Tag: employment

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.

Employers’ Immigration Update – No. 12 December 2013

Jackson Lewis Logo

H-2B Employers Using Temporary Foreign Workers Not Required to Pay Supplemental Prevailing Wages

In a significant decision likely to have a major impact on H-2B employers, the Department of Labor’s Board of Alien Labor Certification Appeals (BALCA) has rejected the DOL’s attempt to apply supplemental prevailing wage determinations (PWDs) retroactively on employers who use H-2B temporary foreign labor. The action came in an Appeals Board Decision rendered on December 3.

Ninth Circuit Requires Reimbursement of H-2A Expenses

In the latest in a series of decisions addressing the proper allocation of travel and immigration fee expenses between employers and employees utilizing the H-2A agricultural guest worker program, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, has ruled that an employer must reimburse an H-2A worker for the employee’s travel and immigration expenses in the initial week of employment.

Health History Can Block Entry to U.S.

A disturbing trend appears to have developed in the last few years in admissions review at the Canadian border. U.S. border guards reportedly are barring entry to anyone they deem a threat to themselves, others or their property based on the person’s personal health history. The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario will “look into the matter to ensure that personal health information isn’t compromised.” One 2011 report states, “More than a dozen Canadians have told the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office in Toronto within the past year that they were blocked from entering the United States after their records of mental illness were shared with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.”

New E-Verify MOU to be Released

New Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) for E-Verify will be released on December 8, 2013, according to USCIS. Current E-Verify users will not be required to execute a new MOU, but they are bound by any and all enhancements to the E-Verify program, including the new or revised MOU that applies to their access method; therefore, they should become familiar with the new or revised MOU that applies to their access method. Employers who join the E-Verify program on or after December 8, 2013, will execute a new or revised MOU (Revision Date 06/01/2013) during enrollment.

Restaurant Manager Indicted on Harboring Charges

The manager of a restaurant who failed to complete I-9s and provide housing for his workers has been indicted on harboring charges. The manager faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000 for each count in the indictment. These charges illustrate that ICE techniques for worksite enforcement are not limited to I-9 inspections and fines.

 

Article by:

Of:

Jackson Lewis P.C.

 

Labor and Employment Law: Tri-State Round-Up

VedderPriceLogo

 

New York

“Pregnant Workers Fairness Act” Becomes Law in New York City

On October 2, 2013, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed into law the “Pregnant Workers Fairness Act” (PWFA) in an attempt to plug a perceived gap in the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which does not require accommodation for pregnant employees. Once the new law takes effect in early February 2014, it will require employers in New York City to offer reasonable accommodation for pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions.

The PWFA will apply to all businesses in New York City with four or more employees, including independent contractors. It requires that written notice of its provisions be presented to all new employees at the time of hire, and that a poster advising employees of their rights under the PWFA—to be produced by the City’s Commission on Human Rights—be posted within the employer’s facility. Employers that are able to demonstrate that compliance would pose an undue hardship are excluded from compliance. Employees who believe they have been the victims of discrimination in violation of the PWFA have the option of either filing a complaint with the New York City Commission on Human Rights or bringing a court action against their employer.

NYS Department of Labor Proposes New Wage Deduction Regulations

Employers in New York have been waiting since June 2012 for guidance regarding amendments made that month to Section 193 of the New York Labor Law restoring employers’ ability to make deductions from employee wages for overpayments and advances, but only in specific, as-yet-undefined circumstances. The wait, however, appears to be nearing an end.

In May 2013, the NYSDOL issued proposed wage deduction regulations that address not only deductions for overpayments and advances, but also deductions deemed permissible because they are “for the benefit of the employee.” The complete proposed regulations are available on the NYSDOL website (www.labor.ny.gov./legal/wage-deduction-regulation.shtm), but the following is a brief summary:

  • Deductions for Overpayments

    Written authorization from the employee is not required for the employer to make deductions for unintended overpayments. The proposed regulations specify in detail, however, the timing, frequency, amount permitted and advance notice required for such deductions, along with dispute resolution procedures and the method by which improper deductions are to be repaid.

  • Deductions in Repayment of an Advance

    The new regulations state that any provision of money to an employee by an employer that is accompanied by the accrual of interest, fees or a repayment amount of anything other than the specific amount provided to the employee is not an advance, and it may not be recouped via wage deduction. Furthermore, the parties must agree in writing to the terms of repayment before the advance is given; and once agreement is reached, no further permission or notice is required until the entire amount of the advance has been recouped.

  • Deductions for the Benefit of the Employee

    Such deductions are expressly limited to those listed in Section 193 of New York’s Labor Law, along with benefits for health and welfare, pension and savings, charity, representation, transportation, food and lodging.

Employers are encouraged to proceed with caution if they wish to implement a program for recoupment of overpayments and wage advances, as the wage deduction regulations proposed by the NYSDOL are not yet final and are thus subject to change.

New Jersey

New State Law Limits Employer Access to Employees’ Social Media Accounts

A new law set to take effect on December 1, 2013 will make New Jersey the latest of a growing number of states—including Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington—that prohibit employers from requesting access to the social media accounts of current or prospective employees. The law also prohibits employers from retaliating or discriminating against any such individual who either refuses to provide such access or who complains about what he or she believes to be a violation of the law.

The law applies only to those social media accounts that are the exclusive personal property of the employee or prospective employee. Employers are, however, permitted to obtain access to private accounts for the purposes of ensuring legal or regulatory compliance, investigating employment-related misconduct or investigating a potential disclosure of the employer’s proprietary or confidential information. The law does not prohibit employers from accessing accounts its employees use for business-related purposes, and employer review of material that employees or prospective employees post publicly on an otherwise private social media account remains lawful.

Enforcement of New Jersey’s social media law is left solely to the state’s Department of Labor; the law does not provide individuals with a private right of action. Companies may be fined up to $1,000 for their first violation and $2,500 for violations thereafter.

Amendment to NJLAD Prohibits Retaliation Against Employees Who Seek Information About Their Coworkers

An amendment to New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), signed into law on August 28, 2013 and given immediate effect, adds a nonretaliation pay equity measure to NJLAD. Intended to protect employees who request information about other employees’ or former employees’ compensation or potential membership in a protected class, the amendment prohibits employer retaliation for such a request, provided the request is made either as part of an investigation into potential discriminatory treatment or to take legal action for such discriminatory treatment with regard to compensation.

It is important to note that the amendment does not require employers to take action in response to such a request from an employee or to provide him or her with the information sought while employers are free to deny such requests; they are, however, prohibited from retaliating against the employee making the request.

Employers in New Jersey should consider examining and, if necessary, revising their policies pertaining to requests for and disclosure of protected information, and they should take steps to make sure that supervisory and managerial employees are aware of NJLAD’s new provisions.

“NJ Safe Act” Requires Unpaid Leave for Employees Affected by Domestic or Sexual Violence

A new law that took effect on October 1, 2013 enables eligible employees within New Jersey to take 20 days of unpaid leave within a 12-month period in the event that the employee, his or her child, parent, spouse or domestic or civil union partner is the victim of domestic or sexual violence.

Dubbed the New Jersey Security and Financial Empowerment Act, but better known as the “NJ Safe Act,” the law applies to employers within the state with 25 or more employees. Its intended purpose is to allow victims of assault, or those who are giving care to such victims of assault, to engage in a series of activities related to such victims’ recovery without fear of losing their jobs.

The NJ Safe Act covers those employees who have worked for a covered employer for at least 12 months and who have worked at least 1,000 hours during the previous 12 months. Leave may be taken within one year of an occurrence of domestic violence or sexual assault, and it may be taken intermittently. If the need for leave is foreseeable, employees seeking such leave are required to provide written notice to their employer as far in advance as possible. Employers are permitted to request documentation from the employee supporting the employee’s need for leave. The act also requires employers to post a notice made available by the New Jersey Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development to inform employees of their rights.

Employees are provided with a private right of action under the NJ Safe Act and are able to seek relief in the New Jersey Superior Court up to one year after an alleged violation. Prevailing plaintiffs may be entitled to recovery of economic and noneconomic damages, as well as attorneys’ fees, a civil fine and an order of reinstatement. The law, like most of New Jersey’s employment laws, contains a provision that prohibits retaliation against an employee who exercises his or her rights under it.

New Jersey employers with more than 25 employees should take steps to ensure that their leave policies comply with the new law. Such employers should also make sure that any employee training on the subject of retaliation includes information on the NJ Safe Act and that they have posted the required materials within their workplaces.

Connecticut

Significant Changes Made to Connecticut’s Personnel Files Act

As a result of an amendment to Connecticut’s Personnel Files Act that took effect on October 1, 2013, employers within the state now have a dramatically shorter period of time within which to respond to requests from current or former employees to inspect the contents of their personnel files. Whereas the law previously required employers to permit such inspection “within a reasonable period of time,” the law now mandates that current employees be allowed to inspect their files within seven days of a written request; former employees must receive the same opportunity within ten days. Such inspections are to take place during regular business hours and at a location at, or reasonably near, the employee’s place of employment.

The amendment also places a number of other new requirements on Connecticut employers. Among them are the following:

  • Employees must now be provided with a copy of any documented disciplinary action not more than one business day after the action is imposed;
  • Employees must “immediately” be given copies of any documented notice of the termination of their employment;
  • Employers must now include a “clear and conspicuous” statement in any written termination or disciplinary notice that, should an employee disagree with any information contained in such a document, the employee may submit a written explanation of his or her position. If an employee chooses to submit such a statement, employers are required to include it within the employee’s personnel file; employers must also include the employee’s statement with any transmission of or disclosure from the file to any third party.

As before, Connecticut’s Personnel Files Act does not contain a private right of action. The state’s Department of Labor may impose a fine of up to $500 for a first violation and up to $1,000 for subsequent violations involving the same employee.

 

Article by:

Of:

Vedder Price

Holiday Warning Update: Cut Sexual Harassment From Your Holiday Party Invitation List (seriously)

ArmstrongTeasdale logo

 

OK, we admit it is somewhat cliché for employment lawyers to circulate client alerts every December warning about the dangers lurking at company holiday parties. But when real-life examples show just how expensive claims arising from these events can be, we would be remiss not to issue yet another such alert.

Last December, we issued an alert concerning a federal district court’s refusal to dismiss a holiday party related sexual harassment lawsuit filed against an employer,Shiner v. State University of New York at Buffalo (Case No. 11-CV-01024).

The case finally settled in August 2013, with the employer paying the plaintiff a whopping $255,000.

The plaintiff, Leslie Shiner, was a clerk at the University at Buffalo Dental School. She alleged that she had not wanted to attend the school’s annual holiday party because the conduct at previous events made her uncomfortable. However, a supervisor encouraged her to attend the party, which was held at a local bar. During the party, an associate dean, with supervisory authority over the plaintiff, allegedly made sexual advances toward her that included fondling her, putting his tongue in her ear and pulling her onto his lap. Another department official with supervisory authority allegedly cheered him on.

In early 2012, the plaintiff filed claims of sexual harassment under state and federal anti-discrimination laws, as well common law claims of assault and battery. In November 2012, as we wrote last year, the judge denied the defendant-employer’s motion to dismiss and allowed the case to proceed. After months of discovery and over a year and a half after the plaintiff filed her lawsuit, her employer ultimately agreed to pay her $255,000 to settle her claims. That amount obviously does not include the attorneys’ fees expended by the employer during a protracted time period of motion practice and discovery. Not including the inconveniences to the employer, the total out-of-pocket cost of the case to the employer likely exceeded $350,000 or $400,000.

The lesson for all employers is that the lighthearted, and sometimes drunken, atmosphere at office holiday parties does not equate to a free pass for unwanted touching, lewd comments and other types of inappropriate behavior that otherwise would not be tolerated. As the University of Buffalo Dental School eventually had to recognize when it agreed to settlement, employers who fail to protect themselves can be held liable for workers’ conduct that might easily get out of hand at festive events particularly when there is drinking.

The following are examples of ways employers can reduce the threat of dangerous misbehavior:

  • Remind employees prior to the event that the company’s code of conduct remains in effect during the event
  • Establish procedures in advance to handle any inappropriate behavior that might occur
  • Limit the amount of drinking and provide taxis or other safe transportation home to employees who may be intoxicated

If an employee does come to you with a sexual harassment complaint, please consider it seriously and take prompt action as necessary to investigate and stop the harassment.

 

Article by:

Michael B. Kass

Of:

Armstrong Teasdale

Supreme Court Declines Review of Intern Compensability Issue

Jackson Lewis Logo

 

While the compensability of time spent in internship programs continues to be an hotly contested litigation issue, the United States Supreme Court has declined an opportunity to provide clarity in this area, denying certiorari to a Florida medical billing intern whose claim was rejected last year by the Eleventh Circuit.  Kaplan v. Code Blue Billing & Coding, Inc., 2013 U.S. LEXIS 8046 (U.S. 2013).

Perhaps multiple requests for high court review of an appellate decision will be necessary before the Supreme Court addresses the status of interns under the FLSA, as was required before the Court accepted review of the exempt status of pharmaceutical sales representatives.

Article by:

Noel P. Tripp

Of:

Jackson Lewis P.C.

The Christmas Conundrum, continued

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

 

Last week we discussed the basic framework for providing employees with days off during recognized religious holidays.  A related issue commonly presented during the holiday season is whether employees must be paid for their time off.

While an employer may have to give an employee time off in order to observe a religious holiday in accordance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the “reasonable accommodation” does not have to be accompanied by pay.  Although it may not be a popular decision, denying paid time off is perfectly acceptable when it comes to non-exempt (hourly) employees. Generally speaking, an employer is only required to pay hourly employees for time actually worked. For exempt employees (generally, salaried) who are given time off, the full weekly salary must be paid if they worked hours during the week in which the holiday falls. As always, a contract or collective bargaining agreement can create an affirmative obligation to provide paid time off.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, private employers or employees engaging in work with the federal government should be conscious of two possible exceptions to their paid time off rules.  The federal government provides its employees with paid time off on several recognized holidays and, in addition, often provides overtime pay to those employees who must work during the holidays. Although this is not legally mandated for private employers, persons who work under a government service contract subject to the McNamara O’Hara Service Contract Act and persons who work under a government labor contract subject to the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts must receive holiday and vacation benefits. The exact terms of these benefits depend on worker classification and contract.

Always remember, offering paid time off around the holidays is a gesture of good will. Regardless of an employer’s legal obligations, offering paid time off can go a long way in making the holidays a happier time for employees.

Article by:

W. Chapman Hopkins

Of:

McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

The Christmas Conundrum Re: Employee Time Off

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

 

The holidays are a joyous time of year, but many employers face the season with a certain sense of trepidation as their employees inevitably request time off work.  As the holiday season kicks into full gear, now is a good time for employers to refresh themselves on basic guidelines for granting and denying employees’ vacation requests.

As a starting point, the availability of time off is typically dependent on a number of factors, including the employer’s formal policies, employment contracts, or a collective bargaining agreement. While there are no express state or federal laws requiring private employers to provide time off to celebrate holidays like Christmas, Hanukkah or Kwanzaa, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does require employers to ”reasonably accommodate” an employee’s religious practices, so long as it does not impose an “undue hardship” on the employer. Allowing an employee time off to observe a recognized religious holiday is normally a reasonable accommodation that should be made, if requested, without an undue burden.

Although some employers voluntarily reward employees with at least some time off during the holidays, employers must be careful to recognize that some employees may observe holidays that are not reflected in the employer’s office calendar. For example, if employees are given time off for Christmas day but not for Ramadan, employees observing the Muslim holiday may claim discrimination. Such situations can typically be avoided by utilizing “floating holidays” which allow time off for religious days that do not appear on a company’s official schedule. In addition, employers can include in the company policy that any holiday not appearing on the calendar can be requested and granted subject to review.

Article by:

W. Chapman Hopkins

Of:

McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC