Tag: employers

Cook County, Illinois, Enacts Paid Sick Leave Ordinance

paid earned Sick leaveThe Cook County “Earned Sick Leave” Ordinance mandates that employers in Cook County, Illinois, allow eligible employees to accrue up to 40 hours of paid sick leave in each 12-month period of their employment. The Ordinance, passed on October 5, 2016, becomes effective on July 1, 2017.

The Ordinance is similar to amendments to the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance providing for paid sick leave, also going into effect on July 1. Chicago is part of Cook County.

Paid Sick Leave Requirements

Who is covered?

Individuals are entitled to benefits under the Ordinance if they:

perform at least two hours of work for a covered employer while physically present within the geographic boundaries of the County in any particular two-week period; and work at least 80 hours for a covered employer in any 120-day period.

Compensated time spent traveling in Cook County, including for deliveries and sales calls and for travel related to other business activity taking place in the County, can count toward the two-hour requirement. However, uncompensated commuting time in the County will not be counted. Certain railroad employees are not covered by the Act.

Covered employers include individuals and companies with a place of business within the County that gainfully employ at least one covered employee. Government entities and Indian tribes are not covered employers under the Ordinance.

The Ordinance does not apply to collective bargaining agreements in force on July 1, 2017. After that date, the Ordinance may be waived in a bona fide CBA if the waiver is explicit and unambiguous. In addition, the Ordinance does not apply to any covered employee in the construction industry who is covered by a bona fide CBA.

What if my company already provides employees with paid time off (PTO)?

If an employer has a policy that grants employees PTO in an amount and a manner that meets the requirements of the new Ordinance, the employer is not required to provide additional paid leave. However, any existing PTO policy must meet each requirement of the Ordinance, including the reasons for which the time off may be used, to qualify for this exemption.

When do employees begin to accrue paid sick leave?

Employees begin to accrue paid sick leave on the first calendar day after the start of their employment or July 1, 2017, whichever is later.

How much sick leave is required and can employers limit the amount used?

Employees will accrue one hour of paid sick leave for every 40 hours worked. For purposes of calculating accruals, the Ordinance assumes exempt employees work 40 hours per workweek, unless their normal workweek is less, in which case the accrual will be based upon the number of hours in their normal workweek.

Accrual and usage of paid sick leave is capped at 40 hours for each 12-month period. Employees may carry over half of their unused paid sick leave (up to 20 hours) to the next 12-month period. The Ordinance also provides for additional carryover and usage for employers covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act that can be used exclusively for FMLA-eligible purposes.

When can employees start using paid sick leave?

New employees can begin using accrued paid sick leave no later than the 180th day following the commencement of employment. The Ordinance is unclear as to how the 180-day waiting period will apply to current employees who were hired prior to July 1, 2017.

For what reasons can an employee use paid sick leave?

Employees may use paid sick leave for their own illness, injuries, or medical care (including preventive care) or for the illness, injuries, or medical care of certain covered family members. “Family member” is defined broadly to include a child, legal guardian, or ward, spouse under the laws of any state, domestic partner, parent, parent of a spouse or domestic partner, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, or any other individual related by blood or whose close association with the employee is the equivalent or a family relationship. “Family member” also includes step- and foster relationships.

Employees also can use paid sick leave if either the employee or a family member is a victim of domestic violence or a sex offense.

Finally, employees are entitled to use paid sick leave if their place of business or the child care facility or school of their child has been closed by an order of a public official due to a public health emergency.

Can employers set restrictions on the use of paid sick leave?

Employers are entitled to set reasonable minimum increments for the use of paid sick leave, not to exceed four hours a day.

What notice must be provided by employees who need to use paid sick leave?

Employers may require that employees provide up to seven days’ advance notice if the need for paid sick leave is foreseeable. Scheduled medical appointments and court dates for domestic violence will be considered reasonably foreseeable. If the need for leave is unforeseeable, employees must provide as much notice as is practical. The Ordinance expressly provides that employees may notify their employers of the need for leave by phone, email, or text message. Employers may adopt notification policies if they notify covered employees in writing of such policies and the policy is not unreasonably burdensome. If leave is covered by the FMLA, notice must be in accordance with the FMLA. Employees need not give notice if they are unconscious or medically incapacitated.

Employers also may require that employees using paid sick leave for more than three consecutive workdays provide certification that the leave was for a qualifying purpose. However, employers cannot require that certification specify the nature of the medical issue necessitating the need for leave, except as required by law. Employers cannot delay commencement of Earned Sick Leave or delay payment of wages because they have not received the required certification.

Do employers have to pay out unused, accrued paid leave upon termination?

Unlike PTO and vacation pay, unless a collective bargaining agreement provides otherwise, unused, accrued sick leave need not be paid out upon termination or separation of employment.

What are the posting and notice requirements?

Employers must post notice of employees’ rights in a conspicuous place at each facility where any covered employee works that is located within the geographic boundaries of the County.

In addition, at the commencement of employment, employers must provide each covered employee written notice advising of his or her rights to Earned Sick Leave under the Ordinance. The Cook County Commission on Human Rights will publish a form notice.

Implementation and Enforcement

The Ordinance provides a private right of action for employees who believe they are denied their right to request or use paid sick leave. Employers who violate the Ordinance may be subject to damages equal to three times the amount of any unpaid sick time denied or lost as a result of the violation, along with interest, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Anti-Retaliation

Employers are prohibited from discriminating against or taking any adverse action against covered employees in retaliation for exercising, or attempting in good faith to exercise, any right under the Ordinance, including disclosing, reporting, or testifying about any violation of the Ordinance or regulations promulgated thereunder, or requesting or using paid sick leave. Additionally, an employee’s use of paid sick leave under the Ordinance cannot be counted for purposes of determining discipline, discharge, demotion, suspension, or any other adverse activity under an employer’s absence-control policy.

Employers with operations in Cook County, Illinois, should review the Ordinance and their policies and practices related to paid sick leave carefully.

Employers should review their policies and practices regularly with employment counsel to ensure they effectively address specific organizational needs and comply with all applicable laws.

Article by Kathryn Montgomery Moran & Jody Kahn Mason of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2016

OSHA to Employers: No Gagging Whistleblowers!

OSHA whistleblowersOn September 9, 2016, the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) published new guidelines for approving settlements between employers and employees in whistleblower cases to ensure that those agreements do not contain terms that could be interpreted to restrict future whistleblowing. OSHA reviews settlements between employees and employers to ensure that they are fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the public interest, and that the employee’s consent was knowing and voluntary. The guidance provides that OSHA will not approve settlement agreements that contain provisions that discourage (or have the effect of discouraging) whistleblowing, such as:

  • “Gag” provisions that prohibit, restrict, or otherwise discourage an employee from participating in protected activity, such as filing a complaint with a government agency, participating in an investigation, testifying in proceedings, or otherwise providing information to the government. These constraints often arise from broad confidentiality or non-disparagement clauses, which complainants may interpret as restricting their ability to engage in protected activity. The prohibited constraints may also be found in provisions that:

    • restrict the employee’s right to provide information to the government, file a complaint, or testify in proceedings based on a respondent’s past or future conduct;

    • require an employee to notify his or her employer before filing a complaint or voluntarily communicating with the government regarding the employer’s past or future conduct;

    • require an employee to affirm that he or she has not previously provided information to the government or engaged in other protected activity, or to disclaim any knowledge that the employee has violated the law; and/or

    • require an employee to waive his or her right to receive a monetary award from a government-administered whistleblower award program for providing information to a government agency.

  • Provisions providing for liquidated damages in the event of a breach where those provisions are clearly disproportionate to the anticipated loss to the respondent of a breach, the potential liquidated damages would exceed the relief provided to the employee, or whether, owing to the employee’s position and/or wages, he or she would be unable to pay the proposed amount in the event of a breach.

When OSHA encounters these types of provisions, it will ask the parties to remove those provisions and/or prominently place the following statement in the settlement agreement: “Nothing in this Agreement is intended to or shall prevent, impede or interfere with the complainant’s non-waivable right, without prior notice to Respondent, to provide information to the government, participate in investigations, file a complaint, testify in any future proceedings regarding Respondent’s past or future conduct, or engage in any future activities protected under the whistleblower statutes administered by OSHA, or to receive and fully retain a monetary award from a government-administered whistleblower award program for providing information directly to a government agency.”

ARTICLE BY Shennan Harris of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

© Copyright 2016 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

OSHA Issues Special Zika Guidance to Employers

Zika VirusThe Occupational Safety and Health Administration has issued “interim guidance” to provide employers and workers information and advice on preventing occupational exposure to the mosquito-borne Zika virus.

The guidance’s recommended actions (Control & Prevention) for employers and general outdoor workers include the following:

  • Employers should inform workers about their risks of exposure.
  • Employers should provide workers insect repellants and encourage their use. Workers should use the repellants.
  • Employers should provide workers with clothing that covers their hands, arms, legs, and other exposed skin and encourage them to wear the clothing. They also should consider providing workers with hats with mosquito netting that covers the neck and face. Workers should wear the provided clothing, as well as socks that cover the ankles and lower legs.
  • In warm weather, employers should encourage workers to wear lightweight, loose-fitting clothing, which provides a barrier to mosquitos. Workers should wear this type of clothing.
  • Employers and workers should eliminate sources of standing water (e.g., tires, buckets, cans, bottles, and barrels), which are considered mosquito breeding areas. Employers should train workers to recognize the importance of getting rid of these breeding areas at worksites.
  • If requested, employers should consider reassigning to indoor tasks any female worker who indicates she is pregnant or may become pregnant, as well as any male worker who has a sexual partner who is pregnant or may become pregnant. Workers in these circumstances should talk to their supervisors about outdoor work assignments.
  • Workers should seek medical attention “promptly” if symptoms from infection develop.

Employers and workers in healthcare and laboratory settings are advised to follow good infection control and biosafety practices (including universal precautions) as appropriate and specific biosafety guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for working with the Zika virus in the laboratory.

OSHA also noted that mosquito control workers may require additional precautions — more protective clothing and enhanced skin protection — beyond those recommended for general outdoor workers. Workers who mix, load, apply, or perform other tasks involving wide-area (or area) insecticides may need additional protection to prevent or reduce exposure to hazardous chemicals. When applying insecticides, these workers may require respirators, worn in accordance with OSHA’s respirator standard.

For employers of workers with suspected or confirmed Zika virus, OSHA recommends “general guidance.” This includes making certain supervisors and potentially exposed workers know about Zika symptoms, training workers to receive immediate medical attention after suspected exposure, and considering options for providing sick leave during the infectious period.

Employers with workers who travel to or through Zika-affected areas, such as travel industry employees, airline crews, and cruise line workers, the agency recommends following certain “precautions” outlined by the CDC, including flexible travel and leave policies and delaying travel to Zika-affected areas.

ARTICLE BY Tressi L. Cordaro of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2016

Increased Penalties for Immigration-Related Violations

increased immigration penaltiesThe U.S. Department of Justice has issued a new rule increasing penalties against employers for various immigration-related violations. The new penalty structure applies to civil penalties assessed after August 1, 2016, whose associated violations occurred after November 2, 2015.

Given the significant increase in penalties for immigration-related violations, employers should use particular care when dealing with I-9 form completion and other immigration-related employment processes and practices. We recommend that all employers perform an annual internal I-9 audit and consider periodic I-9 audits by third parties. Please refer to our prior alert as guidance when performing internal I-9 audits.

The penalty structure for first violations is set forth below. Increased penalties for repeat violations are also in effect.

New and Old Penalty Comparison

Type of Violation

Old Penalty Structure

New Penalty Structure

I-9 Verification Paperwork

$110 – $1,110

$216 – $2,156

Unlawful Employment of Unauthorized Workers

$375 – $3,200

$539 – $4,313

Unfair Employment Practices (Includes Discrimination)

$375 – $445

$3,200 – $3,563

Unfair Employment Practices (Document Abuse)

$110 – $1,100

$178 – $1,782

H-1B Violations (Includes Filing Fees Paid by Employee, LCA Public Access File Violations)

Maximum $1,000

Maximum $1,782

H-1B Violations (Includes Discrimination, Willful Failure Pertaining to Wages/Working Conditions)

Maximum $5,000

Maximum $7,251

H-1B Violations (Includes Certain Displacement of U.S. Workers)

Maximum $35,000

Maximum $50,758

H-2B Violations (Includes Failure to Pay Wages, Unlawful Termination)

Maximum $10,000

Maximum $11,940
ARTICLE BY Kelly M. Fortier, José A. Olivieri & Kelly R. Rourke of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

California Will Resume Enforcement of The Requirement To Electronically Submit Certified Payroll Records

On July 20, 2016, California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) issued a press release stating DIR enforcement of a contractor and subcontractor’s requirement to submit Certified Payroll Recordscertified payroll records (“CPRs”) using DIR’s online system will resume on August 1. DIR clarified that the requirement to keep CPRs has not changed. Previously, DIR suspended enforcement of filing CPRs electronically because of problems with the system and improvements. However, employers should have continued to maintain CPRs and the ability to file them electronically was operational. The key difference is now DIR will enforce the filing requirement effective August 1st. See press release

ARTICLE BY Jonathan A. Siegel of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2016

EEOC Revises Its Proposal To Collect Pay Data Through EEO-1 Report

EEOC EEO-1 reportOn July 13, 2016, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that it has revised its proposal to collect pay data from employers through the Employer Information Report (EEO-1). In response to over 300 comments received during an initial public comment period earlier this year, the EEOC is now proposing to push back the due date for the first EEO-1 report with pay data from September 30, 2017 to March 31, 2018. That new deadline would allow employers to use existing W-2 pay information calculated for the previous calendar year. The public now has a new 30-day comment period in which to submit comments on the revised proposal.

Purpose of EEOC’s Pay Data Rule 

The EEOC’s proposed rule would require larger employers to report the number of employees by race, gender, and ethnicity that are paid within each of 12 designated pay bands. This is the latest in numerous attempts by the EEOC and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) to collect pay information to identify pay disparities across industries and occupational categories. These federal agencies plan to use the pay data “to assess complaints of discrimination, focus agency investigations, and identify existing pay disparities that may warrant further examination.”

Employers Covered By The Proposed Pay Data Rule 

The reporting of pay data on the revised EEO-1 would apply to employers with 100 or more employees, including federal contractors. Federal contractors with 50-99 employees would still be required to file an EEO-1 report providing employee sex, race, and ethnicity by job category, as is currently required, but would not be required to report pay data. Employers not meeting either of those thresholds would not be covered by the new pay data rule.

Pay Bands For Proposed EEO-1 Reporting 

Under the EEOC’s pay data proposal, employers would collect W-2 income and hours-worked data within twelve distinct pay bands for each job category. Under its revised proposed rule, employers then would report the number of employees whose W-2 earnings for the prior twelve-month period fell within each pay band.

The proposed pay bands are based on those used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Occupation Employment Statistics survey:

(1) $19,239 and under;

(2) $19,240 – $24,439;

(3) $24,440 – $30,679;

(4) $30,680 – $38,999;

(5) $39,000 – $49,919;

(6) $49,920 – $62,919;

(7) $62,920 – $80,079;

(8) $80,080 – $101,919;

(9) $101,920 – $128,959;

(10) $128,960 – $163,799;

(11) $163,800 – $207,999; and

(12) $208,000 and over.

Stay Tuned For Final Developments 

The EEOC’s announcement of the revised pay data reporting rule opens a new 30-day comment period, providing a second chance for the public to submit comments on the proposal through August 15, 2016. The EEOC is also formally submitting the proposed EEO-1 revisions to the Office of Management and Budget for consideration and decision. We will keep you posted on any further developments.

Please note that employers required to file an EEO-1 report for 2016 must do so by the normal September 30, 2016 filing date using the currently approved EEO-1 and must continue to use the July 1st through September 30th workforce snapshot period for that report.

ARTICLE BY Cecilia M. Romero of Holland & Hart LLP
Copyright Holland & Hart LLP 1995-2016.

SCOTUS Rejects a Rule Neither Employers nor Employees Wanted: Green v. Brennan Decision

Supreme Court Green v. BrennanIn Monday’s Green v. Brennan ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the limitations period for constructive discharge runs from the date the employee gives notice of the intent to resign. The 7-1 outcome was not a surprise following the questioning by the justices during oral arguments. The justices held that the filing period begins when an employee resigns as a result of discriminatory behavior, not when an employer creates an environment so adversarial that an employee feels forced to resign, previously ruled in 2014 by the Tenth Circuit.

The case stems from an original complaint in 2008 by Green, a postmaster in Colorado. Green, who was passed over for a promotion, claimed someone less qualified received the position which caused him to file a discrimination complaint with the equal employment opportunity commission (EEOC).

The court was confronted with three alternative dates by which the limitations period that the EEOC must be contacted would begin to run:

  1. The date Green signed a settlement agreement giving him the option to retire or take a position 300 miles away with a significant pay cut, Dec. 16, 2009, and also the date alleged to be the last act of discriminatory conduct compelling petitioner Green to resign

  2. The date on which Green notified the respondent Postal Service of his intention to resign, Feb. 9, 2010, or,

  3. The date Green’s resignation actually became effective, March 31, 2010.

The choice was determinative because the controlling statute of limitations required Green to contact an EEOC counselor within 45 days of the “matter alleged to be discriminatory,” a notably ambiguous requirement. Green contacted an EEOC counselor on March 22, 2010, 96 days after signing a settlement agreement and 41 days after submitting his notice of resignation. The circuits were split on whether the limitations period ran from the “last discriminatory act” or the date the employee resigns.

The rule represents both interpretive and practical considerations that should be viewed favorable to employers, including:

  • It places constructive discharge claims on equal footing with ordinary wrongful discharge claims that require both discrimination and notification of being fired

  • Nothing in the limitations regulation provided an “exception” to the ordinary rule

  • Practical consideration supported the rule applied because it made little sense to start the clock ticking before a plaintiff could actually file suit

Employers should welcome this outcome and breathe a sigh of relief because of the definitiveness and certainty it brings to both the accrual and repose of limitation periods applying to federal employment discrimination claims.

Article By Douglas D. Haloftis of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

© 2016 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

Dave & Busted? Reductions in Employee Work Schedules May Not Negate Employer’s ACA Health Coverage Mandate

Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), employers with at least 50 full-time employees (“FTEs) must generally offer qualifying health insurance to all employees who work at least 30 hours or more per week. A company that fails to satisfy this so-called “employer mandate” faces the possibility of significant penalties under the ACA. As a result, the ACA amplifies many risks for companies with respect to their employment classifications and the delivery of health care benefits to their employees.

ACA Implications for Employers

In response to these uncertainties, some employers have gone so far as to reduce the hourly work schedules of some employees to less than 30 hours per week to avoid any additional costs under the ACA employer mandate.  In what is believed to be a case of first impression, the plaintiffs in Marin v. Dave & Buster’s, Inc., S.D.N.Y., No. 1:15-cv-036081 challenged their employer over the reductions to their work schedules by filing a class action suit in federal court in May 2015. Specifically, current and former employees alleged that Dave & Buster’s, the national restaurant chain, violated the protections under Section 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) by intentionally interfering with their eligibility for benefits under the company’s health plan. They also claimed damages for lost wages and demanded the restoration of their health coverage, as well as reimbursement of their out-of-pocket medical costs.

In response to the lawsuit, Dave & Buster’s filed a motion to dismiss and argued that the plaintiffs’ ERISA Section 510 claim failed as a matter of law because there was no guaranteed “accrued benefit” over future health insurance coverage for hours not yet worked.  On February 9, 2016, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the company’s motion to dismiss.  The court found that the complaint “sufficiently and plausibly” alleged enough facts to support a possible finding that Dave & Buster’s intentionally interfered with the plaintiffs’ rights to receive benefits under the company’s health plan. The court noted that the complaint referenced specific e-mails and other communications that the plaintiffs allegedly received when their work schedules were reduced, as well as public statements by senior executives and disclosures in the company’s securities filings, which overtly explained that the workforce management protocols were instituted to thwart the potential impact of the ACA on the company’s bottom line.

While the decision on the motion to dismiss does not necessarily mean that the employer will ultimately lose, it does signal the court’s willingness to allow the plaintiffs to develop their legal theories in subsequent court filings. One can also question the impact to the court, at least initially, of the company’s open and obvious disclosures about its reasoning for reducing the employees’ work schedules.  Based on the strong wording of the court’s ruling, however, these obvious and seemingly bold statements certainly did not help the company’s request for an early exit from this case.  As a result, the court may eventually allow robust discovery which could, of course, be cumbersome and expensive for the company.

Takeaways for Employers

In light of this case development, companies that are subject to the ACA employer mandate should review their compliance strategies now to address any risks with their employment classifications and the delivery of future health care benefits to their FTEs, and also take heed in the manner as to how they communicate any reductions in employees’ work schedules.

Article By W. Andrew Douglass & Brian M. Johnston of Polsinelli PC

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

Dave & Busted? Reductions in Employee Work Schedules May Not Negate Employer’s ACA Health Coverage Mandate

Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), employers with at least 50 full-time employees (“FTEs) must generally offer qualifying health insurance to all employees who work at least 30 hours or more per week. A company that fails to satisfy this so-called “employer mandate” faces the possibility of significant penalties under the ACA. As a result, the ACA amplifies many risks for companies with respect to their employment classifications and the delivery of health care benefits to their employees.

ACA Implications for Employers

In response to these uncertainties, some employers have gone so far as to reduce the hourly work schedules of some employees to less than 30 hours per week to avoid any additional costs under the ACA employer mandate.  In what is believed to be a case of first impression, the plaintiffs in Marin v. Dave & Buster’s, Inc., S.D.N.Y., No. 1:15-cv-036081 challenged their employer over the reductions to their work schedules by filing a class action suit in federal court in May 2015. Specifically, current and former employees alleged that Dave & Buster’s, the national restaurant chain, violated the protections under Section 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) by intentionally interfering with their eligibility for benefits under the company’s health plan. They also claimed damages for lost wages and demanded the restoration of their health coverage, as well as reimbursement of their out-of-pocket medical costs.

In response to the lawsuit, Dave & Buster’s filed a motion to dismiss and argued that the plaintiffs’ ERISA Section 510 claim failed as a matter of law because there was no guaranteed “accrued benefit” over future health insurance coverage for hours not yet worked.  On February 9, 2016, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the company’s motion to dismiss.  The court found that the complaint “sufficiently and plausibly” alleged enough facts to support a possible finding that Dave & Buster’s intentionally interfered with the plaintiffs’ rights to receive benefits under the company’s health plan. The court noted that the complaint referenced specific e-mails and other communications that the plaintiffs allegedly received when their work schedules were reduced, as well as public statements by senior executives and disclosures in the company’s securities filings, which overtly explained that the workforce management protocols were instituted to thwart the potential impact of the ACA on the company’s bottom line.

While the decision on the motion to dismiss does not necessarily mean that the employer will ultimately lose, it does signal the court’s willingness to allow the plaintiffs to develop their legal theories in subsequent court filings. One can also question the impact to the court, at least initially, of the company’s open and obvious disclosures about its reasoning for reducing the employees’ work schedules.  Based on the strong wording of the court’s ruling, however, these obvious and seemingly bold statements certainly did not help the company’s request for an early exit from this case.  As a result, the court may eventually allow robust discovery which could, of course, be cumbersome and expensive for the company.

Takeaways for Employers

In light of this case development, companies that are subject to the ACA employer mandate should review their compliance strategies now to address any risks with their employment classifications and the delivery of future health care benefits to their FTEs, and also take heed in the manner as to how they communicate any reductions in employees’ work schedules.

Article By W. Andrew Douglass & Brian M. Johnston of Polsinelli PC

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California