by its terms, to those employees who have restrictions stemming from a work related injury.

The EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance is quite extensive.  The entire Guidance document can be found here.

The EEOC also issued a “Questions & Answers” document, found here.

As if that wasn’t enough summer reading, the EEOC also issued a “Fact Sheet” that summarizes the PDA’s requirements here.

Article By:

Mitchell W. Quick
Of:
Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

College Football Players As Employees ? – Illegal Formation!

Godfrey Kahn Law Firm

Members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee filed an amicus brief on July 10 that opposed unionization of college athletes. A case involving athletes at Northwestern University is pending before the National Labor Relations Board. Northwestern University and College Athletes Players Association (CAPA), Case No. 13-RC-121359

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and fellow committee members Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Senator Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) along with members of several House Committees signed the amicus brief in support of Northwestern University in the case. The brief stated:

“Congress never intended for college athletes to be considered employees under the National Labor Relations Act, and doing so is incompatible with the student-university relationship,” the senators said. “The profound and inherent differences between the student-university and employee-employer relationship makes employee status unworkable both as a matter of law and in practice.”

The complete brief can be found here.

The American Council on Education also filed an amicus brief on July 3. That brief can be found here.

Article By:

Jon E. Anderson
Of:
Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

Major League Baseball (MLB) All-Star Weekend Volunteers Not Employees Under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

Jackson Lewis Logo

Judge John G. Koeltl from the Southern District of New York has dismissed the minimum wage claims of an individual who served as a volunteer at last year’s Major League Baseball All Star Weekend FanFest, held at New York City’s Javits Center, based on the “amusement or recreational establishment” exemption.  Chen v. Major League Baseball, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42078 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2014).

Plaintiff worked three shifts as a volunteer at FanFest, stamping attendees’ wrists, handing out paraphernalia and directing attendees.  He argued that this work made him an “employee” of Major League Baseball.  Judge Koeltl declined to address whether Plaintiff’s volunteer services made him an “employee”, because even if the court made such a conclusion, Plaintiff’s claim failed as a matter of law as  Plaintiff was “employed by an establishment which is an amusement or recreational establishment . . . [which did] not operate for more than seven months in any calendar year.”

While Chen is a victory for the employer community in light of the widespread series of actions brought by individuals classified as outside FLSA protection, principally asserted by interns,  many businesses are not seasonal in nature and thus cannot readily avail themselves of this exemption.  All potential exemptions and defenses to claims for minimum and overtime wages must be closely analyzed under the FLSA and, as applicable, state law.

Article By:

Noel P. Tripp
 
Of:
Jackson Lewis P.C.

 

EEOC & FTC Issue Joint Background Check Guidance

Jackson Lewis Logo

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued joint informal guidance concerning the legal pitfalls employers may face when consulting background checks into a worker’s criminal record, financial history, medical history or use of social media.  The FTC enforces the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the law that protects the privacy and accuracy of the information in credit reports. The EEOC enforces laws against employment discrimination.

The two short guides, Background Checks: What Employers Need to Know andBackground Checks: What Job Applicants and Employees Should Know, explain the rights and responsibilities of both employers and employees.

The agency press releases state that the FTC and the EEOC want employers to know that they need written permission from job applicants before getting background reports about them from a company in the business of compiling background information. Employers also should know that it’s illegal to discriminate based on a person’s race, national origin, sex, religion, disability, or age (40 or older) when requesting or using background information for employment.

Additionally, the agencies want job applicants to know that it’s not illegal for potential employers to ask someone about their background as long as the employer does not unlawfully discriminate. Job applicants also should know that if they’ve been turned down for a job or denied a promotion based on information in a background report, they have a right to review the report for accuracy.

According to EEOC Legal Counsel Peggy Mastroianni, “The No. 1 goal here is to ensure that people on both sides of the desk understand their rights and responsibilities.”

Article by:

Jason C. Gavejian

Of:

Jackson Lewis P.C.