Tag: employers

It’s Election Time: Time Off to Vote, Political Activities, and Political Speech in the Workplace

With Election Day quickly approaching, it is the right time for employers to refresh themselves on the various protections that may exist for their employees when it comes to voting and other political activities. Below is an overview of employees’ rights related to voting and other political activities leave, as well as protections for political speech and activity both in and outside the workplace.

Voting Leave Laws

Approximately thirty states require that employers provide their employees with some form of time off to vote. Twenty-one of these states require that the leave be paid. The exact contours of these laws – such as the amount of leave, notice requirements, and whether there is an exception when the employee has sufficient time outside of working hours to vote – vary by state. For example:

  • In New York, employers must provide leave to employees who do not have sufficient time outside of working hours to vote. An employee is deemed to have sufficient time to vote if the polls are open for four consecutive hours before or after the employee’s shift. Employees who do not have such a four-hour window are eligible to take the amount of leave that will – when added to their voting time outside working hours – enable them to vote, up to two hours of which must be without loss of pay. Employees may take time off for voting only at the beginning or end of their shift, as designated by the employer, unless otherwise mutually agreed to between the employee and employer. Employees are required to notify their employer that working time off to vote is needed between two and ten working days before the election.
  • Similarly, in California, employees are entitled to sufficient time off to vote, up to two hours of which must be paid. Unless the employer and employee agree otherwise, the employee must take the leave at the beginning or end of the employee’s shift, whichever allows the most time to vote and the least time off from work. Employees are required to provide notice that time off to vote is needed at least two working days before the election.
  • In the Washington, D.C., employees are entitled to up to two hours of paid leave to vote in either an election held in D.C. if the employee is eligible to vote in D.C., or in an election held in the jurisdiction in which the employee is eligible to vote. Employees must submit requests for leave a reasonable time in advance of the election date. Employers may specify the hours during which employees may take leave to vote, including requiring employees to vote during the early voting period or vote at the beginning or end of their shift during early voting or election day.
  • In Illinois, employers must provide two hours of paid voting leave to employees whose shifts begin less than two hours after the opening of the polls and end less than two hours before the closing of the polls. Employees must provide notice of the need for leave before the day of the election.
  • In Maryland, employees are entitled to up to two hours of paid voting leave, unless the employee has at least two non-working hours to vote while the polls are open. Employees must furnish proof to their employers that they either voted or attempted to vote, which can be in the form of a receipt issued by the State Board of Elections.

Certain states, includingNew York, California, and Washington, D.C., require that employers post a notice of an employee’s right to take leave in a conspicuous location before the election. Sample notices have been published by the New York State Board of Elections, the California Secretary of State, and D.C. Board of Elections.

Other Political Leave Laws

Some states require that employers provide leave for political-related reasons beyond just voting. For example:

  • Alabama, Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Nebraska, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin require that certain employers provide unpaid leave for employees to serve as election judges or officials on Election Day. In Minnesota, employees are entitled to paid leave for this reason; however, employers may reduce an employee’s salary or wages by the amount the employee receives as compensation for their service as an election judge.
  • Minnesota and Texas require that certain employers provide employees with unpaid leave to attend party conventions and/or party committee meetings.
  • Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, and Vermont require that certain employers provide employees with an unpaid leave of absence to serve as elected members of state government. In Iowa, employees are also entitled to leave to serve in a municipal, county, or federal office.
  • In Vermont, employees may take unpaid leave to vote in annual town hall meetings.

Some of these laws only apply to larger employers. For example, in Nevada, employers with at least fifty employees are required to provide leave for employees to serve as members of the state legislature. State laws also vary with respect to the amount of notice that employees must provide to their employers in order to be eligible for leave.

Political Speech in the Workplace

In our current political climate, many employers are concerned with what steps they can take regarding political speech and activity in the workplace. When these discussions or activities occur during working hours, they have the potential to negatively impact performance, productivity, or even possibly cross the line into bullying or unlawful harassment.

When employees publicly attend political rallies or support causes on social media, they may also (intentionally or not) create an actual, or perceived, conflict of interest with their employer. The complicated question of what exactly employers can do around employee political speech and activity is governed by various sources of law, some of which is discussed below.

Additionally, for employers with designated tax statuses, certain political speech can give pose risk to an organization’s tax-exempt status. Many tax exempt-organizations are subject to significant restrictions on lobbying and political activities. For example, 501I(3) organizations risk losing their tax-exempt status if they engage in political campaign activities or if a substantial part of its activities involves lobbying. Speech by an employee that constitutes political campaign or lobbying activity risks being attributed to an organization if an employee’s speech is seen as representative of the organization and being ratified by the organization. For example, if an employee urges their social media followers to contact their state representative about proposed legislation, this risks carrying the inference that the employee was speaking on behalf of the organization.

Employee “Free Speech”

There is no general right to “free speech” in a private sector workplace. Because the U.S. Constitution is primarily concerned with state actors, the First Amendment does not prevent private employers from prohibiting or restricting political speech in the workplace. Therefore, subject to certain exceptions discussed below, private sector employers are generally able to enact prohibitions around discussing politics at work and discipline employees for violating such policies.

However, as noted, an employer’s ability to restrain political speech in the workplace comes with some restrictions. At the federal level, Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), which applies to both unionized and non-union employees, protects certain “concerted activities” of employees for the purposes of “mutual aid or protection.” Political speech or activity that is unrelated to employment, such as an employee distributing pamphlets generally encouraging co-workers to vote for a candidate or support a political party, would not likely be covered or protected by the NLRA. The NLRA therefore does not universally prevent employers from prohibiting political discussions or activities in the workplace.

However, political speech may be protected by the NLRA when it relates to the terms or conditions of employment, such as communicating about wages, hours, workplace safety, company culture, leaves, and working conditions. Therefore, an employee encouraging co-workers to vote for a candidate because the candidate supports an increase in the minimum wage might claim to come under the protection of the NLRA.

State laws may also place certain limitations on employer attempts to restrict employee political speech. For example, Connecticut law prohibits employers from taking adverse action against employees for exercising their First Amendment rights, provided that such activity does not interfere with the employee’s job performance or the employment relationship.

Lawful Outside Activity/Off-Duty Conduct

Many states have laws that prohibit adverse action against employees based on lawful activities outside the workplace, which may include political activities. For example:

  • In approximately a dozen states, employers are prohibited from preventing employees from participating in politics or becoming candidates for public office. New York Labor Law § 201-d prohibits employers from discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees because of their “political activities outside of working hours, off of the employer’s premises and without use of the employer’s equipment or other property, if such activities are legal.” Political activities include (1) running for public office, (2) campaigning for a candidate for public office, or (3) participating in fund-raising activities for the benefit of a candidate, political party, or political advocacy group. Similar laws exist in California, Louisiana, and Minnesota, among other states.
  • Other states – including Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, and New Jersey– prohibit employers from attempting to influence an employee’s vote in an election. In Florida, “[i]t is unlawful for any person … to discharge or threaten to discharge any employee … for voting or not voting in any election, state, county, or municipal, for any candidate or measure submitted to a vote of the people.” A dozen or so states approach this issue in a more limited fashion by prohibiting employers from attaching political messages to pay envelopes.
  • At least two states, Illinois and Michigan, prohibit employers from keeping a record of employee’s associations, political activities, publications, or communications without written consent.
  • Washington, D.C. prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of political affiliation. Despite its seemingly broad scope, this statute has been interpreted to only protect political party membership and not (1) membership in a political group, or (2) other political activities, such as signing a petition.

These laws vary considerably from state to state, so it is important for employers to consult the laws when considering policies or rules around employee political activity.

* * *

As the election approaches and early voting takes place, employers should review the applicable laws for each jurisdiction in which they operate and ensure that their policies and practices are compliant. Employers should also ensure that managers are well versed in the employer’s policies around voting and political speech and activities so that they can properly respond as situations arise.

© 2024 Proskauer Rose LLP.
For more on Workplace Speech, visit the NLR Labor Employment section.

EEOC Publishes Long-Awaited Final Guidance on Workplace Harassment

On April 29, 2024, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued the final version of new workplace harassment guidance for employers, formally updating the EEOC’s position on the legal standards and employer liability under federal antidiscrimination laws for the first time in more than two decades.

Quick Hits

  • The EEOC issued a final version of new guidance for employers clarifying its positions on the applications of federal laws prohibiting harassment and retaliation.
  • The new guidance is the first update to the EEOC’s workplace harassment guidance since 1999 and incorporates several new developments in the law and modern workforces.
  • Key to the new guidance is that it recognizes unlawful harassment against LGBTQ+ individuals and addresses workplace protections for “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” including “lactation.”
  • The new guidance took immediate effect upon issuance.

The new guidance, “Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace,” clarifies the EEOC’s position on several key issues following its receipt of nearly 40,000 comments in response to its proposed guidance published on October 2, 2023.

“The EEOC’s updated guidance on harassment is a comprehensive resource that brings together best practices for preventing and remedying harassment and clarifies recent developments in the law,” EEOC Chair Charlotte Burrows said in a statement released with the new guidance.

In that regard, the final guidance aligns with the Supreme Court of the United States’ 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia—wherein the prohibition under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against gender discrimination was held to include claims predicated on sexual orientation and gender identification—and recognizes potentially unlawful workplace harassment against LGBTQ+ individuals. The final guidance also addresses another key area of focus, that is, workplace protections for “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” including “lactation” in accordance with the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (PUMP Act), and the EEOC’s final guidance on the PWFA issued on April 15, 2024.

While claims of harassment represented more than a third of all discrimination charges filed with the EEOC between fiscal years 2016 and 2023, the Commission has not updated its guidance on harassment since 1999. The final guidance consolidates and replaces the EEOC’s five guidance documents issued from 1987 through 1999.

Significant for employers, the final guidance provides more than seventy hypothetical examples of potential unlawful harassment, including examples reflective of today’s modern workforce with both hybrid and remote workers and widespread use of electronic communication and social media.

Covered Harassment

The EEOC made several key updates to what it considers covered harassment under Title VII and other federal antidiscrimination laws.

Race and Color

The new guidance expands the EEOC’s explanation on potential harassment based on “color” under Title VII, separating it out into its own section that was not included in the proposed guidance. The guidance states that while discrimination based on color is “sometimes related to harassment based on race or national origin, color-based harassment due to an individual’s pigmentation, complexion, or skin shade or tone is independently covered by Title VII.”

The guidance provides an example of potential color-based harassment where a supervisor harasses Black employees with “darker complexions” and not Black employees with “lighter skin tones,” even though they are all of the same race or national origin.

Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions

The guidance states that harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions “can include issues such as lactation; using or not using contraception; or deciding to have, or not to have, an abortion,” if that harassment “is linked to a targeted individual’s sex.” The new guidance adds multiple hypothetical examples of such harassment not included in the proposed guidance, including a situation where employees make negative comments about a pregnant employee who is allowed to “telework up to three days per week and utilize flexible scheduling” as an accommodation for “pregnancy-related morning sickness.” Another example highlighted a situation where negative comments are directed toward a female worker who expresses milk in the lactation room at work and other inappropriate behavior, namely a male worker knocking on the door of the lactation room and feigning intent to enter the room.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

The new guidance explains the EEOC’s view that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is a form of unlawful sex-based discrimination under Title VII, including epithets, physical assault, “outing” (meaning disclosing an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity without permission), or other harassing conduct toward individuals because they do “not present in a manner that would stereotypically be associated with that person’s sex.”

Further, the guidance identifies as potential harassment the “repeated and intentional use of a name or pronoun inconsistent with the individual’s known gender identity (misgendering); or the denial of access to a bathroom or other sex-segregated facility consistent with the individual’s gender identity.” Importantly, the final guidance requires some intentional or knowing behavior, that is “repeated and intentional” misgendering based on an individual’s “known” gender identity. (Emphasis added.)

Genetic Information

The new guidance further clarifies the EEOC’s understanding of unlawful harassment under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) as applying to “harassment based on an individual’s, or an individual’s family member’s, genetic test or on the basis of an individual’s family medical history.” For instance, the guidance states that such harassment could include harassing an employee “because the employee’s mother recently experienced a severe case of norovirus, which resulted in overnight hospitalization.”

Retaliatory Harassment

The final guidance includes a new section that addresses the concept of “retaliatory harassment.” The guidance clarifies the EEOC’s position that “retaliatory harassing conduct” may still be challenged as unlawful retaliation “even if it is not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment by creating a hostile work environment.” The EEOC explained that the legal standards for hostile work environment and retaliation are different as the anti-retaliation provisions proscribe a broader range of behaviors, namely, “anything that might deter a reasonable person from engaging in protected activity.”

Intraclass and Intersectional Harassment

The guidance includes examples of “intraclass” harassment where the harasser is in the same protected category as the individual being harassed. One hypothetical involves a fifty-two-year-old supervisor making derogatory comments toward a sixty-five-year-old employee as an example of harassment based on age, even though both individuals are over the age of forty. “Intersectional” harassment refers to situations where individuals are targeted based on their membership in more than one protected category. In one example, the hypothetical raises a situation where a male manager made comments to a female worker about her having a “hot flash” and being menopausal. The EEOC explained that such targeting based on “stereotypes about older women is covered as both age and sex discrimination.”

Reporting Procedures, Complaint Process, and Training

The proposed guidance outlined the “minimum” features of an effective anti-harassment policy, the “minimum” features for an effective complaint process, and the “minimum” features for effective anti-harassment training. The final guidance eliminates the “minimum” language, but the features of each are substantively the same otherwise.

As it concerns remedial measures, the Commission removed language from the proposed guidance that seemingly recognized the “fewer options” available to employers when faced with instances of harassment perpetrated by nonemployees, harassment toward employees working at client locations as is common for temporary staffing agencies, or harassment arising from off-duty conduct. In its place, the final guidance simply provides that employers have an “arsenal of incentives and sanctions” available to them to address harassment, but those options “may vary depending on who engages in the conduct and where it occurs, among other considerations.”

Next Steps

While the final guidance is likely to face legal challenges in the courts, employers may want to review their workplace policies and practices, particularly in light of potential liability for discrimination or harassment against LGBTQ+ employees. Additionally, employers may want to note differing state or local laws and state or local agency guidance that differ from Title VII and other federal laws enforced by the EEOC.

In addition to the new guidance, the EEOC published a “Summary of Key Provisions” document and a fact sheet for small businesses, with more information for employers.

© 2024, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.
For more on Workplace Harassment, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

FTC Approves Non-Compete Ban

On Tuesday afternoon, April 23, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted 3-2 along party lines to approve its new rule on non-competes. The new rule, which will take effect in 120 days, essentially bans non-competes for all workers, finding them “an unfair method of competition – and therefore a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.”

Notably, a non-complete clause is broadly defined as a “contractual term or workplace policy that prohibits a worker from, penalizes a worker for, or functions to prevent a worker from seeking or accepting work in the United States with a different person where such work would begin after the conclusion of the employment or operating a business in the United States after the conclusion of the employment.”

The new rule applies retroactively to prior agreements, other than those for senior executives earning more than $151,164 a year in a “policy-making position.” Employers must provide notice to other workers subject to non-compete agreements that they are no longer enforceable.

Not limited to employees, the non-compete ban extends to independent contractors, externs, interns, volunteers, apprentices, and sole proprietors who provide a service to a person. It does not include non-competes entered into pursuant to a bona fide sale of a business entity or in a franchisor-franchisee relationship.

While the rule is final, expect legal challenges to follow. For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest business lobby, told reporters it plans to sue over the rule, claiming the FTC is not authorized to make this rule, that non-competes are not categorically unfair, and the rule is arbitrary. The Chamber’s thoughts were echoed by the opposing Republican FTC voters, who cited concerns about the FTC’s authority (as compared to the merits of such a rule).

While employers’ protectable interests are often a concern, it is important to note that this rule does not ban non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements.

“…it is an unfair method of competition – and therefore a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act – for employers to enter into noncompetes with workers after the effective date.”
© 2024 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
by: Christopher Rubey of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
For more news on FTC’s noncompete ban, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Final Rule Raises Salary Threshold to $58,656 for Employee Overtime Exemptions

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has released a final rule that increases the salary threshold for the white collar overtime exemptions from the current $35,568 yearly minimum to $43,888 on July 1, 2024, and then to $58,656 on January 1, 2025. This means that, beginning January 1, 2025, most employees making less than $58,656 must receive overtime pay—time and a half their regular hourly rate—for any time worked more than 40 hours in one workweek. The changes also raise the salary requirement for what is known as the “highly compensated individual exemption” from the current $107,432 per year to $132,964 on July 1, 2024, and then to $151,164 on January 1, 2025. Notably, the DOL final rule requires automatic updates to the salary threshold every three years.

The DOL initially proposed to raise the overtime exemption to $55,068 and the salary requirement for the “highly compensated individual exemption” to $143,988. The final rule modifies those numbers and now involves incremental increases in a two-step process.

The DOL estimates that this impacts almost 4 million workers who are currently salaried. Employers must face the decision to either increase salaries for many exempt workers to the proposed minimum of $43,888 by July 1, 2024 and then $58,656 by January 1, 2025, or convert those exempt employees falling under the minimum salary to non-exempt hourly workers.

This rule will likely be challenged in the courts. However, it is uncertain whether these challenges will be successful. Therefore, businesses should take steps now to prepare:

  1. Review current exempt employees who earn between $35,568 and $55,656 per year. You can track employees’ actual hours worked now to learn the potential impact of converting them to overtime pay.
  2. Review current compliance. Although the proposed rule changes the salary threshold but not the other factors for an employee to be eligible for the “white collar” federal overtime exemption, the rule may cause employees to scrutinize their exempt classification. Employers should ensure that their exempt employees meet the three exception requirements: (1) paid on a salary basis; (2) paid at least the designated minimum salary; and (3) perform certain duties (which vary based on the exemption.)
  3. Plan to give advance notice to employees and provide training to managers and those workers impacted. If converted to non-exempt status, employees will need to be trained in record keeping requirements, timekeeping procedures, overtime approval policies, and other specifics that may vary from business to business.
© 2007-2024 Hill Ward Henderson, All Rights Reserved
by: Carmen M. Cato, S. Gordon Hill, Jeffrey J. Wilcox of Hill Ward Henderson
For more news on the DOL’s Overtime Salary Threshold, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

H-1B Cap Registration Period Now Open

The registration period for the fiscal year (FY) 2025 H-1B cap petitions opened at noon ET March 6, 2024, and will continue to run through noon ET March 22, 2024. Employers seeking to file an H-1B cap-subject petition must electronically register during this period using a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) online account. The registration process includes basic information about the prospective petitioner and each beneficiary along with a $10 registration fee for each beneficiary. The registration process for FY 2025 is governed by the final rule published Feb. 2, 2024, which took effect March 4, 2024.

The final rule includes a new beneficiary-centric selection process to ensure all beneficiaries have an equal chance of selection. Under the new process, registrations will be selected by unique beneficiary rather than by registration. As part of the registration process this year, each beneficiary must provide a valid passport that matches the registration details. See our February 2024 blog post for additional information on the new passport expiration requirements.

As with prior years, it is expected that USCIS will receive enough registrations during the registration period to meet the 65,000 H-1B cap, with an additional 20,000 visas available for those who possess a U.S. master’s degree or higher from an accredited U.S. institution. If the cap is reached, USCIS will conduct a random lottery of the registrations it receives following the close of the registration period. Petitioners will receive an electronic notification if their registration has been selected and can move forward with filing the H-1B petition for only those beneficiaries named on the selection notice.

H-1B cap-subject petitions for those registrations that are selected in the initial drawing can be filed between April 1, 2024, and June 30, 2024. USCIS clarifies in the final rule that requesting an H-1B cap employment start date after Oct. 1 of the relevant fiscal year is permissible. Petitioners that have received H-1B selections will be able to use their USCIS organizational account to electronically file any H-1B petitions that were selected in the process, or they can file a traditional paper filing of the H-1B petition that is sent to USCIS by mail or courier.

©2024 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.
For more on H-1B Cap Registration, visit the NLR Immigration section.

Reminder to Employers Regarding Mandatory Workplace Posters

As employers march through the beginning of the new year, they should ensure they are in compliance with the various mandatory workplace notice and posting requirements under applicable state and federal laws.

To that end, the U.S. Department of Labor provides a poster advisory tool for employers to reference. Similarly, most state department of labor websites will, at the very least, provide a list of required state employment posters. Many of these websites also provide links for employers to download mandatory posters for free.

For Texas employers, for example, the Texas Workforce Commission’s website contains a list of optional and required posters. In addition to federally mandated posters, private Texas employers are required to post information related to the Texas Payday law and unemployment compensation, and workers’ compensation, if the employer has workers’ compensation insurance coverage. Further, as of January 8, 2024, Texas employers must post a “Reporting Workplace Violence” notice in both English and Spanish.

Federal and state laws typically require that required posters be physically posted conspicuously at each of the employer’s facilities and/or work sites that are convenient and easily accessible to employees and, in some cases, job applicants. Because many employers have transitioned to or otherwise permitted hybrid and remote-work environments, such employers should remember that federally mandated notices may be electronically provided to remote employees, as well as displayed in the physical workspace for hybrid workforces. But, according to the U.S. Department of Labor’s guidance, electronic posting or access should be at least as effective as a physical posting, and employees should be able to access the electronic posting without having to request permission to view it. Employers should verify whether the applicable state law allows for electronic delivery or posting of mandatory notices to remote and hybrid employees. In Texas, employers should look to federal guidance regarding the same.

© 2024 Winstead PC.
For more news on Mandatory Workplace Posters, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

The End of the COVID Public Health Emergency and Its Effect on Employee Benefit Plans

The COVID-19 public health emergency ends on May 11, 2023. The emergency resulted in two big changes to welfare plans: the relaxation of certain notification and timing requirements, and the requirement for plans to cover COVID testing and vaccination at no cost to plan participants. While the public health emergency ends May 11, 2023, plans have a grace period until July 11 to take certain actions and come into compliance with the normal rules.

Plan Sponsor Requirements

Before the grace period ends, plan sponsors will generally need to follow the rules that existed before COVID. Among the most important of these rules are the requirements for plan sponsors to:

  • Timely provide all notices, including those for HIPAA and COBRA.
  • Review COVID-related coverage under their employee assistance programs (EAPs) to determine if such coverage would be considered “significant medical care,” which can result in additional reporting and compliance obligations.
  • Review telehealth options to ensure they are properly integrated and provided by an entity that can comply with the post-COVID requirements. Telehealth rules were substantially relaxed during COVID. With telehealth now expected and utilized by more participants, getting telehealth right is more crucial than before.

Plan Sponsor Decisions

With the end of the public health emergency, plan sponsors must also make several important decisions with respect to their employee benefit plans:

  • Whether testing will continue free of charge or will be subject to cost sharing.
  • Whether non-preventative care vaccines for COVID will continue to be free of charge.
  • Whether costs for certain COVID-related services will continue to be posted.

As they are mostly based on what costs the plan sponsor or plan will cover going forward, these plan sponsor decisions are largely business-related. In the absence of a choice by the plan sponsor, the insurance provider will likely make a default choice. The important legal consideration is that the plan documents and employee communications should be consistent and accurately reflect the plan sponsor’s decisions.

Participant Requirements

In addition to the changes for plan sponsors, the end of the public health emergency will result in the reinstatement of a number of rules applicable to participants. Participants will need to:

Follow the HIPAA Special Enrollment timing rules.

Elect COBRA within the 60-day window for elections.

Make all COBRA payments timely.

Timely notify the plan of disabilities and qualifying events under COBRA.

Follow the timing limitations of their plans and insurance policies regarding filing claims, appeals, and external reviews.

Next Steps

First, plan sponsors should decide what COVID-related coverage will remain fully paid by the plan, if any. Some insurance companies are already starting to communicate with participants, and maintaining a consistent message will avoid unnecessary problems.

Second, plan sponsors should review their EAP and telehealth coverages for compliance with the rules that will soon be in effect. To the extent necessary, plan sponsors should update the documentation for their plans.

Finally, plan sponsors should consider a voluntary reminder communication to participants. Many rules have been relaxed over the last two years or so, and participants may be confused regarding the rules. A reminder may save stress for participants and those administering the plan, and will also serve to document the plan sponsor’s intention to properly follow the terms of the plan.

© 2023 Varnum LLP

For more healthcare legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Deadline Approaches for Chicago Employers

As a reminder to employers in Chicago, anti-sexual harassment training is required by Chicago’s Human Rights Ordinance and must be completed by July 1, 2023.  This requirement applies to all Chicago employers, regardless of size or industry.

The training consists of one (1) hour of anti-sexual harassment training for all non-supervisory employees and two (2) hours of anti-sexual harassment training for supervisory employees.  Regardless of supervisory status, all employees must also undergo one (1) hour of bystander training.  Employers must provide training on an annual basis.  Additional information about training requirements can be found here. Employers who fail to comply may be subject to penalties.

Article By Audrey H. Shinn of Vedder Price

© 2023 Vedder Price

The NLRB Curtails the Scope of Nondisparagement and Confidentiality Provisions in Severance Agreements

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) issued McLaren Macomb, a decision that curtails the permissible scope of confidentiality agreements and non-disclosure provisions in severance agreements. See McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (2023). Analyzing the broad provisions in the agreements at issue in this case, the Board held that simply offering employees severance agreements that require employees to broadly waive their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or “the Act”) was unlawful. The Board held:

Where an agreement unlawfully conditions receipt of severance benefits on the forfeiture of statutory rights, the mere proffer of the agreement itself violates the Act, because it has a reasonable tendency to interfere with or restrain the prospective exercise of Section 7 rights, both by the separating employee and those who remain. Whether the employee accepts the agreement is immaterial.

The Board’s decision is part of a broader trend by courts and administrative agencies applying heightened scrutiny to contractual provisions that limit employees’ rights. The decision also provides a crucial reminder to union and nonunion workers alike of the relevance of federal labor law in providing legal protections for most private-sector workers.

Case Background

The case arose when Michigan hospital operator McLaren Macomb permanently furloughed eleven employees, all bargaining unit members of Local 40 RN Staff Council, Office of Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU), AFL-CIO, because it had terminated outpatient services during the COVID-19 pandemic in June 2020. After McLaren Macomb furloughed these employees, it presented them with a “Severance Agreement, Waiver and Release” that offered severance amounts to the employees if they signed the agreement. All eleven employees signed.

The agreements provided broad language regarding confidentiality and nondisparagement. The confidentiality provision stated, “The Employee acknowledges that the terms of this Agreement are confidential and agrees not to disclose them to any third person, other than spouse, or as necessary to professional advisors for the purposes of obtaining legal counsel or tax advice, or unless legally compelled to do so by a court or administrative agency of competent jurisdiction.” (emphasis added). The non-disclosure provision provided, in relevant part, “At all times hereafter, the Employee agrees not to make statements to Employer’s employees or to the general public which could disparage or harm the image of Employer…” The employees faced substantial financial penalties if they violated the provisions. The Employer conditioned the payment of severance on Employees’ entering into this agreement.

The NLRB’s Decision

In McLaren Macomb, the Board held that simply offering employees severance agreements that contain these broad confidentiality and nondisparagement provisions violates the NLRA.

The NLRA provides broad protections of employees’ rights to engage in collective action. Section 7 of the NLRA vests employees with a number of rights, including the right “to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” Section 8(a)(1) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice (ULP) for an employer to “interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7.” As the Supreme Court, federal courts, and the NLRB have repeatedly held and reaffirmed, Section 7 provides broad rights for employees and former employees—union and nonunion alike—to engage in collective action, including discussing terms and conditions of employment and workplace issues with coworkers, a union, and the Board. As the Supreme Court has stated in elaborating on the broad construction of Section 7, “labor’s cause often is advanced on fronts other than collective bargaining and grievance settlement within the immediate employment context.” Eastex, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 437 U.S. 556, 565 (1978).

Applying these foundational principles to the severance agreements at hand, the Board reversed Trump-era NLRB precedent and concluded that the employer’s proffer of these broad nondisparagement and confidentiality provisions contravened the employees’ exercise of Section 7 rights, which is an unfair labor practice under Section 8(a)(1). Notably, the Board held that an employer’s merely offering such broad provisions violates the Act—it does not matter whether the employee signs the agreement or not.

The Board determined that the nondisparagement provision substantially interfered with employees’ Section 7 rights on its face. That provision prohibits the furloughed employee from making any “statements to [the] Employer’s employees or the general public which could disparage or harm the image of [the] Employer.” Analyzing this language, the Board reasoned that the provision would encompass employee conduct or critiques of the employer regarding any labor issue, dispute, or term and condition of employment. Accordingly, this proscription sweeps far too broadly—it prohibits employees from exercising their right to publicize labor disputes, a right which is protected by the Act. Moreover, the nondisparagement provision chills employees from exercising Section 7 rights, including efforts to assist fellow employees, cooperate with the Board’s investigation and litigation of unfair labor practices, and raise or assist in making workplace complaints to coworkers, their union, the Board, the media, or “almost anyone else.” As the Board underscored, “Public statements by employees about the workplace are central to the exercise of employee rights under the Act.”

The Board then concluded that the confidentiality provision also interfered with employees’ Section 7 rights in at least two ways. First, the Board explained that because the confidentiality provision prohibits the employee from disclosing the terms of the agreement “to any third person,” the agreement would reasonably tend to coerce the employee not to file a ULP charge with the Board or assist in a Board investigation. (emphasis added). Second, the same language would also prohibit the furloughed employee from discussing the terms of the agreement with former coworkers in similar situations, which would frustrate the mutual support between employees at the heart of the Act. As the Board summarized, “A severance agreement is unlawful if it precludes an employee from assisting coworkers with workplace issues concerning their employer, and from communicating with others, including a union, and the Board, about his employment.”

Takeaways for Employment Lawyers and Plaintiffs

First, while one might assume that labor law is exclusively the province of unions, their members, and their lawyers, McLaren Macomb demonstrates the relevance of the NLRA for employees regardless of union status. Although the workers in this case were unionized, the Section 7 rights at the heart of the NLRA apply to most private-sector employees, including nonunion employees. Indeed, because nonunion workers often have fewer workplace protections than their unionized counterparts, Section 7’s protections are critically important for nonunion employees. Employees who are asked to sign confidentiality and nondisparagement provisions and their attorneys should be aware that broad restrictions on employees’ concerted activity may be illegal.

Second, this decision is part of a broader effort to protect workers from being muzzled by their employers. For instance, the recent federal Speak Out Act establishes that predispute nondisclosure clauses and nondisparagement clauses—often included in employment contracts—are unenforceable in disputes involving sexual assault or sexual harassment. These recent developments in the law should be on the radar of workers and their attorneys who are navigating employer’s contracts, policies, handbooks, and proposed severance agreements.

Article By Kyle Bigley of Katz Banks Kumin LLP

For more labor law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Katz Banks Kumin LLP Copyright ©

SECURE 2.0 Act Brings Slate of Changes to Employer-Sponsored Retirement Plans

In December, the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (“SECURE 2.0”) was passed, a package of retirement provisions providing comprehensive updates and changes to the SECURE Act of 2019. The legislation includes some key changes that affect employer-sponsored defined contribution plans, such as profit-sharing plans, 401(k) plans, 403(b) plans and stock bonus plans. While some of the changes are effective immediately upon the law’s enactment, most required changes are not effective before the plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2024, so employer sponsors have time to prepare for compliance.

Required Changes

Mandatory automatic enrollment in new plans.

Plan sponsors are currently allowed to provide for automatic enrollment and automatic escalation in 401(k) and 403(b) plans. SECURE 2.0 requires new 401(k) and 403(b) plans to automatically enroll participants at a new default rate, and to escalate participants’ deferral rate each year, up to a maximum of 15%, with some exceptions for new and small businesses. This provision applies to new plans with initial plan years beginning after December 31, 2024.

Changes to long-term part-time employee participation requirements.

The Act currently requires 401(k) plans to permit participation in the deferral part of the plan only by an employee who worked at least 500 hours (but less than 1000 hours) per year for three consecutive years. SECURE 2.0 changes this participation requirement by long-term part-time employees working more than 500, but less than 1000, hours per year to two consecutive years instead of three. However, this two-year provision does not take effect until January 1, 2025, which means the original SECURE Act three-year provision still applies for 2024. Employers should start tracking hours for part-time employees to determine whether they will be eligible in 2024 or 2025 under this provision. For vesting purposes, pre-2021 service is disregarded, just as service is disregarded for eligibility purposes. This provision is applicable to 401(k) plans and 403(b) plans that are subject to ERISA and does not apply to collectively bargained plans. This provision applies to plan years beginning after December 31, 2024.

Changes to catch-up contributions limits.

If a defined contribution plan permits participants who have attained age 50 to make catch-up contributions, the catch-up contributions are now required to be made on a Roth basis for participants who earn at least $145,000 (indexed after 2024) or more in the prior year. This provision is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023.

Changes to the required minimum distribution (RMD) age.

Currently, required minimum distributions must begin at age 72 for participants who have terminated employment. SECURE 2.0 increases the age to age 73 starting on January 1, 2023, and to age 75 starting on January 1, 2033. This means that participants who turn 72 in 2023 are not required to take an RMD for 2023; instead, they will be required to start taking RMDs for calendar year 2024, the year in which they turn 73. This provision is effective for distributions made after December 31, 2022, for individuals who turn 72 after that date.

Early withdrawal tax exemption for emergency withdrawal expenses.

SECURE 2.0 provides for an exception from the 10% early withdrawal tax on emergency expenses, defined as certain unforeseeable or immediate financial needs, on a limited basis (once per year, up to $1000). Plans may allow an optional three-year payback period, and participants are restricted from taking another emergency withdrawal within three years of any unpaid amount on a previous withdrawal. This provision is effective for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2024.

Changes to automatic enrollment for new plans.

Almost all new defined contribution plans will be required to auto-enroll employees upon hire (existing plans are exempt from this provision). This provision is applicable for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2025.

Optional Changes

Additional catch-up contribution opportunities.

Currently, the catch-up contribution limits for certain plans are indexed for inflation and apply to employees who have reached the age of 50. SECURE 2.0 increases catch-up contribution limits for individuals aged 60-63 to the greater of: (1) $10,000 (indexed for inflation), or (2) 50% more than the regular catch-up amount in effect for 2024. This provision is effective for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2025.

Additional employer contributions to SIMPLE IRA plans.

Current law requires employers with SIMPLE IRA plans to make employer contributions to employees of either 2% of compensation or 3% of employee elective deferral contributions. SECURE 2.0 allows employers to make additional contributions to each employee of a SIMPLE plan in a uniform manner, provided the contribution does not exceed the lesser of up to 10 percent of compensation or $5,000 (indexed). This provision is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023.

Replacing SIMPLE IRA plans with safe harbor 401(k) plans.

The new law also permits an employer to elect to replace a SIMPLE IRA plan with a safe harbor 401(k) plan at any time during the year, provided certain criteria are met. The current law prohibits the replacement of a SIMPLE IRA plan with a 401(k) plan mid-year. This provision also includes a waiver of the two-year rollover limitation in SIMPLE IRAs converting to a 401(k) or 403(b) plan. This change is effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2023.

Increasing involuntary cash-out threshold.

Currently plans may automatically cash-out a vested participant’s benefit that is between $1,000 and $5,000 and roll this amount over to an IRA. SECURE 2.0 allows plans to increase the $5,000 involuntary cash-out limit amount to $7,000. This provision of the law is effective for distributions made after December 31, 2023.

Relaxation of discretionary amendment deadline.

Under current law, a discretionary plan amendment must be adopted by the end of the plan year in which it is effective. SECURE 2.0 allows plans to make discretionary plan amendments to increase benefits until the employer’s tax filing deadline for the immediately preceding taxable year in which the amendment is effective. This applies to stock bonus, pension, profit-sharing or annuity plans to increase benefits for the preceding plan year. This provision is effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2023.

Elimination of unnecessary plan notices to unenrolled participants.

SECURE 2.0 eases the administrative burden on plan sponsors by eliminating unnecessary plan notices to unenrolled participants. Under the amended law, plan sponsor notices to unenrolled participants may consist solely of an annual notice of eligibility to participate during the annual enrollment period, as opposed to numerous notices from the plan sponsor. This provision is effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2022.

Crediting of student loan payments as elective deferrals for purposes of matching contributions.

Under SECURE 2.0, student loan payments may be treated as elective deferrals for the purposes of matching contributions to a retirement plan. This provision is available for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2024.

Matching contributions designated as Roth contributions.

Previously, employer matching contributions could not be made as Roth contributions. Effective on the date of the enactment of SECURE 2.0, 401(a), 403(b), or governmental 457(b) plans may allow employees the option to designate matching contributions as Roth contributions.

Expansion of the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS).

Currently, EPCRS contains procedures to self-correct certain limited, operational failures that are insignificant and corrected within a three-year period. SECURE 2.0 expands this, generally permitting any inadvertent failure to be self-corrected under EPCRS within a reasonable period after the failure is identified, without a submission to the IRS, subject to some exceptions. This provision went into effect on the date of enactment.

Recoupment of overpayments.

Currently, fiduciaries for plans that have mistakenly overpaid a participant must take reasonable steps to recoup the overpayment (for example, by collecting it from the participant or employer) to maintain the tax-qualified status of the plan and comply with ERISA. Under SECURE 2.0, 401(a), 403(a), 403(b), and governmental plans (not including 457(b) plans) will not lose tax qualification merely because the plan fails to recover an “inadvertent benefit overpayment” or otherwise amends the plan to permit this increased benefit. In certain cases, the overpayment is also treated as an eligible rollover distribution. This provision became effective upon enactment with certain retroactive relief for prior good faith interpretations of existing guidance.

Simplified plan designs for “starter” 401(k) and 403(b) plans.

Effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2023, SECURE 2.0 creates two new plan designs for employers who do not sponsor a retirement plan: a “starter 401(k) deferral-only arrangement” and a “safe harbor 403(b) plan.” These plans would generally require that all employees be enrolled in the plan with a deferral rate of three percent to 15 percent of compensation.

Financial incentives for contributions.

SECURE 2.0 allows participants to receive de minimis financial incentives (not paid for with plan assets) for contributing to a 401(k) or 403(b) plan. Previously, plans were prohibited from offering financial incentives (other than matching contributions) to employees for contributing to a plan. This provision became effective for plan years starting after the date of enactment.

When do employers need to amend their plans for the SECURE Act, CARES Act, and SECURE 2.0 (“the Acts”)?

If a retirement plan operates in accordance with the Acts, plan amendments must be made by the end of the 2025 plan year (or 2027 for governmental and collectively bargained plans). (The amendment deadlines for SECURE and CARES were extended late last year.)

Article By John D. Arendshorst, Andrea M. Gumushian, and Kristy L. De Vos of Varnum LLP

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2023 Varnum LLP