Tag: labor and employment

Be Prepared for Significant Employment Law Changes in 2024

The year 2023 brought many changes to Illinois labor and employment law. As the year ends, it is important to make sure you are ready for the laws that go into effect January 1, 2024. Taking the time to review your policies and procedures before the start of the New Year mitigates the chance of a surprise violation. When updating your policies and procedures for your business, consider the following:

  • The Chicago Paid Leave and Paid Sick and Safe Leave Ordinance will require covered employers to provide minimum paid leave for employees in Chicago;
  • The Paid Leave for All Workers Act implements minimum paid leave for workers in Illinois;
  • The Illinois Transportation Benefits Program Act will mandate certain pre-tax commuter benefits;
  • Amendments to the Equal Pay Act of 2003 with HB 4604 and HB 3129 will require covered employers to submit a filing with the Illinois Department of Labor;
  • Amendment to the Day and Temporary Labor Services Act with HB 2862 imposes certain equal pay and benefits requirements on covered temporary laborers; and
  • The Annual Illinois Minimum Wage Increase will increase the state minimum wage rates.
© 2023 Chuhak & Tecson P.C.
For more news on Illinois labor and employment laws, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

What Are the Top 3 Labor Law Developments of 2023 (So Far)?

It’s hard to believe the end of 2023 is upon us. This year is one for the history books on the labor law and labor relations fronts. In a year packed with significant legal landscape changes and high-profile labor disputes, it’s worth a quick recap of what are – in my view – the top 3 developments.

1. NLRB Revamps the Union Organizing Process

At the top of my list are changes the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) made to the union organizing process. The board did several things in this regard. First, the NLRB reinstated the Obama-era “ambush” election rules that accelerate the union election timetable. Specifically, these rules truncate the amount of time between an election petition being filed and a vote being held (i.e., shorten the amount of time a company has to campaign).

Second, the agency issued arguably one of its most groundbreaking decisions in decades in Cemex. In that case, the NLRB altered the framework for how unions can and will be recognized and significantly loosened the standard for Draconian bargaining orders in some cases. Bottom line: The legal landscape, relatively speaking, makes it exponentially easier for workers to vote in unions now.

2. UAW Strikes at the Big 3

Labor relations issues haven’t been top headlines in recent decades. That changed this year. The ongoing nationwide union push at Starbucks over the last two years has garnered much attention, along with some other high-profile union pushes and disputes. But the United Auto Workers’ (UAW) coordinated strike efforts at Detroit’s “Big Three” automakers truly was remarkable in terms of the national attention it garnered. For the first time, the UAW struck General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis (aka Chrysler) at once.

The UAW took a creative approach: it targeted specific plants for work stoppages while leaving others operational. This approach had two primary benefits to the union: 1) it allowed it to slow the cash burn on their strike pay bank (estimated to be north of $800 million at one point) and 2) it allowed the union to keep the companies guessing as to which plants the UAW may bring offline next – creating operational inefficiencies and uncertainty. Ultimately, this strategy resulted in deals with each of the Big 3, and most view the UAW as having come out on top in these negotiations.

3. NLRB Starts to Scrutinize Non-competes

On May 30, the NLRB’s top lawyer, Jennifer Abruzzo, turned heads when she issued a memo signaling that her office was taking the view that non-compete agreements, in some circumstances, violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This development was somewhat surprising to some given that the NLRA was passed nearly 100 years ago and was not cited previously as a basis to invalidate standard restrictive covenants found in countless employment agreements around the country.

Abruzzo further announced the NLRB will be coordinating enforcement and a potential crackdown on non-competes with the other agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission – which this year also signaled an emphasis on these agreements – and the Department of Justice.

Given there’s a month left to go before the end of 2023, there may be other significant developments to come, but, for now, these are my top three. Happy Holidays!

© 2023 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
For more news on 2023 Labor Law Updates, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Surge in Class Actions Under the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act

This year has seen a substantial increase in the number of class action lawsuits filed against employers under the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA). More than 20 suits have been filed this year, a stark contrast to zero filed in 2022 and only two in 2021.

Like its federal counterpart the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), GIPA prohibits employers, and agents acting on their behalf, from “directly or indirectly” soliciting, requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information from a person as a condition of employment or from using genetic information in a discriminatory manner against an employee or applicant. Genetic information is defined to include information from genetic tests or the manifestation of a disease or disorder of an individual or their family members.

Under the claims filed, plaintiffs allege that during the hiring process prospective employers collected family medical history and required pre-employment physicals or health interviews, which sought the protected information. These exams and interviews were often conducted by third-party occupational health services providers. The damages sought included “statutory damages” under the Act of $15,000 for each intentional and/or reckless violation and $2,500 for each negligent violation. In addition, GIPA has no statutory cap on punitive or compensatory damages and no statute of limitations, exposing employers to potentially massive damage awards.

Because these cases are in their infancy and currently only in Illinois, there is little guidance on the scope of GIPA and any exceptions that may exist. This means that we will need to wait and see how courts will interpret the Act and what impact the cases will have beyond Illinois.

In light of these developments, all employers should consider the following:

  • Disclaimer Use on Authorizations and Information Packets: Consider adding a written disclaimer to any authorization and pre-employment questionnaires that requests applicants not to provide any genetic information when responding to requests for medical information. The disclaimer should be provided to the applicant/employee for their information.
  • Review Third-party Provider Practices: Evaluate the practices of third-party medical providers, including documents provided to applicants/employees in their evaluation process, and request that family medical history not be obtained.
  • Assess Contracts/Indemnification Obligations: Review and assess the indemnification provisions of contracts with third-party medical providers. It is important that the hold harmless and indemnification obligations of the provider include reference to GIPA obligations in the scope of protection for the employer.
©2023 von Briesen & Roper, s.c
For more news on the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

EEOC Issues Long-Awaited Guidance on Harassment in the Modern Workplace

On September 29, 2023, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued long-awaited enforcement guidance on workplace harassment. The “Proposed Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace,” published in the Federal Register on October 2, 2023, advises employers on handling new workplace realties, including LGBTQ rights, online misconduct, abortion, and a number of different types of harassment.

This new guidance is the first voted document the EEOC has issued on harassment since its “Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors” in 1999.

The EEOC’s new guidance responds to the changing workplace landscape and salient issues confronting employers as a result of the #MeToo movement, the COVID-19 pandemic, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County that sex discrimination includes bias on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.

LGBTQ Harassment

Consistent with its long-standing position amplified by the Bostock v. Clayton County decision, the EEOC guidance emphasizes that sex discrimination includes sexual orientation and gender identity.

For example, the guidance discusses misgendering as a type of actionable harassment, stating that refusing to use a name or pronoun “consistent with the individual’s gender identity” may constitute harassment. According to the EEOC, another potential form of sex-based harassment is refusing to allow an employee to use a bathroom that matches their gender identity.

Further, religious accommodations for employees with sincerely held religious beliefs do not include allowing an employee with such accommodations to create a hostile work environment for an LGBTQ co-worker. In other words, the obligation to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs does not extend to religious beliefs that infringe on another employee’s protected category.

Online Harassment

The EEOC guidance also addresses remote work, teleconferencing, and social media issues that have grown out of the way employees work coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic. The guidance emphasizes that conduct within a virtual work environment can contribute to a hostile work environment.

Going a step further, the EEOC also notes that employers may be liable for harassment occurring online, even if only over employees’ private social media accounts. If put on notice of the conduct, the employer may need to take remedial steps or disciplinary action against the offending employee for their non-workplace and non-worktime conduct.

Harassment Based on Reproductive Decision-Making

The draft guidance notes that sex-based harassment includes mistreatment based on an employee’s pregnancy and reproductive decisions, such as decisions about contraception or abortion. This is consistent with the EEOC’s longtime stance that terminating a pregnancy constitutes a pregnancy-related condition protected under the law.

The EEOC’s proposed guidance, which remains open for public comment until November 1, 2023, covers a number of other topics. Given the comprehensive guidance and constantly changing landscape of the modern workplace, employers are strongly encouraged to seek advice of counsel to ensure compliant policies and practices. Employers’ harassment policies in particular should be carefully reviewed in light of this guidance, including policies on religion, race, and national origin, in addition to sexual harassment policies.

Listen to this post

Copyright © 2023, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.
For more articles on employment law, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Deadline Approaches for Chicago Employers

As a reminder to employers in Chicago, anti-sexual harassment training is required by Chicago’s Human Rights Ordinance and must be completed by July 1, 2023.  This requirement applies to all Chicago employers, regardless of size or industry.

The training consists of one (1) hour of anti-sexual harassment training for all non-supervisory employees and two (2) hours of anti-sexual harassment training for supervisory employees.  Regardless of supervisory status, all employees must also undergo one (1) hour of bystander training.  Employers must provide training on an annual basis.  Additional information about training requirements can be found here. Employers who fail to comply may be subject to penalties.

Article By Audrey H. Shinn of Vedder Price

© 2023 Vedder Price

Michigan House Moves Quickly to Repeal Michigan Right to Work Act

The Michigan House of Representatives moved quickly yesterday to advance legislation repealing Michigan’s Right to Work law, which has been in effect for the last decade. Right to Work prohibits the inclusion of a clause in a union labor contract that conditions access to employment (and continued employment) on becoming and remaining a Union member in good standing. Before enactment of Michigan’s Right to Work law, Unions could legally negotiate a union security clause into a labor contract. In a nutshell, union security means that employees performing work covered by a labor contract must join the union and remain in good standing with the union or be terminated. On March 8, the House passed both House Bill 4005 (private sector unions) and House Bill 4004 (public sector unions). The bills will now be taken up by the Michigan State Senate.

What Does Repeal of Right to Work Mean for Michigan Companies?

If Right to Work is repealed, employers with Union labor contracts can expect requests to meet and bargain regarding union security clauses. If repealed, existing labor contracts will not be presumed to include such clauses. Rather, union security clauses and the terms and scope of such provisions are a subject of negotiation. Existing labor contracts should be reviewed with labor counsel to determine the employer’s obligations to engage in mid-contract bargaining on this important topic. Labor contracts on this issue vary. For example, labor contracts may contain:

  • A union security clause that becomes effective upon a change in the law;
  • An obligation to meet and negotiate with the Company upon a change in the law; or,
  • The labor contract may be silent on the issue.

Article By Maureen Rouse-Ayoub and Ashleigh E. Draft of Varnum LLP

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

© 2023 Varnum LLP

The NLRB Curtails the Scope of Nondisparagement and Confidentiality Provisions in Severance Agreements

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) issued McLaren Macomb, a decision that curtails the permissible scope of confidentiality agreements and non-disclosure provisions in severance agreements. See McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (2023). Analyzing the broad provisions in the agreements at issue in this case, the Board held that simply offering employees severance agreements that require employees to broadly waive their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or “the Act”) was unlawful. The Board held:

Where an agreement unlawfully conditions receipt of severance benefits on the forfeiture of statutory rights, the mere proffer of the agreement itself violates the Act, because it has a reasonable tendency to interfere with or restrain the prospective exercise of Section 7 rights, both by the separating employee and those who remain. Whether the employee accepts the agreement is immaterial.

The Board’s decision is part of a broader trend by courts and administrative agencies applying heightened scrutiny to contractual provisions that limit employees’ rights. The decision also provides a crucial reminder to union and nonunion workers alike of the relevance of federal labor law in providing legal protections for most private-sector workers.

Case Background

The case arose when Michigan hospital operator McLaren Macomb permanently furloughed eleven employees, all bargaining unit members of Local 40 RN Staff Council, Office of Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU), AFL-CIO, because it had terminated outpatient services during the COVID-19 pandemic in June 2020. After McLaren Macomb furloughed these employees, it presented them with a “Severance Agreement, Waiver and Release” that offered severance amounts to the employees if they signed the agreement. All eleven employees signed.

The agreements provided broad language regarding confidentiality and nondisparagement. The confidentiality provision stated, “The Employee acknowledges that the terms of this Agreement are confidential and agrees not to disclose them to any third person, other than spouse, or as necessary to professional advisors for the purposes of obtaining legal counsel or tax advice, or unless legally compelled to do so by a court or administrative agency of competent jurisdiction.” (emphasis added). The non-disclosure provision provided, in relevant part, “At all times hereafter, the Employee agrees not to make statements to Employer’s employees or to the general public which could disparage or harm the image of Employer…” The employees faced substantial financial penalties if they violated the provisions. The Employer conditioned the payment of severance on Employees’ entering into this agreement.

The NLRB’s Decision

In McLaren Macomb, the Board held that simply offering employees severance agreements that contain these broad confidentiality and nondisparagement provisions violates the NLRA.

The NLRA provides broad protections of employees’ rights to engage in collective action. Section 7 of the NLRA vests employees with a number of rights, including the right “to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” Section 8(a)(1) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice (ULP) for an employer to “interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7.” As the Supreme Court, federal courts, and the NLRB have repeatedly held and reaffirmed, Section 7 provides broad rights for employees and former employees—union and nonunion alike—to engage in collective action, including discussing terms and conditions of employment and workplace issues with coworkers, a union, and the Board. As the Supreme Court has stated in elaborating on the broad construction of Section 7, “labor’s cause often is advanced on fronts other than collective bargaining and grievance settlement within the immediate employment context.” Eastex, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 437 U.S. 556, 565 (1978).

Applying these foundational principles to the severance agreements at hand, the Board reversed Trump-era NLRB precedent and concluded that the employer’s proffer of these broad nondisparagement and confidentiality provisions contravened the employees’ exercise of Section 7 rights, which is an unfair labor practice under Section 8(a)(1). Notably, the Board held that an employer’s merely offering such broad provisions violates the Act—it does not matter whether the employee signs the agreement or not.

The Board determined that the nondisparagement provision substantially interfered with employees’ Section 7 rights on its face. That provision prohibits the furloughed employee from making any “statements to [the] Employer’s employees or the general public which could disparage or harm the image of [the] Employer.” Analyzing this language, the Board reasoned that the provision would encompass employee conduct or critiques of the employer regarding any labor issue, dispute, or term and condition of employment. Accordingly, this proscription sweeps far too broadly—it prohibits employees from exercising their right to publicize labor disputes, a right which is protected by the Act. Moreover, the nondisparagement provision chills employees from exercising Section 7 rights, including efforts to assist fellow employees, cooperate with the Board’s investigation and litigation of unfair labor practices, and raise or assist in making workplace complaints to coworkers, their union, the Board, the media, or “almost anyone else.” As the Board underscored, “Public statements by employees about the workplace are central to the exercise of employee rights under the Act.”

The Board then concluded that the confidentiality provision also interfered with employees’ Section 7 rights in at least two ways. First, the Board explained that because the confidentiality provision prohibits the employee from disclosing the terms of the agreement “to any third person,” the agreement would reasonably tend to coerce the employee not to file a ULP charge with the Board or assist in a Board investigation. (emphasis added). Second, the same language would also prohibit the furloughed employee from discussing the terms of the agreement with former coworkers in similar situations, which would frustrate the mutual support between employees at the heart of the Act. As the Board summarized, “A severance agreement is unlawful if it precludes an employee from assisting coworkers with workplace issues concerning their employer, and from communicating with others, including a union, and the Board, about his employment.”

Takeaways for Employment Lawyers and Plaintiffs

First, while one might assume that labor law is exclusively the province of unions, their members, and their lawyers, McLaren Macomb demonstrates the relevance of the NLRA for employees regardless of union status. Although the workers in this case were unionized, the Section 7 rights at the heart of the NLRA apply to most private-sector employees, including nonunion employees. Indeed, because nonunion workers often have fewer workplace protections than their unionized counterparts, Section 7’s protections are critically important for nonunion employees. Employees who are asked to sign confidentiality and nondisparagement provisions and their attorneys should be aware that broad restrictions on employees’ concerted activity may be illegal.

Second, this decision is part of a broader effort to protect workers from being muzzled by their employers. For instance, the recent federal Speak Out Act establishes that predispute nondisclosure clauses and nondisparagement clauses—often included in employment contracts—are unenforceable in disputes involving sexual assault or sexual harassment. These recent developments in the law should be on the radar of workers and their attorneys who are navigating employer’s contracts, policies, handbooks, and proposed severance agreements.

Article By Kyle Bigley of Katz Banks Kumin LLP

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

Katz Banks Kumin LLP Copyright ©

EEOC Announces Enforcement Priorities for 2023-2027

On Tuesday January 10, 2023, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) publicly released its Draft Strategic Enforcement Plan (“SEP”) for fiscal years 2023-2027. The SEP describes the EEOC’s top enforcement priorities, making it critical information for employers around the country.

The Draft SEP sets out the EEOC’s six subject matter priorities for fiscal years 2023-2027:

  1. Eliminating Barriers in Recruitment and Hiring;

  2. Protecting Vulnerable Workers and Persons From Underserved Communities From Employment Discrimination;

  3. Addressing Emerging and Developing Issues;

  4. Enforcing Equal Pay Laws;

  5. Preserving Access to the Legal System; and

  6. Preventing Harassment Through Systemic Enforcement and Targeted Outreach.

With respect to the first category, “Eliminating Barriers in Recruitment and Hiring,” the Draft SEP states the EEOC will focus on “the use of automatic systems, including artificial intelligence or machine learning, to target advertisements, recruit applicants, or make or assist in hiring decisions where such systems intentionally exclude or adversely impact protected groups.” The Draft SEP also expressly emphasizes the “lack of diversity” in both the construction and tech industries, noting the EEOC’s priority will typically involve systemic cases, though claims by an individual or small group may qualify for enforcement focus if it raises a policy, practice, or pattern of discrimination. Employers should note the EEOC’s decision to focus on AI and the tech industry demonstrates a heightened priority on remedying and preventing discrimination from automated and electronic screening tools used in hiring practices and employment decisions.

On January 31, 2023, the EEOC held a public hearing titled “Navigating Employment Discrimination in AI and Automated Systems: A New Civil Rights Frontier” where higher education professors, nonprofit organization representatives, attorneys, and workforce consultants prepared statements regarding the EEOC’s new focus.

The Draft SEP includes specific details regarding the types of hiring practices and policies that the agency seeks to scrutinize. For example, the EEOC aims to prevent employers from isolating and separating workers in certain jobs or job duties based on membership in a protected class. The EEOC plans to achieve this goal by identifying vulnerable workers for more focused attention. In addition, the EEOC will scrutinize practices which limit access to work opportunities, such as (1) job postings which either exclude or discourage some protected groups from applying, and (2) denying training, internships, or apprenticeships based on protected status. The Draft SEP also prioritizes preventing employers from denying opportunities to move from temporary to permanent roles.

As for the second category, “Protecting Vulnerable Workers and Persons From Underserved Communities From Employment Discrimination,” the Draft SEP expands the ”vulnerable worker priority” to include categories of workers who, according to the EEOC, “may be unaware of their rights . . . or reluctant or unable to exercise their legally protected rights.” These categories include workers with intellectual and developmental disabilities, individuals with arrest or conviction records, LGBTQI+ individuals, pregnant workers, individuals with pregnancy-related medical conditions, temporary workers, older workers, individuals employed in low-wage jobs, and persons with limited literacy or English proficiency. The Draft SEP proposes that district EEOC offices and the agency’s federal sector program will identify vulnerable workers and underserved communities in their districts or within the federal sector for focused attention. Employers should be aware that the “vulnerable workers” focused on under this category may vary based on location.

The Draft SEP’s third category, “Addressing Emerging and Developing Issues,” includes a focus on (1) qualification standards and inflexible policies or practices that discriminate against individuals with disabilities, (2) protecting individuals affected by pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the newly enacted Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, (3) employment issues relating to backlash in response to local, national, or global events, and (4) “employment discrimination associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.” The priorities for the EEOC’s COVID-19-related enforcement in this category include:

  • pandemic related harassment, particularly against individuals of Asian descent;

  • unlawful denials of accommodations to individuals with disabilities;

  • unlawful medical inquiries, improper direct threat determinations, or other discrimination related to disabilities that arose during or were exacerbated by the pandemic; and

  • discrimination against persons who have an actual disability or are regarded as having a disability related to COVID–19, including individuals with long COVID, and pandemic-related caregiver discrimination based on a protected characteristic

With respect to the fourth category, “Enforcing Equal Pay Laws,” the Draft SEP sets out a focus on pay discrimination based on any protected category. The Draft SEP also states the EEOC may use “Commissioner Charges and directed investigations” to enforce equal pay. Notably, the EEOC has been hesitant to use Commissioner Charges in the past, as they comprise of less than 1% of annual charge volume since 2015. However, Commissioner Charges may become necessary to identify and remedy discrimination based on artificial intelligence or machine learning, as outlined in the first category.

The fifth and sixth categories remain largely unchanged from prior EEOC SEPs. The focus for the fifth category, preserving access to the legal system, will continue to identify and target (1) overly broad waivers, releases, non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements; (2) improper mandatory arbitration provisions; (3) employers failure to keep proper records; and (4) improper retaliatory practices. As for the final category, the EEOC will continue to focus on promoting comprehensive anti-harassment programs and practices.

The EEOC will vote on a final version of the SEP following the public notice and comment period, which concludes on February 9, 2023.

Article By Dan Syed of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

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

Copyright © 2023, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

SECURE 2.0 Act Brings Slate of Changes to Employer-Sponsored Retirement Plans

In December, the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (“SECURE 2.0”) was passed, a package of retirement provisions providing comprehensive updates and changes to the SECURE Act of 2019. The legislation includes some key changes that affect employer-sponsored defined contribution plans, such as profit-sharing plans, 401(k) plans, 403(b) plans and stock bonus plans. While some of the changes are effective immediately upon the law’s enactment, most required changes are not effective before the plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2024, so employer sponsors have time to prepare for compliance.

Required Changes

Mandatory automatic enrollment in new plans.

Plan sponsors are currently allowed to provide for automatic enrollment and automatic escalation in 401(k) and 403(b) plans. SECURE 2.0 requires new 401(k) and 403(b) plans to automatically enroll participants at a new default rate, and to escalate participants’ deferral rate each year, up to a maximum of 15%, with some exceptions for new and small businesses. This provision applies to new plans with initial plan years beginning after December 31, 2024.

Changes to long-term part-time employee participation requirements.

The Act currently requires 401(k) plans to permit participation in the deferral part of the plan only by an employee who worked at least 500 hours (but less than 1000 hours) per year for three consecutive years. SECURE 2.0 changes this participation requirement by long-term part-time employees working more than 500, but less than 1000, hours per year to two consecutive years instead of three. However, this two-year provision does not take effect until January 1, 2025, which means the original SECURE Act three-year provision still applies for 2024. Employers should start tracking hours for part-time employees to determine whether they will be eligible in 2024 or 2025 under this provision. For vesting purposes, pre-2021 service is disregarded, just as service is disregarded for eligibility purposes. This provision is applicable to 401(k) plans and 403(b) plans that are subject to ERISA and does not apply to collectively bargained plans. This provision applies to plan years beginning after December 31, 2024.

Changes to catch-up contributions limits.

If a defined contribution plan permits participants who have attained age 50 to make catch-up contributions, the catch-up contributions are now required to be made on a Roth basis for participants who earn at least $145,000 (indexed after 2024) or more in the prior year. This provision is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023.

Changes to the required minimum distribution (RMD) age.

Currently, required minimum distributions must begin at age 72 for participants who have terminated employment. SECURE 2.0 increases the age to age 73 starting on January 1, 2023, and to age 75 starting on January 1, 2033. This means that participants who turn 72 in 2023 are not required to take an RMD for 2023; instead, they will be required to start taking RMDs for calendar year 2024, the year in which they turn 73. This provision is effective for distributions made after December 31, 2022, for individuals who turn 72 after that date.

Early withdrawal tax exemption for emergency withdrawal expenses.

SECURE 2.0 provides for an exception from the 10% early withdrawal tax on emergency expenses, defined as certain unforeseeable or immediate financial needs, on a limited basis (once per year, up to $1000). Plans may allow an optional three-year payback period, and participants are restricted from taking another emergency withdrawal within three years of any unpaid amount on a previous withdrawal. This provision is effective for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2024.

Changes to automatic enrollment for new plans.

Almost all new defined contribution plans will be required to auto-enroll employees upon hire (existing plans are exempt from this provision). This provision is applicable for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2025.

Optional Changes

Additional catch-up contribution opportunities.

Currently, the catch-up contribution limits for certain plans are indexed for inflation and apply to employees who have reached the age of 50. SECURE 2.0 increases catch-up contribution limits for individuals aged 60-63 to the greater of: (1) $10,000 (indexed for inflation), or (2) 50% more than the regular catch-up amount in effect for 2024. This provision is effective for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2025.

Additional employer contributions to SIMPLE IRA plans.

Current law requires employers with SIMPLE IRA plans to make employer contributions to employees of either 2% of compensation or 3% of employee elective deferral contributions. SECURE 2.0 allows employers to make additional contributions to each employee of a SIMPLE plan in a uniform manner, provided the contribution does not exceed the lesser of up to 10 percent of compensation or $5,000 (indexed). This provision is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023.

Replacing SIMPLE IRA plans with safe harbor 401(k) plans.

The new law also permits an employer to elect to replace a SIMPLE IRA plan with a safe harbor 401(k) plan at any time during the year, provided certain criteria are met. The current law prohibits the replacement of a SIMPLE IRA plan with a 401(k) plan mid-year. This provision also includes a waiver of the two-year rollover limitation in SIMPLE IRAs converting to a 401(k) or 403(b) plan. This change is effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2023.

Increasing involuntary cash-out threshold.

Currently plans may automatically cash-out a vested participant’s benefit that is between $1,000 and $5,000 and roll this amount over to an IRA. SECURE 2.0 allows plans to increase the $5,000 involuntary cash-out limit amount to $7,000. This provision of the law is effective for distributions made after December 31, 2023.

Relaxation of discretionary amendment deadline.

Under current law, a discretionary plan amendment must be adopted by the end of the plan year in which it is effective. SECURE 2.0 allows plans to make discretionary plan amendments to increase benefits until the employer’s tax filing deadline for the immediately preceding taxable year in which the amendment is effective. This applies to stock bonus, pension, profit-sharing or annuity plans to increase benefits for the preceding plan year. This provision is effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2023.

Elimination of unnecessary plan notices to unenrolled participants.

SECURE 2.0 eases the administrative burden on plan sponsors by eliminating unnecessary plan notices to unenrolled participants. Under the amended law, plan sponsor notices to unenrolled participants may consist solely of an annual notice of eligibility to participate during the annual enrollment period, as opposed to numerous notices from the plan sponsor. This provision is effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2022.

Crediting of student loan payments as elective deferrals for purposes of matching contributions.

Under SECURE 2.0, student loan payments may be treated as elective deferrals for the purposes of matching contributions to a retirement plan. This provision is available for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2024.

Matching contributions designated as Roth contributions.

Previously, employer matching contributions could not be made as Roth contributions. Effective on the date of the enactment of SECURE 2.0, 401(a), 403(b), or governmental 457(b) plans may allow employees the option to designate matching contributions as Roth contributions.

Expansion of the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS).

Currently, EPCRS contains procedures to self-correct certain limited, operational failures that are insignificant and corrected within a three-year period. SECURE 2.0 expands this, generally permitting any inadvertent failure to be self-corrected under EPCRS within a reasonable period after the failure is identified, without a submission to the IRS, subject to some exceptions. This provision went into effect on the date of enactment.

Recoupment of overpayments.

Currently, fiduciaries for plans that have mistakenly overpaid a participant must take reasonable steps to recoup the overpayment (for example, by collecting it from the participant or employer) to maintain the tax-qualified status of the plan and comply with ERISA. Under SECURE 2.0, 401(a), 403(a), 403(b), and governmental plans (not including 457(b) plans) will not lose tax qualification merely because the plan fails to recover an “inadvertent benefit overpayment” or otherwise amends the plan to permit this increased benefit. In certain cases, the overpayment is also treated as an eligible rollover distribution. This provision became effective upon enactment with certain retroactive relief for prior good faith interpretations of existing guidance.

Simplified plan designs for “starter” 401(k) and 403(b) plans.

Effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2023, SECURE 2.0 creates two new plan designs for employers who do not sponsor a retirement plan: a “starter 401(k) deferral-only arrangement” and a “safe harbor 403(b) plan.” These plans would generally require that all employees be enrolled in the plan with a deferral rate of three percent to 15 percent of compensation.

Financial incentives for contributions.

SECURE 2.0 allows participants to receive de minimis financial incentives (not paid for with plan assets) for contributing to a 401(k) or 403(b) plan. Previously, plans were prohibited from offering financial incentives (other than matching contributions) to employees for contributing to a plan. This provision became effective for plan years starting after the date of enactment.

When do employers need to amend their plans for the SECURE Act, CARES Act, and SECURE 2.0 (“the Acts”)?

If a retirement plan operates in accordance with the Acts, plan amendments must be made by the end of the 2025 plan year (or 2027 for governmental and collectively bargained plans). (The amendment deadlines for SECURE and CARES were extended late last year.)

Article By John D. Arendshorst, Andrea M. Gumushian, and Kristy L. De Vos of Varnum LLP

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

© 2023 Varnum LLP

SCOTUS Takes a Pass on “Gap Time” Dispute

It’s two months into argument season at the Supreme Court, and we’re always keeping our fingers crossed that the justices will take up a wage and hour issue and clear up some ambiguities in the law or a circuit split.

Top billing this SCOTUS term goes to Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt, in which the Court will address whether a supervisor who earned more than $200,000 a year but was paid on a daily basis is exempt from the overtime laws as a “highly compensated employee” under 29 C.F.R. § 541.601, notwithstanding the salary basis rules in 29 C.F.R. § 541.602 and 29 C.F.R. § 541.604.  The Court held arguments on October 12, and you can read the transcript here.  We’ll report on that decision as soon as it’s published.

This week’s news is a denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari in Cleveland County, North Carolina v. Conner, a case about gap time.  The plaintiff in the case—an EMT worker—was paid under a fairly complex set of ordinance-based and contractual terms, but the gist of her claim was that the county shorted her on straight-time pay she was owed under her contract, and by doing do violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The district court dismissed the claim, on the ground that the FLSA governs minimum wage and overtime pay, but not straight-time pay (assuming no minimum wage violation).  On appeal, however, the Fourth Circuit noted that “there are situations … that fall between [the minimum wage and overtime] provisions of the FLSA.  It explained:

In addition to seeking unpaid overtime compensation, employees may seek to recover wages for uncompensated hours worked that fall between the minimum wage and the overtime provisions of the FLSA, otherwise known as gap time ….  Gap time refers to time that is not directly covered by the FLSA’s overtime provisions because it does not exceed the overtime limit, and to time that is not covered by the FLSA’s minimum wage provisions because … the employees are still being paid a minimum wage when their salaries are averaged across their actual time worked.  (Internal citations and alterations omitted.)

The Court of Appeals differentiated between two types of gap time—“pure gap time” and “overtime gap time”—with the former referring to unpaid straight time in a week in which an employee works no overtime, and the latter referring to unpaid straight time in a week in which the employee works overtime.  The court noted, correctly, that no provision of the FLSA addresses gap time of either type, and that there is no cause of action under the FLSA for “pure gap time” absent a minimum wage or overtime violation by the employer.  Such claims would arise, if at all, under state law.

On the other hand, the circuit court noted that courts are divided on whether an employee can bring an “overtime gap time claim” under the FLSA.  While the statute itself is silent on the issue, the U.S. Department of Labor’s interpretation of the FLSA—set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 778.315—states that:

[C]ompensation for … overtime work under the Act cannot be said to have been paid to an employee unless all the straight time compensation due him for the nonovertime hours under his contract (express or implied) or under any applicable statute has been paid.

In its simplest sense, the argument for recognizing “overtime gap time” claims under the FLSA is this:  Say an employer promises an overtime-eligible employee base pay of $1,000 per week for up to 40 hours of work, and the employee works more than 40 hours in a given week.  In that scenario, the employee’s hourly overtime rate would by $37.50 ($1000 ÷ 40 yields a regular rate of $25, and time-and-a-half on $25 is $37.50).  But if the employer only pays the employee $800 in base pay for the week and not the promised $1,000, the regular rate becomes $20 ($1000 ÷ 40) and the hourly overtime rate becomes $30 (time-and-a-half on $20).  So the employee is short-changed $7.50 on each overtime hour, which the Fourth Circuit found violates 29 C.F.R. § 778.315 and the spirit, if not the letter, of the FLSA.

“Pure gap time” is different, in this important sense:  it only arises when the employee has not worked any overtime in the week.  So there is no possibility of short-changing the employee on overtime pay, and—assuming the employee has, on average, received the minimum wage for all hours worked that week—no other provision of the FLSA that provides any relief.  (The employee is ostensibly free to seek relief under an applicable state wage payment law or common law for failure to pay promised compensation.)

The Fourth Circuit concluded that 29 C.F.R. § 778.315 has the “power to persuade,” and therefore is entitled to “considerable deference” under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944).  As such, the court held that “overtime gap time claims” are indeed cognizable under the FLSA, and that “courts must ensure employees are paid all of their straight time wages first under the relevant employment agreement, before overtime is counted.”  The court acknowledged a circuit split on the issue, with the Second Circuit declining to afford deference to 29 C.F.R. § 778.315 and rejecting “overtime gap time” claims as lacking a statutory basis (“So long as an employee is being paid the minimum wage or more, [the] FLSA does not provide recourse for unpaid hours below the 40–hour threshold, even if the employee also works overtime hours the same week.”).

The county filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, presenting not only the question of whether the FLSA permits “overtime gap time” but also seeking clarification on how federal courts should apply the Skidmore doctrine to agency interpretations such as 29 C.F.R. § 778.315.  The Supreme Court denied the petition on December 12, leaving both questions for another day.

© 2022 Proskauer Rose LLP.
For more Employment Law News, click here to visit the National Law Review.