Tag: Employment Law

Federal District Court Says Pre-Shift COVID Screening Time Not Compensable

In the first reported decision we’ve seen addressing the issue head on, a federal district court in California dismissed a putative collective action claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) seeking payment for time spent in pre-shift COVID screening.

Prior to clocking in each day, the plaintiff—a non-exempt truck driver whose job duties included loading and transporting automobile parts from a central distribution center to stores throughout southern California—was required to submit to COVID-related health screening conducted on his employer’s premises.  During the screening process, a company employee asked the plaintiff a series of questions and took the plaintiff’s temperature.  The total time spent in the screening process often exceeded five minutes, which included waiting time.

The plaintiff filed a collective action claim, contending that the time spent by him and other employees participating in the daily screening was compensable under the FLSA.

Starting with the premise that time spent in pre-shift activities is only compensable under the FLSA if it is “integral and indispensable” to the employee’s “principal activities or activities which [the] employee is employed to perform,” the district court granted the employer’s motion to dismiss the FLSA claims, noting:

A pre-shift COVID screening is not the “principal activity or activities which [the] employee is employed to perform.”  29 U.S.C. § 254(a)(1).  O’Reilly did not hire the employees to undergo health screenings, but instead to load and transport products to stores….  [T]he pre-shift COVID screenings were not “integral and indispensable” to the employees’ duties because the screening was not an intrinsic element of the loading and transporting of products to the stores.  The screenings were not indispensable to the employees’ duties because O’Reilly could eliminate them completely without hindering the employees’ ability to perform their duties….  A pre-shift COVID temperature check and short questions regarding exposure do not share the required nexus with Plaintiff’s duties of retrieving automotive parts and delivering them to auto part stores to make the screening a compensable activity that is integral and indispensable to those activities.

Notably, the court referenced—and then distinguished—the U.S. Department of Labor’s COVID-19 and the Fair Labor Standards Act Questions and Answers, which were issued during the height of the pandemic and which many employers felt were ambiguous on the issue of which COVID-related activities were and weren’t considered “hours worked” under the FLSA:

Unlike the nurse in the DOL example whose principal job duty is to keep patients healthy and has direct patient contact, Plaintiff’s principal activities consisted of manual labor and transportation of auto parts to stores.

We examined those agency Q&As—and the broader issues around compensability of time spent in vaccination, testing, and screening activities—in an earlier blog.

The decision is Pipich v. O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC (S.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2022).

Article By Allan S Bloom of Proskauer Rose LLP

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

© 2022 Proskauer Rose LLP.

Medical Marijuana, Workers’ Compensation, and the CSA: Hazy Outlook for Employers As States Wrestle With Cannabis Reimbursement as a Reasonable Medical Expense

While each state has its own unique workers’ compensation program, workers’ compensation generally requires employers to reimburse the reasonable medical expenses of employees who are injured at work. Depending on the injury, these expenses can include hospital visits, follow-up appointments, physical therapy, surgeries, and medication, among other medical care. In recent years, medical cannabis has become increasingly common to treat a myriad of ailments—as of February 2022, 37 states, the District of Columbia, and three territories now allow the use of medical cannabis.

While that is good news for patients seeking treatment for issues like chronic pain, medical cannabis laws can cause a major headache for employers. The federal law known as the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) classifies cannabis as a Schedule I substance, meaning that under federal law, it is not currently authorized for medical treatment anywhere in the United States and is not considered safe for use even under medical supervision. So, what happens when an employee is injured at work, is eligible for workers’ compensation, and is prescribed medical cannabis to treat their work-related injury in a state that authorizes medical cannabis?

Employers are faced with a tricky dilemma: They can reimburse the employee’s medical cannabis as a reasonable medical expense and risk violating the federal prohibition against aiding and abetting the possession of cannabis. Or, they can refuse to reimburse the otherwise reasonable medical expense and risk violating the state’s workers’ compensation law.

Usually, where it is impossible for an employer to comply with both state and federal law, federal law wins—a legal concept called conflict preemption. Unfortunately for employers, however, clarity on this issue will have to wait—the U.S. Supreme Court recently declined two requests to review state supreme court cases on this issue and definitively decide whether the CSA preempts state workers’ compensation laws that require reimbursement of medical cannabis. In the absence of federal guidance, national employers with workers in different states must follow the decisions of the handful of state courts that have taken up the question. The state courts who have decided the issue have come to inconsistent conclusions—thus, whether an employer should reimburse medical cannabis will vary depending on the state where the employee is injured.

For example, in Maine and Minnesota, both states’ highest courts have concluded that employers are not required to pay for their injured employees’ medical cannabis. These courts reasoned that employers would face liability under the CSA for aiding and abetting the purchase of a controlled substance. The employer, if reimbursing employees for using medical cannabis, would knowingly subsidize the employee’s purchase of marijuana in direct violation of federal law. However, in such a case, the employer would also violate state law for refusing to reimburse the employee’s reasonable medical expenses. Deeming it impossible for the employer to comply with both laws, these states’ courts concluded that the federal prohibition on cannabis preempts the state workers’ compensation laws.

States such as New Jersey have gone the other way, requiring employers to reimburse employee’s medical cannabis. The New Jersey Supreme Court concluded that there was no conflict between the prohibitions of the CSA and the demands of the New Jersey workers’ compensation law. Thus, the federal law did not preempt New Jersey’s state law, and employers were required to comply by reimbursing medical cannabis as a reasonable reimbursement.

Meanwhile, Massachusetts followed Maine and Minnesota’s approach, but did so based on its own medical marijuana statute, not the CSA. The Massachusetts law explicitly exempts health insurance providers or any government agency or authority from the reimbursement requirement because doing so violates federal law.

Given this patchwork of state decisions, employers should be cautious in determining whether to approve or deny medical cannabis as a reasonable medical expense under state workers’ compensation laws. While the answer is relatively clear (for now) in the states discussed above, there are still over 30 states with medical cannabis programs that have not addressed this issue. It is important to note that many state medical cannabis laws include provisions like Massachusetts that exempt employers from reimbursing employees for cannabis—a clear indicator that these laws were designed with federal prohibitions in mind. But these provisions are not necessarily determinative—New Jersey’s medical cannabis law has a similar provision, yet New Jersey employers are still required to reimburse for medical cannabis.

The bottom line is that federal CSA violations can be hefty, including a mandatory $1,000 fine, possible incarceration of up to one year, and possibly more if “aggravating factors” are found, such as prior convictions. Employers should therefore pay careful attention to their respective state medical cannabis laws, workers’ compensation laws, as well as the CSA and consult with counsel to determine the best approach in their particular jurisdiction. It is likely that more of these cases will be brought in the future, so be sure to check back for further developments in this evolving area of law.

Article By Amanda C. Hibbler of Foley & Lardner LLP. This article was prepared with the assistance of 2022 summer associate Zack Sikora.

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

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

EEOC Sanctions Employer for GINA Violations Relating to Collection of Employees’ Family Members’ COVID Test Results

On July 6, 2022, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced it has entered into a conciliation agreement with a Florida-based medical practice for violations of the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA) arising out of the practice’s collection of employees’ family members’ COVID-19 testing results.

In a press release announcing the agreement, the EEOC stated that, following an investigation, it found that the medical practice – Brandon Dermatology – violated GINA by requesting the test results of employees’ family members and that “[s]uch conduct violates the GINA, which prohibits employers from requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information about applicants or employees and their family members, except in very narrow circumstances which do not apply in this matter.”  GINA defines “genetic information” to include “the manifestation of a disease or disorder in an employee’s family members.”

While the press release includes limited details on the matter, the EEOC noted that “[i]n addition to compensating affected employees through restoration of leave time or back pay, as well as compensatory damages, the conciliation agreement resolving the charge requires Brandon Dermatology to review its COVID-19 policies; conduct training on EEO laws as they pertain to COVID-19; and post a notice.”

In its technical assistance guidance relating to COVID-19, the EEOC states that GINA “prohibits employers from asking employees medical questions about family members” including asking an employee who is physically coming into the workplace whether they have family members who have COVID-19 or symptoms associated with COVID-19.  However, the guidance goes on to state that “GINA . . . does not prohibit an employer from asking employees whether they have had contact with anyone diagnosed with COVID-19 or who may have symptoms associated with the disease.”  It also notes that “from a public health perspective, only asking about an employee’s contact with family members would unnecessarily limit the information obtained about an employee’s potential exposure to COVID-19.”

Article By Evandro C Gigante and Laura M. Fant of Proskauer Rose LLP

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

© 2022 Proskauer Rose LLP.

Monkeypox—Do Employers Need to Worry?

Several cases of monkeypox have now been found in the United States. We do not yet know whether employers will need to worry about monkeypox in the context of their workforces and workplace, but it may be wise to be informed.

Monkeypox is a viral illness that has symptoms including body aches, headaches, fatigue, and, notably, a bumpy skin rash. It is primarily found in Africa, most particularly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Monkeypox has an incubation period that generally lasts 7-14 days but can be as long as 5-21 days. It has now recently been found in the United States, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The first case reported was in Massachusetts in a man who had been to Canada. The second was in New York City by another individual who had a virus similar to monkeypox. And the third was a “presumptive case” involving a Broward County, Florida, man who had traveled internationally, the CDC said.

Unlike what we have been through with COVID-19, wearing a mask will likely not be an issue with monkeypox. It is spread through infected animals, prolonged person-to-person contact, direct contact with lesion materials, or indirect contact through contaminated items, such as contaminated clothing. Avoiding these will help avoid the possibility of infection. Since frequent handwashing continues to be a good hygiene practice, continuing to make this an easy and frequent practice for employees is generally a good health practice, according to health officials.

Monkeypox has also recently been found in Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. According to public health officials, the risk of exposure remains low although there are expected to be more cases in the United States. Health officials believe the smallpox vaccination will offer some amount of protection from monkeypox.

Employers that have employees who are soon to travel internationally, either for personal or business reasons, may want to consider educating them on the symptoms, how the virus is transmitted, and the fact that they may wish to consult with their own healthcare practitioners about the smallpox vaccination. There is no indication that travel should be avoided or prohibited.

Article By Katherine Dudley Helms of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

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

© 2022, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

Many New Jersey Employers Must Soon Offer Employee Retirement Savings Plans

The New Jersey Secure Choice Savings Program Act (the “Act”) is set to take effect on March 28, 2022 and will require many employers to offer their own retirement plan or provide access to a State-sponsored program.

This Act impacts all New Jersey businesses that:

  1. have employed at least 25 employees in the State during the previous calendar year;
  2. have been in business at least two years; and
  3. do not already offer a qualified retirement plan.

The Act mandates employers to offer their full and part-time employees a retirement savings in either the form of either a qualified retirement plan (e.g., a 401(k) or 403(b)), or through the New Jersey Secure Choice Savings Program (the “Program”). The State-sponsored Program is an individual retirement account (IRA) where employees contribute a portion of their pretax earnings via automatic payroll deductions.

Employers must first decide whether they want to sponsor a qualified retirement plan or opt for the State-sponsored Program. Those who fail to comply will be subject to penalties ranging from a written warning to a $500 fine per employee. Employers have nine months from the implementation date to comply with the Act. While the anticipated implementation date is March 28, 2022, the Treasury Department website dedicated to the program notes that implementation is not yet operational.

We suggest intermittently checking in on the website.

© 2022 Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C. All Rights Reserved
For more articles about employment law, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

UAE Employment Law Update

2 February 2022 saw the introduction of a new UAE Labour Law in the form of UAE Federal Law No. 33 of 2021, Regulating Labour Relations (“New Law”), repealing the existing UAE Labour Law, UAE Federal Law No. 8 of 1980 as amended (“Previous Law”).  In addition to the introduction of the New Law, a set of companion Executive Regulations were issued on 3 February 2022, fleshing out certain provisions of the New Law.

The following is a non-exhaustive overview of the principal provisions of the New Law and the Executive Regulations.

Whilst the New Law makes several significant introductions, it equally maintains the status quo in others, as such what we see here is more evolution rather than revolution in terms of the regulation of employment relations governed by the New Law.

As with the Previous Law, the New Law does not apply to employees in the Dubai International Financial Centre or the Abu Dhabi Global Market which both have their own standalone employment laws and regulations.  In addition, employees of federal and local government agencies, members of the armed forces, police and security employees and domestic service workers (Article 3(2) of the New Law) are not subject to the New Law.

  1. Employment Arrangements

The New Law and Executive Regulations (Article 5) introduces the following models of work:

  1. Full time – working for a single employer full time;
  2. Part time – working for a single employer part time;
  3. Temporary work – work carried out for a specified time and for a specific task;
  4. Flexible work – work that allows changing work hours to take into account operational needs of an employer;
  5. Remote work – work that is performed outside of the workplace and which may be either full time or part time; and
  6. Job sharing – work is divided between one or more employees on a part time basis.

Furthermore, the Executive Regulations provide that additional employment arrangements can be introduced based on labour market demands.

  1. Work Permits

The Executive Regulations (Article 6) stipulates the types of work permits available and the corresponding processes for obtaining, renewing and cancelling the same are as set in Article 7 of the Executive Regulations:

  1. Work permits for recruitment for employee’s outside of the UAE;
  2. Transfer work permit allowing a non-UAE national’s employment to be transferred between establishments registered with the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation (“MOHRE”/“Ministry”);
  3. Relative work permit allowing a person who is on the residence visa of a family member to work for an employer registered with the MOHRE;
  4. A temporary work permit for where an employer is employed for a job whose performance or completion requires a specified period;
  5. A task work / mission permit allowing for an employer to bring an employee from outside of the country in order to perform temporary work or a specific project for a definite term;
  6. A part time work permit;
  7. A juvenile work permit allowing for an employer to employ a juvenile between the age of 15 and 18;
  8. A student training and employment permit allowing for an employer to train or employ a student over the age of 15;
  9. GCC national work permit allowing employers to employ nationals of other GCC states;
  10. Golden visa work permit allowing the employment of an employee in the UAE who holds a golden visa;
  11. National trainee work permit; and
  12. Self-employment permit allowing individuals to engage in freelance work (under self residence for foreign nationals).

Additional types of work permits may be introduced in accordance with the provisions of the New Law.

  1. Equality and Non-Discrimination

The New Law introduces the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of: race, ethnicity, sex, religion, national origin, or on the grounds of disability (Article 4 of the New Law).

Women are entitled to identical wages for the same work (Article 4(4) of the New Law).

  1. Employment Contracts

Article 10(1) of the Executive Regulations provides the minimum requirements necessary for the purpose of a valid employment contract.

Article 10(2) of the Executive Regulations specifically permits an employer (with the consent of an employee) to add additional provisions (over those stipulated under Article 10(1) of the Executive Regulations) provided that the same are not in contradiction with the provisions of the New Law and the Executive Regulations.

The Ministry shall prepare (pursuant to Article 10(4) of the Executive Regulations) contract forms for:

  1. Full time employment;
  2. Part time employment;
  3. Flexible work employment;
  4. Remote work employment; and
  5. Job sharing employment.

The Ministry may as required introduce further standard form contracts.  It will be interesting to see if free zones (e.g.: JAFZA, DAFZA, DMCC and DDA) which are subject to the New Law follow suite.  At the date of this client alert not all free zones have introduced new standard form contracts in compliance with the New Law and Executive Regulations.

  1. Salary

All employers registered with the Ministry are required to pay employees under the Wage Protection System (“WPS”) (Article 16(1)(b) Executive Regulations).  All wages are to be paid in AED unless agreed otherwise by the contracting parties.  How this will work in practice given WPS has previously provided for payment only AED remains to be seen.

Article 25 of the New Law sets out permitted deductions from an employee’s salary.  Notably Article 25(1)(b) of the New Law puts a limit on the percentage of salary that can be deducted at 20%, it is unclear if this is a given month or during a year.  Consideration will need to be given to circumstances where housing loans or the like are advanced and then repaid.

Article 26 of the New Law provides that a minimum wage may be set in the future.

  1. Contract Term

One fundamental change under the New Law is the abolition of unlimited term contracts.  The New Law introduces a maximum fixed term of 3 years (Article 8(3) of the New Law), albeit it is our understanding that employers which are Dubai onshore entities will continue to be granted only 2 year work permits and as such fixed term contracts in such instances will be granted on the basis of 2 year renewable terms.

Fixed term contracts may be extended for up to a 3 year period (noting comments above regarding visa terms) or shorter periods one or more times and a renewal does not necessarily have to involve express written notice and consent, instead it can be extended implicitly (Article 8(5) of the New Law).

  1. Probationary Period

As with the Previous Law, probationary periods can run for a period not to exceed 6 months (Article 9(1) of the New Law)).  An employer wishing to terminate during a probationary period must provide at least 14 days’ notice to terminate.  In the event that an employee wishes to terminate (Article 9(1) of the New Law during the probationary period, the employee must: provide at least 30 days’ notice where they wish to take on employment with another employer in the UAE (Article 9(2) of the New Law); or provide at least 14 days’ notice where the employee wishes to leave the UAE (Article 9(3) of the New Law).

  1. Employer Obligations

An employer may not assign work to an employee that is “fundamentally different” to the work agreed in the employment contract (Article 12 of the New Law).

An employer is obliged amongst other things to: keep employee files in accordance with the provisions of Article 13(1) of the New Law; invest in the development of skills of employees (Article 13(5) of the New Law); bear the costs of private healthcare in accordance with corresponding legislation (Article 13(8) of the New Law); and provide its employees (upon the employee’s request) at termination with a confirmatory notice setting out date of joining, date of expiry, total service, last wage, job title and the reason for termination, even if the contents of that letter reduces the ability of the exiting employee to gain employment (Article 13(11) of the New Law).

  1. Employee Obligations

The employee is under various obligations pursuant to Article 16 of the New Law, these include but are not limited to obligations of: confidentiality (Article 16(4) of the New Law); developing functional and professional skills (Article 16(8) of the New Law); and honesty and professionalism in the performance of work (Article 16(2) of the New Law).

  1. Working Hours / Overtime

Subject to exceptions under the Executive Regulations, the maximum working hours for an employee is 8 hours a day or 48 hours per week, with an emphasis on the word “or” (Article 17(10) of the New Law).

Article 15(1) of the Executive Regulations stipulates specific circumstances where time spent by an employee travelling to their workplace will count towards their working hours.  As a general rule such travel time does not apply (Article 17(3) of the New Law).

Overtime payment mechanisms are set out under Article 19 of the New Law.  A maximum of 2 hours overtime a day is permitted (Article 19(1) of the New Law).  Overtime is paid at a 25% uplift of basic salary save where the hours of overtime take place between 10pm and 4am when overtime is paid at a 50% uplift of basic salary (Article 19(3) of the New Law).

If work is required on a rest day the overtime payment is paid at a 50% uplift of basic salary (Article 19(4) of the New Law).

Overtime entitlement does not extend to those categories of employees set out in Article 15(4) of the Executive Regulations. Furthermore such categories of worker are also exempt from the maximum work hours.  Employees who are exempt include directors and board Chairman and persons holding supervisory positions, it remains to be seen how this will work in practice.

  1. End of Service Gratuity

The rules regarding the payment of end of service gratuity under the New Law introduce two key changes: 1) the concept of deductions to gratuity entitlement where an employee terminates their employment (prior to the completion of 5 years’ service) is removed; and 2) the law is now specific in terms of UAE nationals employed in the private sector having no rights to end of service gratuity.  All other gratuity provisions remain as per the Previous Law i.e. gratuity is payable after 1 years’ continuous service, calculated only against base salary, capped at 2 years’ salary and calculated on the basis of 21 days base salary for the first 5 years of service and 30 days base salary for service over 5 years.  Entitlement to gratuity for part years served after the conclusion of the first year of continuous service remain.

It is worth noting that the New Law does (under Article 51(8)) leaves the possibility that end of service may be replaced by an alternative pensions system likely to be similar to the DEWS system operational in the Dubai International Financial Centre.

Article 53 of the New Law provides that all employee entitlements are to be paid within 14 days from the date of contract expiration.

Article 29 of the Executive Regulations places controls on what deductions an employer can make against end of service gratuity.  This does include the repayment of loans (Article 29(1)(a) of the Executive Regulations).

Article 30 of the Executive Regulations regulates how end of service will be paid to employees who are not full time employees.

  1. Labour Claims

Article 55(1) of the New Law provides that where an employee has a claim against their employer and the claim does not exceed AED 100,000, then any court fees which would be normally payable by the employee are waived.

  1. Holiday Entitlement

The New Law provides for a minimum holiday entitlement of 30 days (typically this is reflected in employment contracts as 25 working days) (Article 29(1) of the New Law).  For new employees holiday entitlement accrues at 2 days per month for the first 6 months of service.

Part time workers are entitled to holiday pursuant to the requirements of Article 18 of the Executive Regulations.

Article 19 of the Executive Regulations provides that where an employer has allowed for the carry over of balance of unused holiday entitlement (Article 29(5) of the New Law).  Article 19(1) of the Executive Regulations provides that an employee may carry forward no more than half of their annual leave into the following year.

Article 19(2) of the Executive Regulations provides that where an employee’s service is terminated, a cash allowance for accrued but unused holiday at the date of termination is payable based on basic salary.

  1. Maternity Leave

Article 30 of the New Law provides 60 days of maternity leave, 45 days at full pay and 15 days at half pay.  Additional unpaid leave is available in certain medical circumstances.

For employees returning from their maternity leave, and for a period not exceeding 6 months from the date of delivery shall be entitled to 2 daily rest periods for breastfeeding not to exceed an hour each day of entitlement.

  1. Sick Leave

Following the completion of a probation period, an employee is entitled (under Article 31 of the New Law) to sick leave of no more than 90 consecutive or intermittent days each year based on: a) 15 days full pay; b) 30 days with half pay; and c) the period thereafter unpaid.

An employer may terminate the service of an employee after sick leave has been exhausted (Article 31(5) of the New Law).

Article 20(1) of the Executive Regulations recognises that no sick leave will be paid where illness relates to abuse of drugs or alcohol or a violation of an employer’s safety instructions.

  1. Various Leaves

The New Law (Article 32 and Article 21 of the Executive Regulations) introduces a number of additional leave entitlements including parental leave, study leave, mourning leave, sabbatical leave for UAE nationals performing national or reserve service.  Unpaid leave entitlement is covered under Article 33 of the New Law.

  1. Wrongful Termination

The arbitrary dismissal provisions under the Previous Law have been abolished and replaced by Article 47 of the New Law, which provides that an employee’s termination is unlawful if the termination relates to: a) filing a serious complaint with the Ministry; or b) filing a case against the employer which has proven to be correct.

Any successful wrongful termination claim compensation is capped at 3 months of salary- subject to the court’s discretion.

  1. Non-Competes

Article 10 of the New Law allows non-compete provisions to be applied to protect legitimate business interests.  Such non-competes are not to exceed 2 years.

Article 12 of the Executive Regulations provides that in order for a non-competition clause to apply then the following must be specified: a) geographical scope; b) term not to exceed 2 years; and c) nature of work that is being prohibited.

Any non-compete provision will have no standing where the employer has terminated the employee’s employment.  Article 12(2) provides that the enforcement of any non-compete requires the employer to demonstrate damage arising from the breach.

Article 12(c) of the Executive Regulations provides that certain categories of employee may not be subject to non competes.

  1. Suspension

An employer may suspend an employee for a period of 30 days for the purposes of conducting a disciplinary investigation (Article 40(1) of the New Law).  During that suspension period an employer is entitled to suspend half of the suspended employee’s salary.  Insofar as the employee is not terminated following their suspension, the employee’s suspended salary shall be repaid.

Further suspension rights exist where an employee has been accused of assault or criminal behaviour involving fraud or dishonesty.

  1. Disciplinary Rules

Article 39 of the New Law together with Article 24 of the Executive Regulations regulate disciplinary rules and sanctions, which broadly speaking run from written notices, wage deductions and suspensions.

  1. Termination of Employment

Article 42 of the New Law provides that a contract of employment can be terminated as follows: a) mutual agreement; b) expiry of a contract term unless renewed; c) death of the employee or permanent incapacity; d) final judgment involving a prison sentence of greater than 3 months; e) closure of the employer; f) insolvency of the employer; or g) failure of the employee to renew their work permit.

Under Article 43 of the New Law, either party is entitled to terminate the contract of employment for any legitimate reason, provided that notice is given.  Minimum notice is 30 days and maximum notice is 90 days.

Article 44 of the New Law is in effect the new Article 120 from the Previous Law.  Article 44 sets out circumstances in which termination without notice can occur.

Article 46 of the New Law provides that an employee’s service cannot be terminated by an employer before exhausting all sick leave.

  1. Compliance

Employers are required to ensure that unlimited term employment contracts are converted to fixed term arrangements in accordance with the New Law and Executive Regulations within 1 year of the adoption of the New Law, i.e., 2 February 2023.

The provisions of the New Law and Executive Regulations apply to all unlimited term contracts governed pursuant to the Previous Law.

© 2022 Bracewell LLP
For more articles on UAE legal updates, visit the NLR United Arab Emirates section.

State Treasurers Call on SEC to Investigate Apple’s Nondisclosure Agreements

In a January 30, 2022 letter to SEC Chair Gensler, eight State treasurers requested that the SEC investigate Apple’s nondisclosure agreements and whether Apple misled the SEC about their use of nondisclosure provisions in employment and post-employment agreements.  According to the January 30th letter, “multiple news reports have stated that whistleblower documents demonstrate Apple uses the very concealment clauses it repeatedly claimed it does not use . . .”  The January 30th letter also points out the importance of permitting employees to report unlawful conduct and the need for shareholders to have accurate information about workplace culture.

The SEC can investigate whether Apple’s alleged use of concealment clauses in agreement and policies violates the SEC’s anti-gag rule, which prohibits any “person” from taking “any action to impede an individual from communicating directly with the Commission staff about a possible securities law violation, including enforcing, or threatening to enforce, a confidentiality agreement . . . .”  Exchange Act Rule 21F-17, 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-17.

The purpose of the anti-gag rule is to facilitate the disclosure of information to the SEC relating to possible securities law violations.  As explained in the release adopting the SEC’s whistleblower rules, “an attempt to enforce a confidentiality agreement against an individual to prevent his or her communications with Commission staff about a possible securities law violation could inhibit those communications . . . and would undermine the effectiveness of the countervailing incentives that Congress established to encourage individuals to disclose possible violations to the Commission.”  Implementation of the Whistleblower Provisions of Section 21F of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Release no. 34-64545 (May 25, 2011).

The SEC has taken enforcement actions for violations of Rule 21F-17, most of which are focused on employer agreements and policies that have the effect of impeding whistleblowing to the SEC.  These enforcement actions have strengthened the SEC’s whistleblower program by encouraging whistleblowers to report fraud and encouraging employers to revise their NDAs and policies to clarify that such agreements and policies do not bar lawful whistleblowing.

Apple’s market capitalization of approximately $2.8 trillion renders it the world’s most valuable company.  If Apple is using concealment clauses and unlawful NDAs to silence whistleblowers, then Apple shareholders may not have an accurate and complete picture of the company’s financial condition and risks, including Apple’s ESG-related risks and risks stemming from its potential violations of anti-trust laws.  Accordingly, it will be critical for the SEC to take enforcement action if it finds that Apple has violated the SEC’s anti-gag rule.

By some estimates, fraud and other white-collar crime costs the US economy $300 billion to $800 billion per year.  To combat fraud, regulators and law enforcement need the assistance and cooperation of whistleblowers to detect and effectively prosecute fraud.  But there are many substantial risks that deter whistleblowers from coming forward, including the risk of being sued for breaching a confidentiality agreement.  The continued success of whistleblower reward programs will hinge in part on regulators taking a firm stand against agreements and policies that impede whistleblowing.

For more information on unlawful restrictions on whistleblowing, see the article De Facto Gag Clauses: The Legality of Employment Agreements That Undermine Dodd-Frank’s Whistleblower Provisions.

This article was written by Jason Zuckerman and Matthew Stock of Zuckerman Law. For more articles relating to NDAs, please click here.

Why Not Just Make Everybody Hourly?

For more than 80 years, federal law has provided a general right to premium pay for working overtime hours, originally just for covered employees, then later for employees of covered enterprises.  The laws of more than 30 states contain a comparable requirement, though in some instances differing in the particulars.

This presumptive right to the overtime premium is, of course, subject to the familiar exemption construct whereby individuals whose employment satisfies one or more of the dozens of exempted categories fall outside the premium pay requirement.  Many of the most significant employment law battles over the past three decades have focused on whether certain groups of workers satisfied the criteria for an overtime exemption, resulting in businesses spending billions of dollars on judgments, settlements, and defense costs.  Think pharmaceutical sales representatives, insurance claims adjusters, financial advisors, mortgage loan officers, insurance and bank underwriters, automotive service advisors, various types of drivers, and more.  Hardly a week goes by without reports of seven-figure verdicts or settlements involving challenges to exempt status.

A separate set of disputes has arisen during that same time period regarding whether employers have correctly paid overtime premiums to their salaried non-exempt employees.  There are several different ways to pay overtime to salaried workers, and questions regarding the availability of the fluctuating workweek method have spawned numerous class and collective actions, as well as regulatory and statutory modifications, including a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in late 2019 and a federal final rule issued within the past year.

Apart from the lawsuits, employers have devoted countless hours of internal legal, human resources, and executive time—and expended countless millions of dollars on outside counsel fees—weighing the risks posed by classifying workers as exempt or maintaining the salaried non-exempt classification.

Given the risk, the time, and the expense, it’s tempting to ask: Why not just make everybody hourly?  Why do businesses continue to treat some employees as overtime-exempt, or pay non-exempt employees a salary, rather than just pay everyone on an hourly basis?

In our experience helping clients navigate these issues—and we emphasize that these are our own observations and not the result of any formal surveys or other quantitative assessments—the answer seems to be at least three-fold: (1) employee preference for exempt status, (2) employee preference for receiving a salary, and (3) the business advantage of predictable labor costs.

On balance, employees seem to prefer being exempt if given the choice.

In most organizations, exempt status tends to correlate with positions with higher pay, more generous benefits, and greater prestige than non-exempt roles.  People who have the option of moving from a non-exempt position to an exempt role ordinarily choose to take the exempt position—and make that choice with no hesitation.

This is so because, in addition to higher pay, exempt positions often offer access to further training and development opportunities, which in turn make further promotion and career progression possible.  Employers are more willing to provide these opportunities when doing so does not involve an hourly expense.

Another aspect of exempt status that many workers value quite highly is the freedom from punching a clock or otherwise having one’s working time scrutinized on a minute-by-minute basis.  Being accountable for one’s overall job performance, without having to worry about clocking in too early or too late, or taking a mandatory rest period, or eating a meal at the required time and for the required duration, makes people feel respected and valued.

Hourly pay reinforces two unfortunate perceptions in the workplace.  First, it serves as a reminder that one’s work is, at least to a certain extent, fungible with the work of others, and that a worker functions as just a cog in the machine.  Second, it functions as a divider between the “workers” who get hourly pay and the “bosses” who do not.  These perceptions can be especially corrosive with respect to individuals performing the types of work that at least arguably fall within the scope of the overtime exemptions built into federal and state law.

We certainly do not mean to suggest that employee choice trumps legal requirements.  Where the law dictates that an employee is overtime-eligible, compliance is not optional.  But where exempt classification is a plausible option, far more often than not the worker will prefer to be treated as exempt.  At least until the employee encounters trouble, retains a lawyer, and decides to seek additional money for work already performed.

The reality is that nobody ever has to take an exempt job.  There are a lot fewer exempt positions than non-exempt positions in our economy, and it is usually much easier for a worker to qualify for and to obtain a non-exempt role than an exempt one.  Yet workers continue to seek out exempt jobs.  Worker preference for exempt status is an important consideration for employers in hiring and retaining talent, and it is a big part of why exempt status remains a popular choice for employers notwithstanding the potential legal headaches.

Employees ordinarily prefer receiving a salary rather than hourly pay.

As a general matter, hourly workers receive pay for only the specific amount of time that they work, while salaried employees receive the same fixed amount of pay regardless of fluctuations in their hours.  Salaried non-exempt workers also receive additional pay if their hours cross an overtime threshold.

For workers, this difference between hourly pay and salary relates to overall economic security.  Most salaried workers seem to take comfort in knowing what their cash flow will be from month to month.  This consistent pay stream allows salaried workers to engage in more effective budgeting and retirement planning.

Hourly workers, by contrast, are subject to fluctuations in workload from week to week.  This can mean room for significant financial upside if work gets particularly busy, but it can also mean lighter paychecks for slow weeks.  The potential for pay to fluctuate downward puts hourly workers at greater risk of facing a temporary inability to pay current bills.

Of course, salaried workers also face the risk of job loss, furloughs, pay cuts, and the like in the even that their employer faces hard times.  But because of the rules governing salaried employment, employers are ordinarily quicker to reduce working hours for hourly employees than to take steps that reduce pay for salaried individuals.  If anything, during hard times employers that find themselves having to cut hours for hourly employees may nevertheless look for ways to assign some of the work those people would have performed to the salaried staff.

Particularly for risk-averse employees, the knowledge that there will be a constant, knowable stream of income each month eliminates a source of stress and worry.  Payment on a salary basis provides a measure of economic security lacking in hourly pay, and it operates as a kind of buffer protecting workers from suffering economic hardship in the face of short-term workload reductions.  The peace of mind that a salary provides to employees increases employee demand for salary pay, which in turn exerts pressure on employers to pay employees a salary when possible.

Exempt status and, to a lesser extent, salaried non-exempt status help employers plan better for labor costs.

Budgets are, of course, important not only for workers but for businesses.  Anticipating and planning for labor costs can be among the most important activities a business undertakes.  In particular, failing to budget sufficient funds for payroll can put a company into a severe financial crisis, just as failing to pay a worker’s earned wages can create serious hardship for the worker.

With salaried employees, a business knows in advance what it will have to spend on those employees over the course of a month, a quarter, or a year.  There may be opportunities to provide raises, bonuses, or other incentives if the employee or the company perform particularly well.  But the salary ordinarily defines the minimum financial commitment that the business will have to the employee, and this enables the employer to plan for that expense.

Pay for hourly employees can vary considerably, particularly if workloads change significantly throughout the year.  In theory, this type of challenge should work itself out in the long run, as a period of high workload typically results in higher revenue, at least at some point down the road.  But there is often a significant lag between when an employer experiences a spike in demand for hourly labor and when the business receives dollars in the door relating to that specific labor.  This can cause cash shortages for the business that, depending on the financial well-being of the employer, can strain resources, choke off other business opportunities, or even result in insolvency, including job losses for the workers.

Being able to set and to adhere to a labor budget, whether at the level of an individual manager or department or for an entire division or enterprise, is critical for many businesses.  Having workers on salary, especially when those workers are exempt, provides the sort of cost stability that businesses typically seek.

*  *  *

Critics of exempt status normally paint a picture of a greedy employer trying to cheat its employees by demanding more work without more pay, caricaturing exempt roles as a scam for businesses to bully workers into laboring for free rather than earning overtime pay for their hard work.  But that criticism misses the mark as it fails to explain why exempt roles remain in such high demand, even as non-exempt positions remain available and unfilled.  If exempt status were such a bad deal for employees, why would so many of them choose exempt roles?  Ultimately, the benefits to workers and employers alike will continue to make exempt status an attractive classification.

The same is true for salaried non-exempt work.  The employees who hold these roles are, in our experience, normally office workers, many of whom have a college degree, who may just miss the cut for exempt status.  These individuals value the safety net that a salary provides, as well as the status associated with being salaried rather than hourly.

In the end, not everybody wants the work experience to feel like a factory assembly line.  Those workers who want to be hourly, and who desire overtime eligibility, will have ample opportunity to obtain that type of employment.  But for the rest of us, exempt status and payment on a salary basis are here to stay.

©2021 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

ARTICLE BY Paul DeCamp and Michael S. Kun of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

For more articles on hourly pay, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

 

The CDC Warns Against Using Antibody Testing Results to Make Workplace Decisions

This week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (the “CDC”) released interim guidelines addressing COVID-19 antibody testing. The CDC expressed concerns about the current accuracy of antibody testing and advised businesses against using the results of antibody testing (also known as serologic testing) to make any decisions about returning workers to the workplace.

Although the guidance notes that antibodies may offer some protection from reinfection and may decrease the likelihood that an individual infects others, the CDC has determined that there are myriad issues with the effectiveness of current antibody testing, including widespread false positive results. The CDC guidance states that “additional data are needed before modifying public health recommendations based on [antibody] test results, including decisions on discontinuing physical distancing and using personal protective equipment.” The CDC also recommends that even if individuals have tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies, they should continue to take precautionary measures (such as wearing facemasks) to prevent the spread of infection.

As the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has not weighed in on this issue to date, it is still unclear whether employers’ use of antibody testing to inform workplace return decisions might implicate the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) or other discrimination laws.  But given the direct affirmative guidance from the CDC, employers should continue to refrain from using antibody or serologic testing results to determine which workers may return to the workplace.

©1994-2020 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

ARTICLE BY Corbin Carter at Mintz.
For more CDC Guidance, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

Court Rules That Whistleblower Must Face Trial On Former Employer’s Claims

Life is not necessarily all skittles and beer for whistleblowers.  Sometimes, they are sued by the very companies on which they blew the whistle.  Such is the case in the ongoing case of Erhart v. Bofi Holding, Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57137.  Judge Cynthia Bashant limns the background facts as follows:

“Charles Erhart was an internal auditor for BofI Federal Bank. After Erhart discovered conduct he believed to be wrongful, he reported it to BofI’s principal regulator. BofI responded by allegedly defaming and terminating him. Erhart then filed this lawsuit for whistleblower retaliation under state and federal law. The next morning, The New York Times published an article summarizing the lawsuit’s allegations—causing BofI’s stock price to plummet. The Bank quickly commenced a countersuit against Erhart claiming he committed fraud, breached his duty of loyalty, and violated state and federal anti-hacking statutes. The Court consolidated BofI’s countersuit with Erhart’s whistleblower-retaliation action.”

In the cited decision, Judge Bashant grants in parts and denies in part Erhart’s and Bofi’s motions for summary adjudication.  The ruling is lengthy and tackles a variety of issues, some of which I hope to address in future posts.  Nonetheless, a key point for whistleblowers is that Judge Bashant is allowing Bofi’s claims against Erhart to proceed to trial, albeit on a limited basis.

When “Whistleblower” First Became Figurative

Recently, I endeavored to identify the first figurative use of the term “whistleblower” in a reported California opinion.  I was surprised that earliest case dates to the presidency of Ronald Reagan.  Interestingly, the Court addresses the very tension at the heart of Erhart:

“There is a great public interest in the truthful revelation of wrongdoing, and in protecting the ‘whistleblower’ from retaliation; there is very little public interest in protecting the source of false accusations of wrongdoing.”

Mitchell v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. 3d 268, 283, 690 P.2d 625, 634, 208 Cal. Rptr. 152, 161 (1984).  Many cases dating back to the mid 19th Century mention the blowing of whistles, but the references are to actual, not figurative, whistles.

© 2010-2020 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

For more on whistleblowers, see the National Law Review Litigation & Trial Practice Section.