Tag: employment

Office Romances: 3-Part Series on How to Shield Your Company from Liability Part 2

GT Law

 

More than ever, employers are facing serious claims arising from office romances.  Part 1of this three-piece series covered the potential claims, charges and lawsuits that may arise from workplace relationships.  In this installment, learn why it is imperative to adopt a company policy addressing fraternization.  Part 3 will address tips for employers to mitigate potential liability.

What Does Company Policy Say?

With Valentine’s Day around the corner, now is a good time for employers to update or create a policy governing dating among workers.  While some policies prohibit romantic relationships altogether, many employers recognize that employees will date each other regardless of policy.  In fact, they might “sneak around” to avoid violating the policy, which could create even more tension if the relationship is discovered or known only to a select few.  Moreover, strict no-dating policies may be difficult to implement and enforce, as they may not clearly define the conduct that is forbidden (e.g., does the policy prohibit socializing, dating, romantic relationships, or something else?).

Some policies interdict dating among management and staff, while others specify that there is to be no fraternization with outside third parties to avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of impropriety.  Still, other organizations mandate that employees who date one another voluntarily inform the company about their relationship.

In such cases, the notification policies direct employees to report their dating relationships to Human Resources, the EEOC officer, or a member of management, and they ask employees to sign a written consent regarding the romantic relationship.  While this type of policy may seem intrusive, these documents are drafted to protect employers from unwanted complaints of future sexual harassment or retaliation.

When asking employees to sign consents, you should again advise them about the company’s sexual harassment policy and remind them about ramifications of policy violations.  Document that the employees entered into the relationship voluntarily, were counseled and – if/when the relationship ends – include a memo in their respective personnel records that the relationship ended, and the employees were reminded about the company’s sexual harassment policy.  You should require the dating parties to make certain written representations to shield the company from future claims:

  • The individuals have entered the relationship voluntarily and the relationship is consensual.
  • The employees will not engage in any conduct that makes others uncomfortable, intimidated, or creates a hostile work environment for other employees, guests, or third parties.
  • The employees do not and will not make any decisions that could impact each other’s terms and conditions of employment.
  • The employees will act professionally toward each other at all times, even after the relationship has ended.
  • The relationship will not cause unnecessary workplace disruptions or distractions or otherwise adversely impact productivity.
  • The employees will not retaliate against each other if/when the relationship ends.

Stay tuned for Part 3 for steps to take now to defend potential claims of discrimination and harassment.

 

Article by:

Mona M. Stone

Of:

Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Office Romances: 3-Part Series on How to Shield Your Company from Liability Part 1

GT Law

Love is in the air – which could bring claims of sexual harassment and discrimination.  As Valentine’s Day approaches, employers should be mindful of office romances:

  • Statistics show that more than 20% of married couples met at work, yet nearly half of those employees reported that they did not know if their company had a policy on office romances.
  • According to a recent survey by Monster Worldwide, 59% of employees admitted that they have been involved in an office romance.
  • An additional 64% answered that they would be willing to do so if the opportunity arose.
  • Yet, 75% of employers do not have a policy regarding workplace relationships.
  • AshleyMadison.com (a dating site for married people looking to cheat – yikes!) reports that 46% percent of men and 37% percent of women have had an affair with a co-worker. Among these cheaters, 72% percent of women and 59% percent of men say that they had their first encounter with the affair partner at a company holiday party … which means now is the time for employers to pay attention!

In this three-part series, learn (1) the potential risks to employers from workplace relationships, (2) how to draft an office romance policy, and (3) what steps to take to head off potential litigation.  Part I addresses the negative consequences that office romances can pose to unprepared employers.

What’s the Harm?

While consensual office relationships are more commonplace than in the past, they can trigger business and legal headaches for employers when the relationship fizzles or is no longer consensual.  Moreover, fellow employees may feel resentful, jealous, uncomfortable, or intimidated (especially in relationships between a supervisor and a subordinate), leading to complaints of sexual harassment, discrimination, or retaliation.

Importantly, claims may be brought not only by the individuals in the relationship, but even by third parties.  Complaints of “paramour favoritism” are on the rise and are being filed by employees who allege they are overlooked due to preferential treatment towards a co-worker who is engaged in a romantic relationship with the boss.  While courts differ on whether such claims are meritorious, turning a blind eye to such relationships may result in business interruption and liability.

In 2011, for example, the EEOC reported that 11,364 charges of sexual harassment were filed, and 16.3% of those were filed by men.  These charges are quite costly to employers – the EEOC recovered over $52 million in damages for sexual harassment claims in 2011.  Employers might not be able to prevent love in the office, but you can take action to mitigate potential liability.  An important initial measure is to draft a good policy depending on your company’s size, structure, business goals, and culture.  Make sure that, if you implement an office dating policy, you  enforce it uniformly and take appropriate and equal action for violations of the policy.

Watch for installments 2 and 3 to learn the dos and don’ts when drafting an office romance policy and tips for employers to avoid liability.

Article by:

Mona M. Stone

Of:

Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Philadelphia Enacts Pregnancy Accommodation Law

Morgan Lewis

 

An amendment to the city’s ordinance enhances protections for nondisabled employees affected by pregnancy or childbirth and imposes greater accommodation requirements on employers.

On January 20, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter signed an amendment[1] to the city’s Fair Practices Ordinance (Chapter 9-1100 of The Philadelphia Code), expressly banning discrimination based upon pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition and imposing new workplace accommodation requirements on Philadelphia employers. The amendment places Philadelphia among a growing number of jurisdictions that require employers to provide workplace accommodations to employees who are “affected by pregnancy,” regardless of whether those employees are “disabled.”

Impact of the Amendment

Unlike its federal and state counterparts—the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act—Philadelphia’s amended ordinance actually compels employers to make reasonable workplace accommodations for female employees “affected by pregnancy”—i.e., women who are pregnant or have medical conditions relating to pregnancy or childbirth—regardless of whether those employees have been “disabled” by the pregnancy. The ordinance identifies a number of possible accommodations that may be required, including restroom breaks, periodic rest for those whose jobs require that they stand for long periods of time, special assistance with manual labor, leave for a period of disability arising from childbirth, reassignment to a vacant position, and job restructuring.

This new law imposes a significant burden on employers, requiring that they grant the requested accommodations unless doing so would impose undue hardship on the operation of the employers’ businesses. The factors to be considered in the undue hardship analysis include the following: (a) the nature and cost of the accommodations; (b) the overall financial resources of the employer’s facility or facilities involved in the provision of the reasonable accommodations, including the number of persons employed at such facility or facilities, the effect on expenses and resources, or the impact otherwise of such accommodations upon the operation of the employer; (c) the overall financial resources of the employer, including the size of the employer with respect to the number of its employees and the number, type, and location of its facilities; and (d) the type of operation or operations of the employer, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce, and the geographic separateness or administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities in question to the employer.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of the amendment is that it extends privileges to employees affected by pregnancy that are unavailable to other employees, including many disabled employees. For example, the law requires an employer to consider job reassignment and job restructuring for pregnant employees, even though these types of accommodations are generally not required for disabled employees under state or federal law. As such, employers with operations in Philadelphia (along with those in other jurisdictions that have recently passed heightened pregnancy accommodation laws like California,[2]Maryland,[3] New Jersey,[4] and New York City[5]) should revisit their existing reasonable accommodation policies to ensure that they are providing required accommodations for pregnant workers—even those who are healthy and not incapacitated by the pregnancy.

From a litigation perspective, the law specifies the affirmative defenses that will be available to employers facing claims under the amended ordinance. In addition to the undue-burden defense described above, an employer will have an affirmative defense if it can show that the employee “could not, with reasonable accommodations, satisfy the requisites of the job.” This language is important because it will allow employers to continue managing the performance of pregnant workers who, even with accommodation, simply cannot perform their jobs. Nonetheless, the impact of this affirmative defense remains to be seen given the amendment’s language suggesting that job restructuring and reassignment may be required accommodations.

Employees aggrieved by a violation of the amended ordinance are entitled to the same remedies that are available for other unlawful employment practices—including injunctive or other equitable relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney fees. Additionally, certain factual scenarios, such as a failure to properly respond to a request for accommodations (e.g., lactation breaks or nursing an infant), may trigger a pregnancy accommodation cause of action, as well as causes of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or Title VII.[6]

As mentioned above, the amendment places Philadelphia squarely in the middle of a significant legislative trend that has been gaining momentum. In the last 18 months, California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York City have passed similar pregnancy accommodation laws. Several other jurisdictions are, or will soon be, considering comparable legislation. The West Virginia House of Representatives unanimously passed a similar bill on February 5, 2014, and Pennsylvania legislators announced in December 2013 that they will be introducing Pennsylvania’s Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in the near future. In addition, a federal version of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was introduced in the U.S. Senate in May 2013 but stalled in committee. Several other states—including Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Texas—already require some type of pregnancy accommodation.

Notice Requirement

The new law requires that Philadelphia employers provide written notice—in a form and manner to be determined by the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations—by April 20, 2014. The notice must be posted conspicuously in an area accessible to employees.

Moving Forward

For employers with operations in Philadelphia, the amendments to the Fair Practices Ordinance may signal that now is the time to revisit or revamp employee handbooks and train human resources and benefits employees on the new requirements in this area. Specifically, the amended ordinance will require most Philadelphia employers to overhaul their reasonable accommodation policies and train human resources professionals and managers regarding when the interactive process is triggered for employees affected by pregnancy, what steps must be followed to ensure effective engagement in that process, and when accommodations must be granted for such employees.

[1]. View the amendment here.

[2]. See our December 28, 2012 LawFlash, “New California Disability Regulations to Become Effective December 30,” available here.

[3]. See our July 1, 2013 LawFlash, “Maryland Enacts Three New Employment Laws,” available here.

[4]. See our January 10, 2014 LawFlash, “New Jersey Assembly Passes Pregnancy Discrimination Bill,” available here, and our January 27, 2014 LawFlash, “New Requirements for New Jersey Employers,” available here.

[5]. See our September 27, 2013 LawFlash, “New York City Offers Greater Protections for Pregnant Workers,” available here.

[6]. See our June 12, 2013 LawFlash, “New Developments Surrounding Lactation Discrimination,” available here.

Article by:

Sean P. Lynch

Of:

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

The Affordable Care Act—Countdown to Compliance for Employers, Week 47: The Reporting Conundrum

MintzLogo2010_Black

 

The Affordable Care Act establishes three new, high-level, reporting requirements:

  • Code § 6051(a)(14)

Employers must report the cost of coverage under an employer-sponsored group health plan on an employee’s Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement;

  • Code § 6055

Entities that offer minimum essential coverage (i.e., health insurance issuers, certain sponsors of self-insured plans, government agencies and other parties that provide health coverage) must report certain information about the coverage to the employee and the IRS; and

  • Code § 6056

Applicable large employers must provide detailed information relating to health insurance coverage that they offer.

The W-2 reporting rules have been in effect for a while, and I do not address them in this post. This post instead addresses Code §§ 6055 and 6056, which were originally slated to take effect in 2014, but which were subsequently delayed by one year in IRS Notice 2013-45.

The Treasury Department and IRS issued proposed regulations under both rules on September 30, 2012. (For an explanation of the proposed regulations, please see our October 21, 2013 client advisory. Although garnering far less attention than the Act’s pay-or-play rules, the rules under newly added Code §§ 6055 and 6056 should not be overlooked. Both provisions require a good deal of specific information about covered persons and the particular features of the group health plan coverage such persons are offered. Required reports must be furnished to both the government and covered individuals.

  • Under Code section 6055, plan sponsors must report to the IRS who is covered by the plans and the months in which they were covered. Plan sponsors must also provide this information to the employees who are enrolled in their plans along with additional contact information for the plan.
  • Under Code section 6056, applicable large employers must report to the IRS, and provide to affected full-time employees, information that includes:

(i) The employer’s contact information;

(ii) Whether the company offered minimum essential coverage to full-time employees and their dependents;

(iii) The months during which coverage was available;

(iv) The monthly cost to employees for the lowest self-only minimum essential coverage;

(v) The number of full-time employees during each month; and

(vi) Information about each full-time employee and the months they were covered under the plan.

Absent regulatory simplification, the costs of compiling, processing, and distributing the required reports will be substantial. But the regulators are in a difficult position, since they must remain true to the requirements of the law. The proposed regulations do offer some suggestions for simplification. For example:

  • Employers might be permitted to report coverage on IRS Form W-2, rather than requiring a separate return under Section 6055 and furnishing separate employee statements. But this approach could be used only for employees employed for the entire calendar year and only if the required contribution for the lowest-cost self-only coverage remains stable for the entire year.
  • The W-2 method could also be extended to apply in situations in which the required monthly employee contribution is below a specified threshold (e.g., 9.5% of the FPL) for a single individual, i.e. the individual cannot be eligible for the premium assistance tax credit.
  • Employers might be permitted to identify the number of full-time employees, but not report whether a particular employee offered coverage is full-time, if the employer certifies that all employees to whom it did not offer coverage during the calendar year were not full-time.

Industry comments filed in response to the proposed regulations have seized these suggestions to ask for further relief. Some commenters suggested replacing the reporting process with a certification process under which an employer could simply certify that it has made the requisite offer of coverage. Others have asked that information be provided to employees only on request, on the theory that not all employees will need to demonstrate that the employer either failed to offer coverage or that the coverage was either unaffordable or did not constitute minimum value.

While many of the comments submitted in response to the proposed regulations were both thoughtful and practical, many are also difficult to square with the terms of the statute. As a result, the most likely outcome is that the final rules under Code §§ 6055 and 6056 will look a lot like the proposed rules—which look a lot like the statute.

Article by:

Alden J. Bianchi

Of:

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

4th Cir. First to Apply "Disability" Definition Under ADAAA – ADA Amendments Act of 2008

Odin-Feldman-Pittleman-logo

On January 23rd, in a ground-breaking decision under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that an injury that left the plaintiff unable to walk for seven months and that, without surgery, pain medication, and physical therapy, likely would have rendered the plaintiff unable to walk for far longer can constitute a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The Fourth Circuit in Summers v. Altarum Institute, Corp. indicated that it is the first appellate court to apply the ADAAA’s expanded definition of “disability.”

The Court reversed a District Court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s case pursuant to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.  The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia based its dismissal of the plaintiff’s disability-based discharge claim on its view that the plaintiff’s impairment was temporary and therefore not covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act. In its reversal, the Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiff “has unquestionably alleged a ‘disability’ under the ADAAA sufficiently plausible to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.”

Article by:

Timothy M. McConville

Of:

Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, P.C.

The Seventh Circuit Breaks from the Pack; Prohibits Employers from Challenging the EEOC’s Pre-Lawsuit Conciliation Efforts

Michael Best Logo

 

When the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) makes a finding of reasonable cause after its investigation of a discrimination charge, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act instructs the EEOC to “…endeavor to eliminate any such unlawful employment practice by informal methods of conference, conciliation and persuasion.” The statute also provides that the EEOC may proceed to filing a lawsuit against the employer only if it “…has been unable to secure from the Respondent a conciliation agreement acceptable to the Commission.” In EEOC v. Mach Mining LLC, No. 13-2456, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin) recently held that employers may not challenge the EEOC’s pre-lawsuit conciliation efforts as an affirmative defense to the lawsuit. By its decision, the Seventh Circuit broke away from the majority of Federal Courts of Appeal. The EEOC called the ruling in Mach Mining a “landmark” victory in its press release.

As part of its recent initiatives, the EEOC has been very aggressive in filing lawsuits and in the past few years has suffered setbacks with many courts critical of the Agency’s pre-lawsuit investigatory and conciliation efforts. The defense tactic of raising the failure of the EEOC to engage in good faith conciliation efforts as an Affirmative Defense has been widely used by employers’ attorneys in discrimination lawsuits brought by the EEOC. In many cases the EEOC might fail to even attempt face-to-face negotiation, refuse to provide information requested by the employer to assist in conciliation, or simply make a “take it or leave it proposal” before rushing to the courthouse to file a lawsuit.

The essence of the Court’s decision is that conciliation is an informal process in which the EEOC is to “try” to obtain a settlement acceptable to it. The Court also found that Title VII gives the EEOC “sole discretion” to determine whether a conciliation proposal is acceptable and further noted that Title VII is silent as to the standards by which the adequacy of the Agency’s conciliation efforts can be measured. Finally the Court found that permitting the employer to raise inadequate conciliation efforts as a defense to a discrimination claim would undermine the enforcement goals of Title VII. According to the Court, employers could drag out discrimination litigation by turning “what was meant to be an informal investigation into the subject of endless disputes over whether the EEOC did enough before going to court.” At least in Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana, the EEOC’s methods, the negotiation process and whether the EEOC has acted in good faith in attempting to resolve a charge before filing a lawsuit no longer matters.

Although it is not yet known whether Mach Mining will petition the United States Supreme Court to resolve the split between the Seventh Circuit and the majority of other Courts of Appeal, it is likely this issue will someday be decided by the Supreme Court.

Article by:

Steven J. Teplinsky

Of:

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Comment Period Almost Over for OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) Crystalline Silica Proposal

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

 

In August 2013, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) announced a proposed rule regarding workplace exposure to crystalline silica. The proposal includes two separate standards – one for general industry and maritime employment, and one for construction.

If you do not know what crystalline silica is, chances are you are not in an industry that has exposure to it. Crystalline silica is minute, respirable particles that are generated from operations involving stone, rock, concrete, brick, block, mortar and industrial sand. Workers who encounter these materials are in a broad range of industries, including mining, oil and gas, foundries, masonries, pottery manufacturing, and sand blasting.

OSHA’s proposal seeks to limit routine occupational exposure to the so-called “deadly dust.” Inhalation of the particles causes silicosis, an incurable lung disease. Workers are also at risk for developing lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and kidney disease.  OSHA estimates that its proposal will save 700 lives each year and prevent 1,600 cases of silicosis annually. There are already established permissible exposure limits (“PEL”) for silica, but they were established in 1971 – new research reflects that more stringent standards are needed. The new PEL, 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air, would apply to all the regulated industries (though OSHA plans to create distinct standards for the construction industry). In addition to the PEL, the rule also calls for medical surveillance, worker training, recordkeeping, and exposure assessments.

Initially, the deadline to submit written comments and testimony to OSHA was December 11, 2013. That deadline, however, was extended by an additional 47 days to allow for additional public input. The new cut-off is January 27, 2014. Public hearings on the issue are scheduled to begin in March and will likely continue for several weeks due to the significant impact the rule will have on so many industries. Millions of American workers encounter crystalline silica in their day-to-day work operations.

The proposal will directly affect many small businesses and OSHA is specifically interested in receiving input from these entities. Be sure to check back on Wednesday with some tips on what employers can do now to protect workers (and potentially limit their liability for future silica-related claims).

Article by:

Cynthia L. Effinger

Of:

McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

The EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) Made Employers Pay in 2013

Godfrey Kahn

After several years of record charge filings, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) finally saw a decrease in the number of charges filed by employees during the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 2012 and ending September 30, 2013 (FY2013).  During FY2013, the EEOC received 93,727 charges of discrimination.  Although charge filings decreased by approximately 6,000 charges from the previous year, the EEOC still managed to obtain record monetary recoveries for charging parties.

The EEOC recently announced that, during FY2013, it obtained over $372 million in monetary awards for employees alleging unlawful workplace discrimination.  This record amount of recoveries includes awards obtained though litigation, mediation, voluntary settlements and conciliations.  The EEOC recovered the bulk of this money through its voluntary mediation program.  Specifically, the EEOC obtained over $160 million for employees through this method.  In comparison, the EEOC only recovered $39 million through its litigation efforts

money till

Employers, however, should not let these numbers lead them to believe that they can get a more favorable resolution through litigation than through mediation or informal settlements.  The $39 million recovered through litigation is based on the resolution of 209 lawsuits (not all of these lawsuits resulted in verdicts in favor of the EEOC).  The $160 million recovered through mediation, on the other hand, represents the successful resolution of 8,890 charges (another 2,623 mediations did not result in resolutions).

Further, litigating an employment discrimination claim is a costly proposition, whereas a successful mediation helps to avoid most of the costs of litigating such claims, especially if the parties agree to mediate early on in the process.  More importantly, a successful mediation leads to the dismissal of the charge, which is an added benefit that is not guaranteed with informal settlements reached by the parties outside of mediation.

For these (372 million) reasons, employers should carefully consider all resolution options the next time they receive a charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC.

Article by:

Rufino Gaytán

Of:

Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

Updates from the January 2014 Visa Bulletin

GT Law

 

The Department of State (“DOS”) recently released the January 2014 Visa Bulletin, which contains some very interesting developments that affect foreign workers in the Employment-Based 2nd and 3rd categories, particularly those who are citizens of China. The Visa Bulletin is issued by the DOS on a monthly basis and informs applicants when they are eligible to apply for U.S. Permanent Residence (commonly referred to as “Green Card”). Each fiscal year, each country is issued an equal number of immigrant visa numbers. However, as there are more applicants seeking green cards from certain countries (i.e. India, China, Mexico and Philippines) than there are numbers available, the citizens of affected countries experience significant delays in getting their green cards. This is known as visa retrogression. Affected applicants cannot adjust their statuses to green card holders until the priority dates on their respective cases become current. Each month the DOS publishes the Visa Bulletin, which indicates what priority dates are current and who is eligible to apply for the final stage of the green card process. Wait times published in the Visa Bulletin range from a few months to 10 or more years.

The January 2014 Visa Bulletin is unusual because the EB-3 category is moving faster than the EB-2 category for Chinese citizens. (To qualify for the EB-2 category, the offered position must require a Master’s degree or Bachelor’s degree and five years of experience; EB-3 requires a Bachelor’s degree.) For example, a Chinese national whose EB-3 PERM application was filed on or before March 31, 2012 is now eligible to adjust status, whereas a Chinese national whose EB-2 PERM application was filed on the same date is not. Historically, China EB-2 has moved faster than China EB-3, which is why this month’s visa bulletin is unique. As a result, many employers may see an increase in requests from employees for an EB-3 green card process. If the employee already has an approved EB-2 I-140 (second phase of the employment based green card process), the company can consider filing an amended I-140 and request EB-3 classification while retaining the priority date. If the amended I-140 will make the applicant’s priority date current, the applicant is eligible to concurrently file an Adjustment of Status application (the final phase of the green card process). We’ll continue to monitor Chinese EB-3 movement on this blog. Unfortunately, for Indian nationals we saw no change from the December 2013 to January 2014 Visa Bulletin. The February Visa Bulletin is expected to be released in the next 12 -14 days, and we will report on any pertinent developments.

Employment-Based Visa Bulletin Predictions

The Department of State also issued predictions in Visa Bulletin movement for the next few months. For the EB-2 category, the Department of State predicted no forward movement for India EB-2, slight movement of 3-5 weeks for EB-2 China, and Worldwide will remain current.

For the EB-3 category, the Worldwide category has experienced rapid movement forward, which is expected to end in February 2014. China and Mexico will likely continue to match the Worldwide dates. No forward movement is estimated for India, and the Philippines is projected to have slight movement forward of 3-6 weeks.

EB-1 is expected to remain current.

EB-3 Worldwide, China, and Mexico applicants with a current priority date should consider filing their Adjustment of Status applicants now as EB-3 priority dates may retrogress in the next few months.

December Visa Bulletin (includes DOS projections for upcoming months): http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_6211.html

January Visa Bulletin: http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_6228.html

Article by:

Emily R. Liss

Of:

Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Will New Jersey Go “Ban the Box” and Beyond? New Jersey Takes Step to Prohibit Employers From Asking About a Job Applicant’s Criminal History

MintzLogo2010_Black

Recently, in a 6-3 vote, New Jersey’s Assembly Labor Committee advanced a bill (A-3837), known as the Opportunity to Compete Act, that would prohibit New Jersey employers with 15 or more employees from asking candidates about their criminal history on employment applications, and from conducting criminal background checks on applicants prior to a conditional job offer. If passed, this legislation would become one of the toughest “ban the box” measures in the nation (derived from the ubiquitous check box on employment applications inquiring whether an applicant has a criminal record), and would place several new administrative burdens on employers. New Jersey would join the 64 states, counties and cities (including Newark, New Jersey) that have already enacted laws aimed at benefiting job seekers with a criminal history. And many states (including New York) prohibit employers from disqualifying an applicant based on a conviction absent a clear nexus between the nature of the conviction and the job sought.

Under the proposed legislation, only after the employer determines the candidate is qualified and provides a conditional job offer, may it inquire about and consider the individual’s criminal history. Then, before the employer may look into the candidate’s criminal history, it must first provide the candidate with a written notice of the inquiry (along with a “Notice of Rights) and obtain the candidate’s consent.

The bill authorizes employers to consider in their employment decision making process convictions for certain serious crimes regardless of when the crime occurred. These crimes include murder or attempted murder, arson, a sex offense for which the offender served time in State prison and is required to register as a sex offender, robbery, kidnapping, human trafficking, possession of weapons, burglary, aggravated assault and terrorism. Separately, employers may only consider other crimes of the 1st through 4th degree if the crime was committed within the previous 10 years. Employers may also consider convictions for disorderly persons offenses that occurred within the last 5 years and pending criminal charges until the case is dismissed. The bill further provides that if any of the candidate’s criminal history is subject to consideration by employers due to the fact that it occurred within 10 years for crimes of the 1st through 4th degree, or 5 years for disorderly persons offenses, then the employer may also consider any prior criminal history, regardless of when it occurred.

Under the bill, when making an employment decision, employers may not consider or require a candidate to disclose or reveal any arrest or criminal accusation made against the candidate which is not then pending or which did not result in a conviction. Records which have been erased or expunged, records of an executive pardon or legally nullified records may not be considered by employers, nor may the employer consider an adjudication of delinquency of a juvenile, any violation of a municipal ordinance or any record which has been sealed.

The proposed legislation requires employers to make a good faith effort to discuss with the candidate any questions or concerns related to the candidate’s criminal history and provide the candidate with an opportunity to explain and contextualize any crime or offense, provide evidence of rehabilitation, and rebut any inaccuracies in the criminal history.

In deciding whether to hire a candidate, employers must consider the results of any criminal history inquiry in combination with factors such as: (1) information provided about the degree of the candidate’s rehabilitation and good conduct; (2) information provided about the accuracy of the criminal record; (3) the amount of time that has elapsed since the conviction or release from custody; (4) the nature and circumstances surrounding the crime(s); and (5) the duties and settings of the job. This last factor—job-relatedness—is critical, as employers may not disqualify a candidate if the nature of his or her conviction bears no relationship to the job sought. The reasonable consideration of these factors must be documented by employers on a “Criminal Record Consideration Form.”

If an employer makes an adverse employment decision, including rescinding a job offer, after a discussion of a candidate’s criminal history, the employer must provide the candidate in one package by registered mail: (1) written notification of the adverse employment decision; (2) a copy of the results of the criminal history inquiry; and (3) a completed copy of the Criminal Record Consideration Form.

A candidate who received an adverse employment decision has 10 business days after receipt of this written information to provide evidence to the employer related to the accuracy and relevance of the results of the criminal history inquiry. Employers may, but are not required to, hold the position open for the candidate. Employers who uphold an adverse employment decision after considering any additional information provided by the candidate are required to provide to the candidate a written notice of the final decision within 45 days of receipt of the additional information.

There is good news for employers here: the bill does not provide applicants with the ability to sue them in court for a violation of the law. Instead, the applicant would have to file a complaint with the New Jersey’s Division on Civil Rights (“DCR”) in the Department of Law and Public Safety, and the DCR may impose civil fines ranging from $500 to $7,500 depending on the number of employees the employer has and whether the employer has committed previous violations. Additionally, as noted above, the bill does not apply to smaller employers with under 15 employees. Moreover, employers can take solace in that the bill would give employers the highest protection against negligent hiring/retention suits of any state in the nation in the form of a “grossly negligent” standard, meaning that there must be a finding that the employer consciously acted with a reckless disregard for the safety of others in its hiring decision.

There is no certainty that the proposed Opportunity to Compete Act will be passed into law in its current form or any other form for that matter. Governor Chris Christie, who could very well exercise his veto power, has not indicated whether or not he supports the bill. Needless to say, we will closely monitor this legislation.

Article by:

David M. Katz

Of:

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.