Tag: employment

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Cases Determining Extent of Title VII Protection for LGBT Workers

The Supreme Court of the United States announced three cases will be argued next term that could determine whether Title VII protects LGBT employees from workplace discrimination.

Title VII prohibits discrimination because of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” but it does not explicitly mention sexual orientation or gender identity.  Federal courts have disagreed on whether discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity falls within Title VII’s prohibition against sex-based discrimination.  Differing opinions on this topic exist within the federal government as well:  the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has taken the position that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, while the Department of Justice has argued it does not.  The Supreme Court’s decisions may ultimately decide these conflicts.

Two cases represent a split in federal appellate courts regarding the extent, if any, to which Title VII prohibits sexual orientation discrimination as a subset of sex discrimination.  In Altitude Express v. Zarda, a skydiving company fired Donald Zarda, a skydiving instructor, after Zarda informed a female client he was gay to assuage her concern about close physical contact during skydives.  The trial court dismissed Zarda’s sexual orientation discrimination claim.  In an opinion written by Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann on behalf of a full panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal and held that sexual orientation discrimination is properly understood as a subset of discrimination on the basis of sex.  In other words, in the Second Circuit, sexual orientation discrimination is prohibited under Title VII.  The Second Circuit aligned its thinking with the Seventh Circuit’s April 2017 opinion in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, which held that “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in Gerald Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia.  Gerald Bostock alleged he was terminated from his county job after the county learned of his involvement in a gay recreational softball league and his promotion of involvement in the league to co-workers.  The trial court dismissed and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, relying on its own precedent that broadly held that Title VII does not prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.  In other words, in the Eleventh Circuit, Title VII does not prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.

The Supreme Court consolidated the cases into a single case to determine whether the prohibition in Title VII against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.

The third case, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, focuses on whether Title VII applies to transgender employees.  In 2007, a funeral home hired Aimee Stephens, whose employment records identified her as a man.  Later, Stephens told the funeral home’s owner she identified as a woman and wanted to wear women’s clothing to work.  The owner fired Stephens, believing allowing Stephens to wear women’s clothing violated the funeral home’s dress code and “God’s commands.”  The EEOC filed suit on Stephens’ behalf.  The trial court dismissed a portion of the lawsuit because “transgender . . . status is not currently a protected class under Title VII,” but permitted other portions to proceed based on the claim Stephens was discriminated against because the funeral home objected to her appearance and behavior as departing from sex stereotypes.  The Sixth Circuit agreed that Stephens had viable claims.  The Supreme Court will review “[w]hether Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender people based on (1) their status as transgender or (2) sex stereotyping” under prior Supreme Court precedent.

All three cases will affect the employment rights of LGBT workers.  Dinsmore & Shohl lawyers will closely monitor the Court’s analysis of these cases.  Dinsmore’s Labor and Employment Practice Group stands ready to assist employers in navigating this developing area of law.  Dinsmore’s experience in this arena includes accomplished labor and employment lawyers, former law clerks to federal judges who have drafted orders on these very issues, former federal government attorneys, litigators and published scholars.

 

© 2019 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.
This post was written by Jan E. Hensel and Justin M. Burns of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.
Read more on the US Supreme Court  decision on the National Law Review’s Labor and Employment page.

Cincinnati City Council Passes Ordinance Prohibiting Salary History Inquiries

In a thinly veiled attempt to steal the spotlight from Cleveland, the new destination city for the National Football League, on March 13, 2019, the Cincinnati City Council passed Ordinance No. 83-2019, titled Prohibited Salary History Inquiry and Use, barring employers from inquiring about or relying on job applicants’ salary histories. It is scheduled to become effective in March 2020, and it applies to private employers with 15 or more employees in the city of Cincinnati.

The ordinance makes it “an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer or its agent to:

    1. Inquire about the salary history of an applicant for employment; or
    2. Screen job applicants based on their current or prior wages, benefits, other compensation, or salary histories, including requiring that an applicant’s prior wages, benefits, other compensation or salary history satisfy minimum or maximum criteria; or
    3. Rely on the salary history of an applicant in deciding whether to offer employment to an applicant, or in determining the salary, benefits, or other compensation for such applicant during the hiring process, including the negotiation of an employment contract; or
    4. Refuse to hire or otherwise disfavor, injure, or retaliate against an applicant for not disclosing his or her salary history to an employer.”

The ordinance does not limit employers from asking applicants “about their expectations with respect to salary, benefits, and other compensation, including but not limited to unvested equity or deferred compensation that an applicant would forfeit or have cancelled by virtue of the applicant’s resignation from their current employer.” Ordinance No. 83-2019 requires that, following a conditional offer of employment, upon request, the employer must provide the conditional offeree the pay scale for the position. The ordinance provides a private right of action to enforce the law. Remedies for violating the ordinance include “compensatory damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, the cost of the action, and such legal and equitable relief as the court deems just and proper.”

Ordinance No. 83-2019 is designed to “ensure that . . . job applicants in Cincinnati are offered employment positions and subsequently compensated based on their job responsibilities and level of experience, rather than on prior salary histories.” In reality, it reaches well beyond Cincinnati, as state and local salary history bans are proliferating. Many municipalities, cities, and states across the country have passed laws limiting salary inquiries, and legislation is pending in numerous other jurisdictions around the country.

 

© 2019, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.
Read more on Equal Pay issues on the National Law Review’s Labor and Employment page.

U.S. Senators Seek Formal Investigation Of Non-Compete Use And Impact

Earlier this month, a group of six United States Senators made a joint request for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate the impact of non-compete agreements on workers and the U.S. economy as a whole. This action suggests that the federal non-compete reform effort is not going away.

Recent Legislative Efforts

On February 18, 2019, we reviewed a new bill by Florida Senator Marco Rubio to prohibit non-competes for low-wage employees. That bill followed an effort in 2018 by Democrats in both houses of Congress to ban non-competes altogether. Although Senator Rubio’s bill represents a more limited attack on non-competes, we noted that it “suggests a level of bipartisan support that was not previously apparent.”

The Joint Letter

The recent joint letter to the GAO, issued on March 7, 2019, is signed by two Senators who were not involved in the prior legislative efforts: Democratic Senator Tim Kaine (VA); and Republican Senator Todd Young (IN). This represents additional evidence of bipartisanship on non-compete reform.

The joint letter does not formally oppose the use of non-competes. Nevertheless, from the Senators’ explanation for their request, it is clear that they believe the use of non-competes has become excessive, and that significant harm is being done to workers and the greater economy as a result.

In the letter, the Senators cite three ways in which non-competes allegedly are being abused:

  • The allegedly excessive imposition of non-competes on low-wage workers;
  • The alleged inability of workers to “engage in genuine negotiation over these agreements”; and
  • The belief that “most working under a non-compete were not even asked to sign one until after receiving a job offer.”

Further, the Senators allege that “[a]cademic experts and commentators from across the political spectrum have raised serious concerns about the use and abuse of these clauses[.]”

Based on the above-referenced concerns, the letter instructs the GAO to investigate the following questions:

  • What is known about the prevalence of non-compete agreements in particular fields, including low-wage occupations?
  • What is known about the effects of non-compete agreements on the workforce and the economy, including employment, wages and benefits, innovation, and entrepreneurship?
  • What steps have selected states taken to limit the use of these agreements, and what is known about the effect these actions have had on employees and employers?

Of note, these questions appear to address broader concerns about the use and impact of non-compete agreements than the discreet issues raised by the alleged “abuses” set forth above. The letter does not provide a deadline for the GAO to issue its report. However, the GAO’s explanation of how it handles investigation requests sets forth a six-step process, from Congress making the request to the issuance of the report. Further, while the GAO protocol does not offer a time-frame for every step, it does state that it “typically” takes “about 3 months” to simply design the scope of the investigation. Consequently, it would be reasonable to anticipate waiting months at least for the GAO to issue the report.

Where Does This Leave Us?

As noted above, the joint letter indicates that there is growing bipartisan support for restricting the use of non-competes on a nation-wide level. At the same time, by expressing the need for additional information about the use and impact of non-compete agreements on U.S. workers, the Senators may not move forward with further proposed non-compete legislation until they receive that information and take the time to fully digest its implications.

 

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2019
For more labor and employment news, check out the National Law Review’s Employment type of law page.

Lactation Law Update: New York and Illinois

Recent developments require employers to reevaluate their lactation and nursing policies and practices to ensure that they are in compliance with newly enacted local laws in New York City and Illinois.

Changes to New York City Lactation Laws: Effective March 17, 2019

Since 2007, New York City employers with four or more employees have been required to provide reasonable unpaid break time (or to allow an employee to use paid break/meal time) to express breast milk in the workplace, for up to three years following the birth of a child, and to make reasonable efforts to provide a room, other than a restroom, to express milk in private.

Additional lactation-related obligations for New York City employers with four or more employees go into effect on March 17, 2019. For example, by that date, a covered employer must provide lactating employees with a sanitary “lactation room,” which is not a restroom, and which has, at minimum, an electrical outlet, a chair, a surface on which to place a breast pump and other personal items, and nearby access to running water. The lactation room must be made available to the employee for lactation purposes only when it is needed (and notice to other employees regarding the same is required), and a refrigerator and the room itself must be in “reasonable proximity” to the employee’s work area.

Notably, the required lactation room must be provided unless the employer can establish an “undue hardship,” in which case the employer must engage in a cooperative dialogue with the employee to determine alternative accommodations and issue a final written determination to the employee that identifies any accommodation(s) that were granted or denied.

In addition, by March 17, 2019, a covered employer in New York City must implement a written lactation room accommodation policy, which states that employees have the right to request a lactation room and identifies the process (as outlined in the Administrative Code) by which an employee may request a lactation room. All new employees must receive the lactation room policy upon hire.

Changes to Illinois’s Lactation Law: Effective August 2018

Like many employers in New York, Illinois employers with five or more employees have been required, since 2001, to provide employees with reasonable unpaid break time to express breast milk, in an appropriate room that is not a toilet stall.

Effective August 2018, the Illinois Nursing Mothers in the Workplace Act was amended. Now, Illinois employers with at least five employees must provide “reasonable break time” each time an employee needs to express breast milk, for up to one year following the child’s birth. While the break time “may” run concurrently with any other break time, the employee’s pay cannot be reduced due to the time spent expressing milk or nursing a baby – meaning, in effect, that any additional break time needed to express milk or nurse must be paid. Further, covered employers in Illinois who do not provide the requisite break time must show, if challenged, that providing the breaks is an “undue hardship” – a heightened burden than that previously imposed under the Act.

Employers should act quickly to ensure full compliance with all of the requirements of the new lactation laws.

 

© 2019 Vedder Price.
This post was written by Elizabeth N. Hall and Grace L. Urban

Trend to Watch: State Legislatures Target Restaurants for Mandatory Sexual Harassment Training

In the New Year, two states – New Jersey and Illinois – have proposed legislation requiring restaurants to adopt a sexual harassment training policy and provide anti-sexual harassment training to employees.  While it remains to be seen whether these bills will become law, attempts to target and reform working conditions in the hospitality industry are nonetheless noteworthy, particularly given that unlike New York and California, neither New Jersey nor Illinois have enacted broad legislation requiring private sector employers, regardless of occupation, to provide sexual harassment training to staff.

New Jersey Bill (A4831)

New Jersey Bill A4831 requires restaurants that employ 15 or more employees to provide sexual harassment training to new employees within 90 days of employment and every five years thereafter.  This training requirement would go into effect within 90 days of the law’s effective date.

As to the content of the training, the bill specifies that supervisors and supervisees receive tailored content relevant to their positions/roles that include topics “specific to the restaurant industry” in an “interactive” format, including practical examples and instruction on filing a sexual harassment complaint.  Implicitly recognizing the diverse nature of the hospitality workforce, the bill requires that such training must be offered in English and Spanish.

The bill would also require restaurants to adopt and distribute sexual harassment policies to employees (either as part of an employee handbook or as a standalone policy), though it does not prescribe the contents of such policies.

While the bill cautions that compliance with the act would not “insulate the employer from liability for sexual harassment of any current or former employee,” strict compliance is advisable as the bill creates fines for non-compliance – i.e., up to $500 for the first violation and $1,000 for each subsequent violation.

Illinois Bill 3351

Illinois Bill 3351, the proposed Restaurant Anti-Harassment Act, is broader than the proposed New Jersey legislation in that it applies to all restaurants regardless of the number of employees on staff.  Like its New Jersey analogue, this bill requires restaurants to adopt a sexual harassment policy and provide training to all employees.

The sexual harassment policy must contain the following elements:

(1) a prohibition on sexual harassment;

(2) the definition of sexual harassment under Illinois and federal law;

(3) examples of prohibited conduct that would constitute unlawful sexual harassment;

(4) the internal complaint process of the employer available to the employee;

(5) the legal remedies and complaint process through the Illinois Department of Human Rights;

(6) a prohibition on retaliation for reporting sexual harassment allegations; and

(7) a requirement that all employees participate in sexual harassment training.

Like New Jersey’s bill, the Illinois bill requires separate training for employees and for supervisors/managers, and delineates the topics to be covered in each training.  Specifically, the employee training must include: (i) the definition of sexual harassment and its various forms; (ii) an explanation of the harmful impact sexual harassment can have on victims, businesses, and those who harass; (iii) how to recognize conduct that is appropriate, and that is not appropriate, for work; (iv) when and how to report sexual harassment.   The supervisor training must include the aforementioned topics in addition to: (i) an explanation of employer and manager liability for reporting and addressing sexual harassment, (ii) instruction on how to create a harassment-free culture in the workplace, and an (iii) explanation of how to investigate sexual harassment claims in the workplace.  In addition to these requirements, the training programs must be offered in English and Spanish, be specific to the restaurant or hospitality industry and include restaurant or hospitality related activities, images, or videos, and be “created and guided by an instructional design model and processes that follow generally accepted practices of the training and education industry.”

If enacted, employees would need to receive training within 90 days after the effective date of the act or within 30 days of employment and every 2 years thereafter.

Like New Jersey, the Illinois bill contemplates a $500 fine for the first violation and a $1,000 fine for each subsequent violation.

Recommendation

Restaurants should carefully track the progress of these bills and be on the lookout for similar legislative efforts in other states.  Given that a number of states, including New York and California, already require all private employers (of a particular size) to provide sexual harassment training, restaurants operating in Illinois and New Jersey may want to move towards implementing a sexual harassment policy and training program sooner than later.

 

©2019 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

New Jersey Announces Minimum Wage Increase

Governor Murphy, Senate President Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Coughlin have just announced their plan to increase New Jersey’s minimum wage to $15 per hour. Currently, minimum wage in New Jersey is $8.85 per hour.

Under the proposed plan, minimum wage would increase to $10/hour on July 1, 2019. Minimum wage would then increase by a dollar per year as follows:

  • 1/1/2020 – $11
  • 1/1/2021 – $12
  • 1/1/2022 – $13
  • 1/1/2023 – $14
  • 1/1/2024 – $15

Note that this increase will be delayed for some workers. Seasonal workers and employees at businesses with five or few workers won’t be eligible for the $15 minimum wage until 1/1/26. Agricultural workers will also be subject to different rules. More details on the plan will certainly follow in the coming weeks.

 

© 2019 Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C. All Rights Reserved
Read more news on minimum wage increases on the National Law Review’s Employment Law Page.

What’s the Lowdown on the Shutdown?

The partial government shutdown continues. The shutdown has captured the attention of Washington politicians and the media, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of federal employees who are currently furloughed or working without pay.

For employers, the shutdown has some important implications. While the Department of Labor (DOL) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) are fully funded through October 2019, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is not.

As a result of the lack of funding, the EEOC is closed until further notice.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR EMPLOYERS? A FEW THINGS:

  • The EEOC will not begin processing new employment discrimination cases until it reopens.
    However, the EEOC has been clear that the shutdown will not extend the statute of limitations for employees to file charges (300 days for Wisconsin employees). Employees who are close to the filing deadline are being encouraged to file charges by mail while the EEOC’s online portal remains closed to the public. Presumably, charges postmarked within the statute of limitations will be considered timely; however, this extra step may discourage some employees from filing claims.
  • Deadlines assigned to employers cannot be ignored on account of the shutdown.
    For example, a notice of charge dated December 21, 2018 with a position statement due date of January 21, 2019 cannot be ignored. Just as employees remain subject to the statute of limitations for their claims, so too are employers required to continue to meet their deadlines. If an extension is required, you should contact legal counsel as soon as possible. Generally, EEOC staff will not be able to respond to communications.
  • Pending EEOC charges will be suspended during the shutdown.
    This includes claims currently under investigation and those in the EEOC’s mediation program. Likewise, all EEOC litigation will be suspended except in cases where a continuance has not been granted.
  • The government shutdown does not affect state law discrimination claims.
    The Wisconsin Equal Rights Division (ERD) continues to accept discrimination claims, including those normally cross-filed with the EEOC. Employers must continue to respond to communications from the ERD.

Past experience suggests that if and when the EEOC reopens for business, there will be a significant backlog of cases to sort through. Employers should therefore expect the EEOC’s actions and communications to lag in 2019 as the agency works to get caught up on processing, investigating, and resolving cases.

 

Copyright © 2019 Godfrey & Kahn S.C.
This post was written by M. Scott LeBlanc of Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

Read more labor and employment news on the National Law Review’s labor and employment type of law page.

Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance Amended With Annual Increases

Any employer working with the city of Los Angeles should be aware of recent amendments to the Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance, which lays out annual cash wage increases, time off and health benefits.

The Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance (LWO) applies to city contractors and ensures that employees working on city contracts are paid the city’s set living wage (which consists of a cash wage rate and an employer’s health related benefits contribution) and are provided with time off as required by the LWO (at least 96 compensated hours off and 80 uncompensated hours off).

Effective October 15, 2018, the city amended the ordinance to require employer contractors to pay their non-airport employees the following wage going forward:

  • On July 1, 2019, the wage rate for an Employee shall be no less than $14.25 per hour.
  • On July 1, 2020, the wage rate for an Employee shall be no less than $15.00 per hour.
  • July 1, 2022, and annually thereafter, the hourly wage rate paid to an Employee to be adjusted.

In addition to the above base wage, employers must provide health benefits of at least $1.25 per hour to employees towards the provision of health care benefits for employees and their dependents.

For example, if an employer does not currently provide an employee with health benefits as provided in Section 10.37.3 of this article, the employee must be paid an additional wage rate of $1.25 per hour for a total of $14.50 per hour (based on the current $13.25 per hour base rate).

Employers working with Los Angeles Airport Employees must comply with separate wage rates. Effective July 1, 2018 (and adjusted annually thereafter), airport employees must be paid at minimum $13.75 per hour in cash wages and $5.24 per hour in health benefits, for a total economic package of $18.99. The term “total economic package” is not defined in the ordinance. However, it is traditionally interpreted to mean “health related” benefits. “Health related” is defined liberally to include vacation time, health insurance, sick pay, etc.

Because the LWO’s wage rate increases annually, California employers thinking about entering into collective bargaining agreements should consider including flexible language around the annual rate increase.

 

© 2019 Barnes & Thornburg LLP
This post was written by Michael Lee and Barnes & Thornburg LLP.

Connecticut’s Pay Equity Law Prohibits Salary History Inquiries

As of January 1, 2019, Connecticut employers are prohibited from inquiring about prospective employees’ wage or salary histories. Connecticut’s new pay equity law is intended to promote equality in pay and close the wage gap. Under the new law, employers—defined as entities having “one or more employees”—are also prohibited from using a third party to inquire about any applicant’s wage or salary history. Employers may still inquire about the components of an applicant’s compensation structure—for example, retirement benefits or stock option plans—but they may not inquire about the value of any individual component.

Nothing in the law prevents an employer from verifying salary information if a prospective employee voluntarily discloses such information. Additionally, the law does not apply where a federal or state law “specifically authorizes disclosure or verification of salary history” in the employment context.

A private right of action exists for violations of the law, and a prospective employee can potentially recover compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and punitive damages. A two-year statute of limitations applies.

In light of this new law, Connecticut employers should revise their employment applications to remove any requests for candidates’ salary histories. Employers that have hiring policies and/or hiring scripts should revise these documents to remove any questions about salary histories. Further, employers may want to affirmatively state that it is the employer’s policy not to make such inquiries. Connecticut employers may also want to ensure that any employees involved in interviewing candidates are trained on the new law and understand that they should not be asking about salary history information. Finally, employers may want to verify that any third parties they are using to help screen candidates are aware of and in compliance with the new law.

 

© 2018, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.
Read more employment updates on the National Law Review’s employment law page.

More Employers Were “ICED” in Fiscal Year 2018

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) recently released statistics on its worksite enforcement activities for the federal fiscal year ending on September 30, 2018. It should surprise no one that worksite enforcement designed to crack down on the employment of undocumented aliens has skyrocketed.

In FY 2018, 6,848 worksite investigations were initiated, representing a fourfold increase from the prior fiscal year. Similarly, ICE conducted 5,981 audits of employers’ Form I-9s, which is five times the number from the prior year. Criminal and worksite arrests were also way up and readers will recall that immigration law violations are one of the few areas of employment law which can result in direct criminal prosecution.

As stated by ICE, “[our] worksite enforcement strategy continues to focus on the criminal prosecution of employers who knowingly break the law, and the use of I-9 audits and civil fines to encourage compliance.”

What does this flurry of activity mean for employers? Under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, all employers must verify the identity and work eligibility of all individuals hired by completing a Form I-9 within three days of starting work. While appearing to be fairly simple on its face, many employers fail to pay attention to the details and fail to properly complete and certify that they have carefully verified the identity and work authorization of each hire. This can be especially true when hiring is done in remote locations where there are no trained management personnel to supervise the completion of the I-9.

When an employer receives a Notice of Inspection from ICE, it has three business days after which ICE will physically inspect the I-9s. Noncompliance could result in civil fines or even criminal prosecution. ICE worksite investigations are also designed to look for evidence of mistreatment of workers, human trafficking, and document fraud.

Given the reality that immigration enforcement activities are not likely to update anytime soon, employers are well-advised to take the following steps now:

  • Conduct a self-audit of all of your I-9s and if mistakes are identified take the appropriate steps to correct them. Consult the Handbook for Employers to know how the form must be completed.

  • Review and, where necessary, retrain all employees who are responsible for reviewing the documents presented by the new hire and certifying the accuracy of the form I-9.

  • Be sure you know the right way to fix errors that are identified.

  • Audit the records of any employees who are working under temporary visas. Oftentimes, employers verify work authorization at the time of hire but then fail to track expirations and renewals. What may have been legal at the time of hire may not be the case years later.

© 2018 Foley & Lardner LLP
This post was written by Mark J. Neuberger of Foley & Lardner LLP.
More immigration news at the National Law Review’s Immigration Page.