Tag: employment

Ebola and Potential Labor Relations Issues

Proskauer Law firm

The Ebola panic presently sweeping the U.S. raises a host of potential issues for employers.  We recently provided guidance to help employers ensure employee safety while also complying with legal obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar laws.  In addition, the Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) recently released a comprehensive summary of requirements, recommendations and guidelines for employers and workers.  The escalating concern over Ebola also raises potential labor relations issues.  Many of the workplaces with the potential for employees to come into contact with infected persons or material – health care providers, cleaning services, waste disposal firms, ambulance and other transportation services, to name a few – are unionized, and unions have begun to seek greater protections for their members.  Non-union employers may be affected as well, as at least one group of non-union employees has engaged in a strike to protest inadequate safety measures.

An important step all employers can take, whether unionized or not, is to share information disseminated by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and other public health agencies to educate their employees.  Indeed, a recent Washington Post article highlighted the information gap that is fueling public fears.  Sharing accurate, up to date information should help address employee concerns and avoid potential workplace disruptions based on unfounded fears.

Beyond the dissemination of information, in workplaces where employees may have some potential to come into contact with persons or material infected with the Ebola virus, employers must comply with applicable workplace health and safety laws and regulations, including making sure that effective protocols are in place, that protective equipment and clothing are available, and that employees receive appropriate training.  Not surprisingly, healthcare workers – nurses in particular – have been at the forefront in demanding increased protection and training.

National Nurses United (NNU) has been especially outspoken.  In addition to its criticism of the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, where two nurses caring for an Ebola patient became infected themselves, it has launched a multi-pronged campaign to achieve increased training and protection for nurses who may be called upon to treat Ebola patients.  As part of their campaign, they have released an Ebola Toolkit that includes a guide to state and federal whistleblower laws and a comprehensive set of collective bargaining demands.  Their demands include detailed proposals for Ebola-specific protocols, training and protective equipment, creation of a joint labor-management infectious disease task force, medical services for exposed or potentially exposed employees, and full paid time off for nurses exposed to an infectious disease.  Healthcare employers should expect to be presented with comparable demands from the unions representing their employees, if they have not done so already.

Other unions are engaging in similar activities.  As the largest union in the U.S. representing healthcare workers, cleaners, and other service employees who could potentially come into contact with a person or material infected by Ebola, the SEIU has been particularly active.  Its public efforts to date have been focused largely on educating union members and training them to use protective equipment.

In addition to union advocacy and education, there has been at least one work stoppage arising from employees’ Ebola concerns.  At LaGuardia airport, a group of more than 200 non-union aircraft cabin cleaners recently engaged in a one-day strike to protest what they claimed were inadequate protections from exposure to Ebola.  In that case, the SEIU is attempting to organize the striking cleaners, but regardless of whether non-union employees are seeking union representation, they have the right under the National Labor Relations Act to engage in concerted activity for their mutual aid and protection, such as a strike to protest working conditions related to Ebola risks.

Education and communication are critical to addressing employees’ Ebola-related concerns and avoiding workplace disruptions based on unfounded fears.  In unionized workplaces, union representatives should be included in the education and communication process. Of course, all employers must comply with applicable workplace safety and health laws and regulations.  Depending upon the circumstances, unionized employers may have bargaining obligations with respect to additional measures they seek to implement in response to Ebola concerns.  They may also be faced with bargaining demands by employees seeking greater protection.  Finally, it is important for non-union employers to understand that their employees also have the right to act in concert for their mutual aid or protection.

ARTICLE BY

Scott Faust
OF
Proskauer Rose LLP

Wage Deductions in West Virginia

Steptoe Johnson PLLC Law Firm

Most West Virginia employers must comply with two wage and hour laws: the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act (“WPCA”).  Both laws restrict the ability of employers to make deductions from employees’ wages.

The FLSA

When an employer makes impermissible deductions from an exempt employee’s pay, the employer risks losing the exemption from the FLSA’s overtime requirement.  Generally, to be exempt, the employee must perform certain exempt duties and must be paid at least $455 per week on a salary basis.  A salary is a predetermined, fixed amount of compensation that does not fluctuate because of changes in the amount of hours worked from week to week.  The general rule is that employers must pay exempt employees the full salary amount for any week in which the employee performs any work regardless of the number of hours worked.

However, there are some exceptions that allow for an employer to make deductions:

  1. If the employee is absent from work for one full day or more because of personal reasons other than sickness or disability;

  2. For absences caused by sickness or disability if the deduction is made in accordance with a bona fide plan that provides compensation for the lost time;

  3. As penalties for violating safety rules of major significance;

  4. For unpaid, disciplinary suspension; and,

  5. To offset amounts an employee receives as a jury or witness fee, or for military pay.

  6. Employers are also permitted to make deductions from an employee’s paid time off as long as the employee receives his or her standard weekly salary.  If the employee performs no work in a given workweek, then the FLSA does not require that the exempt employee be paid for that week.  Similarly, an employer is not required to pay the full salary in the first and last weeks of employment or when the employee takes unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

The FLSA also contains a provision that allows employers to correct an impermissible deduction and thereby preserve the exempt status of the employee.  To take advantage of this “window of correction,” the employer must have a policy that is clearly communicated to employees that prohibits improper deductions.  The policy should be in writing and must provide a mechanism by which employees can file complaints.  Once a violation is found, the employer must reimburse the employee and make a good faith commitment to comply in the future.

The WPCA

The WPCA limits an employer’s ability to make deductions from an employee’s wages after the wages have been earned, unless the employer and employee have completed a statutorily-required authorization.  This includes situations where the employee owes the employer a debt, such as when the employee has charged a purchase to an employee account.  Unlike the FLSA, the WPCA restrictions apply to both salary and hourly employees.

An authorization is not required if the deduction is for union or club dues, pension plans, payroll savings plans, credit unions, charities, hospitalization and medical insurance.  In addition, deductions without an authorization are permitted when the deduction is for “an amount required by law to be withheld.”  This exception is very narrow.  Wages that must be garnished pursuant to a court order, such as child support obligations, would meet the exception.

If the deduction is for any reason other than those listed above, then the employer must use a wage assignment form.  The West Virginia Division of Labor has posted a sample form on its website, and employers should use this form.  The assignment cannot exceed one year.  It must be signed by the employer, acknowledged by the employee, and notarized.  It must also specify the total amount due and collectible by virtue of the assignment and state that three fourths of the employee’s periodical wages are exempt from the assignment.

© Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

ARTICLE BY

Joseph U. Leonoro
OF
Steptoe & Johnson PLLC

New Jersey Employers: $8.38 Minimum Wage Effective January 1

Giordano Halleran Ciesla Logo

As you may remember, in November 2013, voters approved an amendment to the New Jersey Constitution increasing the state minimum wage to $8.25.  The amendment also created annual cost of living increases, tied to the Consumer Price Index, to be added to the minimum wage each year.  The increases are calculated each September and take effect on the following January.  Therefore, effective January 1, 2015, New Jersey minimum wage will rise from $8.25 to $8.38.  Employers must ensure that all work performed by employees on and after January 1, 2015 is compensated at the increased rate.  Employers should be especially mindful of this change if January 1 falls in the middle of a pay period.

© 2014 Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C. All Rights Reserved

ARTICLE BY

Saranne E. Weimer
OF
Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C.

Employers’ Immigration Law Update – September 2014

Jackson Lewis Law firm

ICE Levies $2M Fine against Hotel for I-9 Related Violations

A Salt Lake City-based hotel will have to pay nearly $2 million for hiring unauthorized workers, including illegal aliens. The hotel will avoid criminal prosecution in exchange for its full cooperation with a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigation and for taking action to correct its hiring practices. According to the non-prosecution agreement, several lower-level employees and mid-level managers conspired to rehire unauthorized workers amidst an administrative audit of I-9 employee verification forms that began in September 2010. The hotel was notified that 133 employees were not authorized to work in the United States; however, the conspirators created three temporary employment agencies, essentially shell companies, to rehire 43 of the unauthorized, and most of the workers returned under different names using fraudulent identity documents.

$300K for H-2B Violations

According to a Department of Labor announcement, the agency has charged a landscaping company with violating federal law by failing to hire U.S. workers, and for underpaying temporary foreign workers. The company will pay $280,000 in back wages to 80 workers and nine job applicants and $20,000 in civil money penalties.

Immigration Reform Update

With comprehensive immigration reform legislation no longer a realistic possibility for the foreseeable future, advocates for reform have shifted their focus to executive actions the President may take unilaterally to implement changes in immigration policy.

The President reportedly is considering broad use of executive action, granting relief potentially to up to 6 million undocumented individuals, similar to what has been provided under the administration’s Deferred Action to Childhood Arrivals program (DACA).

Building off of DACA, the President has directed the Department of Homeland Security to review the administration’s immigration enforcement policies and recommend additional changes, possibly expanding the deferred action and work authorization to family members of U.S. citizens and lawful U.S. residents. The administration reportedly also is looking at possible changes to current law and regulation that could benefit employers.

Any unilateral action by the administration likely will be controversial.

Owner Liable for H-1B, J-1 Costs

The owner of several medical clinics is personally liable for back wages and the costs of physicians’ H-1B visas and J-1 waivers, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled. Kutty v. DOL, No. 11-6120 (6th Cir. Aug. 20, 2014). The Court held Dr. Mohan Kutty and his medical clinics violated H-1B provisions by having physicians cover the costs of their own H-1B visa petitions and related J-1 visa waivers.

Can You Prove the Mail Was Delivered? If You Are Sending An FMLA Notice, the Answer Must Be Yes

Poyner Spruill Law firm

A recent case emphasizes the importance of implementing procedures that establish strict compliance with the employer notice obligations under the FMLA. In Lupyan v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., the Third Circuit held that Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (the College) could not avoid a jury trial because it did not send the mandatory individual FMLA notice to the plaintiff via a mailing that produced proof of receipt. Ms. Lupyan applied for leave due to depression in December 2007. Her physician completed a  Certification of Health Care Provider form, stating that she needed leave through April 1, 2008. The College verbally advised Lupyan that her leave was being designated as Family Medical Leave and allegedly mailed her a letter explaining her rights and responsibilities under the FMLA, including the fact that her FMLA leave ran out at the end of March. Lupyan did not return to work by the end of March, and the College terminated her employment. She sued, claiming that she never received the letter, and that if she had known that her leave was limited to 12 weeks, she would have returned to work and avoided termination. The lower court granted summary judgment to the College based on its affidavits stating that a letter satisfying the notice requirements of 29 CFR § 825.208 was mailed through regular snail mail to Lupyan. The Third Circuit reversed, holding that the presumption of receipt usually given to the U.S Postal Service mail was insufficient in light of Lupyan’s denial that she ever got the letter. Because the FMLA regulations are silent on the type of mail required for delivery of mandatory FMLA notice, many employers may use regular mail. Best practice in light of the Lupyan decision is to use certified or overnight mail so that proof of delivery exists when sending the Notice of Rights and Responsibilities and the Notice of Eligibility required under the FMLA and to obtain a personal email address from employees as part of the leave application and approval process. An email, with a receipt that shows it was opened, would also likely suffice for proof of delivery.

ARTICLE BY

Susanna Knutson Gibbons
OF
Poyner Spruill LLP

Madison, WI Resolution Targets “Ban the Box” Legislation For City Contractors and Vendors

Proskauer Law firm

The Common Council of Madison, Wisconsin passed a resolution that prohibits the city (i) from asking questions concerning an applicant’s criminal history on the city’s initial employment applications (i.e., “banning the box”), and (ii) from conducting a criminal background check before making a conditional offer of employment to the applicant.  The resolution provides exceptions for the city’s police department and commissioned fire personnel.

While the resolution does not extend these prohibitions to city contractors and vendors at the present time, it does instruct the city to “introduce an ordinance [within the next six months] prohibiting City vendors and contractors from asking applicants about their arrest and conviction history until after a conditional offer of employment has been made.”

Given the national momentum behind the “ban the box” movement, Madison contractors and vendors should monitor the proposed ordinance as it makes its way through the Council.  To date, about a dozen cities—including Compton (CA), Richmond (CA), Hartford (CT), New Haven (CT), Indianapolis (IN), Louisville (KY), Boston (MA), Cambridge (MA), Worcester, (MA), Detroit (MI), Atlantic City (NJ), New York City (NY), and Pittsburgh (PA)—have required vendors and contractors to ban the box on their employment applications.  The State of Delaware has “encouraged” the same. Stay tuned to see if Madison is next.

ARTICLE BY

Katharine H Parker
Daniel L. Saperstein
 
OF
Proskauer Rose LLP

Micro Bargaining Units Coming To a Workplace Near You

Steptoe Johnson PLLC Law Firm

It is no secret that many employers take steps to try and keep their workplaces union-free.  One of the newer concerns for employers in that camp is the possibility that employees could form a “micro bargaining unit,” which is a unit of employees that make up only a small portion of the workforce. 

Act Now! to Preserve Your Collective Bargaining Rights!

In a 2011 case, Specialty Healthcare, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) established a new standard for determining appropriate bargaining units.  Specifically, the Board stated that, in evaluating a potential unit, it would focus on the community of interest among the petitioning employees.  According to the Board in that case, factors such as the extent of common supervision, interchange of employees, and geographic considerations should all be taken into account when evaluating a proposed unit.

Specialty Healthcare also placed a significant burden on employers trying to challenge smaller units.  The Board stated that, if an employer wished to argue that a unit should include additional employees, the employer needs to show that employees in a larger unit have an “overwhelming” community of interest with those in the proposed smaller unit.  That’s a higher burden than what has been applicable in the past, and not one easy to meet.

The effects of Specialty Healthcare were evident in a more recent Board decision.  In Macy’s Inc., the Board recently confirmed that 41 Macy’s cosmetic and fragrance department sales employees could form a bargaining unit.  Those 41 employees made up about one-third of the employees at that Macy’s store.  Macy’s argued that this unit was inappropriate because cosmetic and fragrance employees shared an overwhelming community of interest with the other sales employees, but the Board saw it differently.

The Board noted several factors that established the community of interest among the cosmetic and fragrance employees: they all worked in the same department, were supervised by the same manager, had limited contact with other sales employees, and were paid on the same commission-based based structure.  Additionally, the Board pointed out that Macy’s rarely transferred employees between the cosmetic and fragrance department and other store departments.

While the Macy’s, Inc. case was not a positive development for employers, the NLRB then rejected a proposed micro-unit about a week later in a different case at Bergdorf-Goodman, a Nieman Marcus subsidiary.  In that case, the Board found that salon shoes salespeople and contemporary shoe salespeople lacked a community of interest.  In so deciding, the Board noted that the proposed unit in that case was not created based on any administrative or operational lines established by the employer.  Additionally, the employees had different department managers, different floor managers, and different directors of sales.

While both of these cases dealt with the retail industry, the results are important to employers in any sector, since the Specialty Healthcare standard certainly can be applied to create micro-bargaining units in other industries.  In fact, employers can probably expect unions to try organizing smaller bargaining units within larger companies, particularly where efforts to organize larger groups have proved unsuccessful.  This strategy allows unions to select pro-union employee groups and increase their likelihood of winning an election.

If there’s one proactive takeaway from these cases, it’s that employers need to think in advance about how they can make themselves less vulnerable to micro-unit organizing.  For example, cross-training employees and having them work in different departments makes it less likely a union could demonstrate a community of interest among a small group of employees.  Of course, any steps taken to combat against micro-unit organizing also need to be evaluated for their operational feasibility.  In most cases, it’s probably best that employers contact experienced legal counsel to weigh the pros and cons involved.

Firings for Facebook Comments Unlawful, NLRB Rules

Jackson Lewis Law firm

An employer violated the National Labor Relations Act by discharging two employees because of their participation in a Facebook discussion about their employer’s State income tax withholding mistakes, by threatening employees with discharge for their Facebook activity, by questioning employees about that activity, and by informing employees they were being discharged because of their Facebook activity, the NLRB has ruled. The Board also ruled the employer’s Internet/Blogging policy violated the NLRA. Triple Play Sports Bar and Grille, 361 NLRB No. 31 (2014).

Facebook Posts

Triple Play employees Jillian Sanzone and Victor Spinella discovered they owed more in State income taxes on their earnings at the sports bar than expected. Sanzone discussed this at work with other employees, and some employees complained to the employer about the tax problem. The employees did not belong to a union. 

Sanzone, Spinella, and former employee Jamie LaFrance had Facebook accounts. On January 31, 2011, LaFrance posted the following “status update” to her Facebook page:

Maybe someone should do the owners of Triple Play a favor and buy it from them. They can’t even do the tax paperwork correctly!!! Now I OWE money…[expletive deleted]!!!!

The following comments were posted to LaFrance’s page in response:

KEN DESANTIS (a Facebook “friend” of LaFrance’s and a customer): “You owe them money…that’s [expletive deleted] up.”

DANIELLE MARIE PARENT (Triple Play employee): “I [expletive deleted] OWE MONEY TOO!”

LAFRANCE: “The state. Not Triple Play. I would never give that place a penny of my money. Ralph [DelBuono] [expletive deleted] up the paperwork…as per usual.”

DESANTIS: “yeah I really dont go to that place anymore.”

LAFRANCE: “It’s all Ralph’s fault. He didn’t do the paperwork right. I’m calling the labor board to look into it bc he still owes me about 2000 in paychecks.”

At this point, Spinella selected the “Like” option under LaFrance’s initial status update. The discussion continued:

LAFRANCE: “We shouldn’t have to pay it. It’s every employee there that its happening to.”

DESANTIS: “you better get that money…thats [expletive deleted] if that is the case im sure he did it to other people too.” 

PARENT: “Let me know what the board say because I owe $323 and ive never owed.”

LAFRANCE: “I’m already getting my 2000 after writing to the labor board and them investigating but now I find out he [expletive deleted] up my taxes and I owe the state a bunch. Grrr.”

PARENT: “I mentioned it to him and he said that we should want to owe.”

LAFRANCE: “Hahahaha he’s such a shady little man. He prolly pocketed it all from all our paychecks. I’ve never owed a penny in my life till I worked for him. Thank goodness I got outta there.”

SANZONE: “I owe too. Such an [expletive deleted].”

PARENT: “yeah me neither, i told him we will be discussing it at the meeting.”

SARAH BAUMBACH (Triple Play employee): “I have never had to owe money at any jobs…i hope i wont have to at TP…probably will have to seeing as everyone else does!”

LAFRANCE: “Well discuss good bc I won’t be there to hear it. And let me know what his excuse is ;).”

JONATHAN FEELEY (a Facebook “friend” of LaFrance’s and customer): “And ther way to expensive.” 

Sanzone and Spinella Discharged

When Ralph DelBuono, the employer’s co-owner, learned about the Facebook discussion, he discharged Sanzone, telling her it was because of her Facebook comment. Spinella was terminated the next day, after being interrogated about the Facebook discussion, the meaning of his “Like” selection, the identity of the others in the conversation, and other issues. The other co-owner told Spinella that, because Spinella “liked” the disparaging and derogatory comments, Spinella was disloyal and it was “apparent” that Spinella wanted to work elsewhere. He told Spinella, “[Y]ou will be hearing from our lawyers.” Thereafter, the company’s attorney contacted Sanzone by letter, suggesting a possible defamation action. The lawyer also contacted LaFrance who, in response, deleted the entire Facebook conversation and posted a retraction. 

Sanzone and Spinella filed separate unfair labor practice charges against Triple Play, which the NLRB consolidated into one complaint. 

The employer did not dispute the employees’ Facebook activity was concerted and they had a protected right to engage in a Facebook discussion about the employer’s tax withholding calculations. The employer, however, contended it had not violated the NLRA because the plaintiffs had adopted LaFrance’s allegedly defamatory and disparaging comments, which were unprotected. The employer also asserted the Facebook posts were unprotected because they were made in a “public” forum, accessible to employees and customers, and they had undermined the co-owner’s authority in the workplace and adversely affected its public image.

Comments Protected

The Board disagreed. It determined the employees did not lose the Act’s protection to engage in concerted activity because of their comments in the Facebook discussion. Under its holding in Atlantic Steel, 245 NLRB 814 (1979), the NLRB explained, it must balance employee rights with the employer’s interest in maintaining order at its workplace, but Atlantic Steel dealt with workplace confrontations with the employer, which was not the scenario here. The employer’s reliance on that decision was therefore misplaced. In this case, the Board pointed out, the disputed conduct involved a social media discussion among offsite, off-dutyemployees, and two non-employees in which no manager or supervisor participated and where there was no direct confrontation with management. Further, the Board said, Sanzone’s “use of a single expletive” to describe her manager “in the course of a protected discussion on a social media website” did not “sufficiently implicate” the employer’s “legitimate interest in maintaining discipline and order in the workplace.”

The Board also rejected the employer’s argument that Sanzone’s comment was unprotected because it was a workplace confrontation that could be seen by customers DeSantis and Feeley. The NLRB noted they joined the discussion as LaFrance’s Facebook friends, on their own initiative and in the context of a social relationship with LaFrance outside of the workplace, not because they were the employer’s customers, and“[t]his off-duty indiscretion away from the [employer’s] premises did not disrupt any customer’s visit to the [employer].”

Neither did the Board see this conduct as disloyal or defamatory. While the Board agreed an employer has a legitimate interest in preventing the disparagement of its products or services and in protecting its reputation from defamation, against which NLRA Section 7 rights are to be balanced, that interest was not pr
esent here so as to overcome the employees’ statutory protection. It rejected the employer’s contention that Sanzone’s comment and Spinella’s “like” were disloyal and unprotected. The purpose of the employees’ communications was to seek and provide mutual support to encourage the employer to address problems in the terms or conditions of employment, not to disparage its product or services or to undermine its reputation, the NLRB said. The discussion clearly showed a labor dispute existed and the employees’ participation was not directed to the general public (they were more comparable to conversations that can be overheard by a customer). Further, the Board said the comments were not “so disloyal . . . as to lose the Act’s protection” because they did not even mention the employer’s products.

The Board also rejected the contention that the employees’ comments were unprotected because they were defamatory. According to the agency, Triple Play had not met its burden to establish the comments were made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. In addition, it said that Sanzone’s use of an expletive to describe a co-owner in connection with the asserted tax-withholding errors “cannot reasonably be read as a statement of fact; rather, Sanzone was merely (profanely) voicing a negative personal opinion of [the co-owner].”

“Like” Protected

The Board also decided that Spinella’s use of Facebook’s “like” option was protected. It expressed agreement only with the comment it immediately followed (LaFrance’s original post), the Board found, not with LaFrance’s other comments. Accordingly, said the Board, Spinella’s activity was protected by the Act, and the employer’s adverse action was unlawful. (See our blog post, Employee’s Facebook ‘Like’ is Part of Concerted Activity: NLRB.)

Internet/Blogging Policy Unlawful

The Board faulted the employer’s internet/blogging policy, as well. It found that, since employees would reasonably construe the employer’s “Internet/Blogging” policy to prohibit the type of protected Facebook post that led to the unlawful discharges, it was illegal.

The policy stated:

The Company supports the free exchange of information and supports camaraderie among its employees. However, when internet blogging, chat room discussions, email, text message, or other forms of communication extend to employees revealing confidential and proprietary information about the company, or engaging in inappropriate discussions about the company, management, and/or co-workers, the employee may be violating the law and is subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment. Please keep in mind that if you communicate regarding any aspect of the Company, you must include a disclaimer that the views you share are yours, and not necessarily the views of the Company. In the event state or federal law precludes this policy, then it is of no force or effect.

Employees could reasonably interpret the policy as proscribing discussions about terms and conditions deemed “inappropriate” by the employer, because “‘inappropriate’ [is] ‘sufficiently imprecise’ that employees would reasonably understand it to encompass ‘discussions and interactions protected by Section 7,’” the Board found.

Employer Cautions

This decision is wide-ranging. It underscores the need for employers to pause, reflect, and thoroughly investigate before taking action against employees for alleged misconduct where they have acted together in regard to their wages, hours or working conditions, even where their language might give offense to the employer despite the fact that members of the public can view their complaints. The decision also shows the NLRB affords significant leeway to employees, even permitting public invective against business owners — at least up to a point. Finally, employers should avoid policies and rules that contain broad, imprecise, or vague prohibitions that might be viewed as restricting unlawfully employees’ protected activity. 

ARTICLE BY

Howard M. Bloom
Philip B. Rosen
 
OF
Jackson Lewis P.C.

DOL Institutes Enhanced Password Requirements for Permanent Case Management System (PERM) Users

Greenberg Traurig Law firm

Effective August 25, 2014, the Department of Labor (DOL) has instituted enhanced password requirements for Permanent Case Management System (PERM) users. In the next 90 calendar days, current PERM users will be required to update existing passwords to meet the new security criteria. In addition, all PERM users will be required to update their passwords every 90 days. The DOL sends reminder emails on the 75th, 80th, 85th, 88th, 89th, and 90th day. Users may also choose to update their password at any time prior to expiration. Should the password expire, the user will be required to re-activate the account by identifying himself or herself and answering a secret question correctly. The DOL will send a temporary password for the user to access the PERM account and set up a new password.

The new password must meet the following criteria: 1) 8-15 characters, 2) one special character, 3) one upper case letter, 4) one lower case letter, 4) one number, and 5) no recycling of a prior password used in the past 12 passwords. For detailed instructions regarding the new password rollout, you can review the DOL’s Quick Start Guide.

ARTICLE BY

Emily R. Liss
 
OF 
Greenberg Traurig, LLP

DOL Institutes Enhanced Password Requirements for Permanent Case Management System (PERM) Users

Greenberg Traurig Law firm

Effective August 25, 2014, the Department of Labor (DOL) has instituted enhanced password requirements for Permanent Case Management System (PERM) users. In the next 90 calendar days, current PERM users will be required to update existing passwords to meet the new security criteria. In addition, all PERM users will be required to update their passwords every 90 days. The DOL sends reminder emails on the 75th, 80th, 85th, 88th, 89th, and 90th day. Users may also choose to update their password at any time prior to expiration. Should the password expire, the user will be required to re-activate the account by identifying himself or herself and answering a secret question correctly. The DOL will send a temporary password for the user to access the PERM account and set up a new password.

The new password must meet the following criteria: 1) 8-15 characters, 2) one special character, 3) one upper case letter, 4) one lower case letter, 4) one number, and 5) no recycling of a prior password used in the past 12 passwords. For detailed instructions regarding the new password rollout, you can review the DOL’s Quick Start Guide.

ARTICLE BY

Emily R. Liss
 
OF 
Greenberg Traurig, LLP