Tag: Labor & Employment

OSHA Issues Guidance on Preparing for COVID-19

1) OSHA has issued a comprehensive document “Guidance on Preparing Workplaces for COVID-19.”

That Guidance categorizes employers under “Very High Risk,” “High Risk,” “Medium Risk,” and “Lower Risk,” categories.  The employer should first determine under which category the employer falls.  Then the employer should further review the Guidance to determine which “engineering,” “administrative,” “work practice,” and “Personal Protective Equipment” (PPE) measures apply to their company and implement those measures, called “controls” by OSHA.  One control is the erection of physical barriers, such as plastic sheeting to cordon off certain areas from the free flow of air typically in the hallways.

2) Many employers wonder if coronavirus cases are recordable on their 300 logs. Coronavirus, COVID-19, is not an exception to the OSHA Recordkeeping rule.  Therefore, if the coronavirus, COVID-19, diagnosis is confirmed, is work related, and results in treatment beyond first aid, lost time, modified duty, or other recordable circumstance, then it is recordable, and needs to be recorded as an illness on the OSHA 300 log.  If a work-related COVID-19 case for an employee results in in-patient hospitalization, then it is reportable within 24 hours of that in-patient hospitalization to the OSHA Area Office or the national OSHA line.

3) The EEOC has issued guidance that employers in this situation are allowed to take the temperatures of incoming employees.  Typically taking the temperature of an employee is considered a medical examination that must be justified by business necessity.  In the current pandemic situation, employers who test all employees coming to work each day have the business necessity of the pandemic to justify that examination.  Employers should take the temperature of all employees if that will be the employer’s practice, a control to protect other employees in the manufacturing plant or construction site.

4) Also, when using respiratory protection as PPE, the employer must either implement a respiratory protection program with mandatory fit testing, medical evaluation, training on usage and storage, and sufficient facilities for cleaning and storage.  Or, if the employer considers the program voluntary, the employer must provide each employee with Appendix D to inform the employees of the uses and limitations of certain types of masks.  OSHA has issued temporary guidance during the pandemic to relax the annual fit testing requirement, but the temporary guidance requires the employer to follow stringent measures, such as:

  • Perform initial fit tests for each HCP with the same model, style, and size respirator that the worker will be required to wear for protection against COVID-19 (initial fit testing is essential to determine if the respirator properly fits the worker and is capable of providing the expected level of protection), and give workers training on the suspension of annual fit testing to preserve respirators, and then explain the importance of the user seal check, then nevertheless to conduct a fit test if there are visual changes in the employee’s physical condition to affect the seal, and other training.
  • Click here to see the complete guidance before seeking to employ any such suspension, rigorously follow the criteria listed in the publication.

OSHA is out inspecting workplaces and issuing citations.  Be very careful about the use of respirators by your workforce without having the proper program, or, in a voluntary situation, providing the Appendix D.

© Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

More governmental agency guidance on COVID-19 on the National Law Review Coronavirus News page.

Protected Activity or Illegal Harassment? Clarification May Be Coming.

It is a difficult balance for employers between respecting the rights to speech and other protected activity of their employees and avoiding a hostile workplace created by such speech. All too often employees may express views that are protected, but in ways that may be intimidating to their co-workers and create a hostile work environment. This tricky balance may soon gain much needed clarification. The D.C. Circuit Court of appeals, in issuing a decision in the case of Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLC v. NLRB, 945 F.3d 546 (D.C.Cir. 2019) set up the possibility.

The case involved an employee who was notified of his termination after writing “whore board” on the employer’s overtime signup sheet by way of protest of the employer’s newly adopted overtime policy. The administrative judge had found that the speech was protected under the National Labor Relations Act Section 8(a)(1) and that it was an unfair trade practice by illegally restraining the employee’s ability to participate in union activity under Section 8(a)(3).

While the D.C. Circuit agreed with the administrative law judge and the NLRB that the employee had been protected under the Act, it faulted the NLRB’s analysis for failing to take into consideration the employer’s “obligations under federal and state anti-discrimination laws to maintain a harassment-free environment.” 945 F.3d 546, 551.  The court then remanded the case to the NLRB to consider the balance between the employee’s protected activities and the employer’s responsibility to provide a harassment-free environment. This will potentially give the NLRB a chance to establish a framework in which to balance these types of cases.

The employer, in its arguments set forth two different proposed tests that could have found the employee’s speech to be unprotected due to the vulgar and offensive manner in which it was done. The company put forth a totality of the circumstances test, which would take into account the company’s anti-harassment policies in effect at the time. The employer alternatively proposed that the NLRB adopt the similar four-part test set forth in Atlantic Steel Co., 245 NLRB No. 107 (1979) that would take into consideration: (1) the place of the discussion; (2) the subject matter of the discussion; (3) the nature of the employee’s outburst; and (4) whether the outburst was, in any way, provoked by an employer’s unfair labor practice.

The test that is chosen will have a substantial effect on how employers can go about protecting their employees from harassment and intimidation while not running afoul of the Act. Great attention should be paid to the result.

© 2020 by Raymond Law Group LLC.

For more on NLRA Protected Speech, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

National Labor Relations Board Tightens Standard for Joint Employer Status

A business is a joint employer of another employer’s employees only if the two employers share or codetermine the employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment, according to a recently unveiled and long-awaited final rule from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This means that a business must exercise “substantial direct and immediate control” over such issues as wages, benefits, hours of work, hiring, discharge, discipline, supervision and work direction. The rule, which takes effect on April 27, 2020, tightens the legal test the NLRB uses to determine whether workers are jointly employed by affiliate businesses, including franchisors and franchisees.

Specifically, the new rule substantially tightens the standard for joint employer status articulated by the NLRB in its 2015 Browning-Ferris decision. In that decision, the NLRB departed from a half-century’s worth of precedent in determining that it could consider employers who exercised indirect control over the terms and conditions of another employer’s employees, or who reserved the right to exercise such control, as joint employers. The new rule expressly rejects this standard, making clear that neither “indirect” control nor a reservation of right to control terms and conditions of employment is sufficient, on its own, to establish joint employer status. The new rule returns the NLRB to its pre-Browning-Ferris jurisprudence, which required actual and direct control. The new rule also notes that “sporadic, isolated, or de minimus” direct control will not be enough to warrant a finding of joint employment.

The issue of joint employer status is significant for businesses because workers and the unions that represent them can collectively bargain with joint employers and hold them jointly liable for unfair labor practices, which are violations of federal labor law. The Browning-Ferris decision, with its broader test for joint employer status, engulfed more contractors and franchisors into costly and time-consuming labor disputes and contract negotiations. By rejecting the Browning-Ferris standard, the NLRB’s new narrower test brings certainty to this area of law by ensuring that labor disputes and contract bargaining only involve those contractors and/or franchisors that exercise direct control over the employees of another employer. NLRB Chairman Jon Ring made this very point when he explained that “employers will now have certainty in structuring their business relationships, [and] employees will have a better understanding of their employment circumstances.”

This new rule is particularly important to franchisors and comes on the heels of the Department of Labor’s (DOL) new joint-employer rule, which also affected franchisors. Since the Browning-Ferris decision, there has been uncertainty about how much “control” is too much. This new NLRB rule provides welcomed clarity for franchisors, and will allow franchisors to provide more operational support and guidance to franchisees, which should result in franchisees having the opportunity to run their small businesses in a manner that will make a difference in their communities. Franchisors can protect their brands through appropriate brand standards and require franchisees to meet those standards without the heightened risk of being deemed a joint employer of their franchisees’ employees.

However, franchisors must be mindful of various state joint employer regulations, which may be broader in scope than the new rule, as well as plaintiffs’ lawyers asserting claims based on control theories. Franchisors should continue to review their business models and business practices (training, technology and field support) to ensure they are not involved in the exercise of control over a franchisee’s employees. Franchisors also should appropriately address these issues in their franchise agreements and operations manuals.

In sum, the NLRB’s new joint employer test is a win for employers, returning the NLRB’s joint-employer status jurisprudence to the narrower direct and actual control standard. Under this new test, contractors and franchisors who do not want to become joint employers should be careful to avoid exercising direct control over another employer’s employees’ terms and conditions of employment, including wages and benefits. The new rule’s clarity allows businesses to know where they stand as a potential joint employer and to prepare accordingly.

© 2020 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved.

For more on NLRB decisions, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

Love at Work: 5 Things for Employers to Know

Workplace romances are inevitable. According to a recent survey by the Society for Human Resource Management, one out of every three American adults is or has previously been in a workplace romance. Given this reality, coupled with the #MeToo movement and the resulting renewed emphasis on preventing workplace sexual harassment, it is important to have a basic understanding of the key practical and legal issues surrounding workplace relationships. Below are answers to five common questions.

1. Is workplace romance unlawful?

No. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the primary federal law governing sexual harassment in the workplace. Two coworkers having a consensual romantic relationship does not, by itself, violate Title VII. Legal and/or employee relations issues can arise, for example, when romantic relationships involve supervisors and subordinates, when a romance “goes bad,” when there are concerns with favoritism, or when two coworkers bring their romance into the workplace in a way that makes others uncomfortable.

2. When does a workplace romance cross the line?

It is impossible to identify all behaviors that may violate Title VII. Fundamentally, the statute prevents harassment because of a person’s sex. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), “[u]nwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual’s employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.”

Harassment can include offensive remarks or physical behavior. While Title VII does not generally prevent teasing, offhand comments, or other isolated incidents, such behavior can rise to the level of harassment if it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile work environment. The harasser can be a supervisor, an agent of an employer, a coworker, or even a nonemployee. The victim of sexual harassment can be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.

3. Aren’t some workplace relationships beneficial?

Yes. Research has shown that, generally, employees who form genuine relationships with their coworkers and supervisors are happier and more engaged at work, and less likely to leave for another company. Many employers encourage connections between supervisors and subordinates to improve workplace culture. The concept of a “work spouse,” referring to a coworker with whom an employee has a close personal relationship, is increasingly common given the amount of time many employees spend in the workplace. Studies suggest that this kind of tight bond can increase employee motivation, productivity, and retention. Workplace relationships can, however, become the source of legal or practical woes if boundaries are crossed.

4. What can employers do?

Most employers have sexual harassment policies outlining their expectations regarding behavior in the workplace. Employers may also want to provide regular training relating to those policies—in some states, such as California, Connecticut, Illinois, and New York, such training is required. In addition, given the risks relating to workplace romance, employers may also want to consider implementing policies outlining employee conduct expectations related to romantic relationships with coworkers or even third parties, such as vendor employees. There are a variety of permutations to such policies, and some employers prohibit romantic relationships altogether. Others prohibit only romantic relationships between employees and their supervisors. Sometimes, such policies identify the situations in which romantic relationships are permitted (e.g., employees working in different departments) or the potential consequences of romantic relationships (e.g., an employee’s being transferred or having his or her employment terminated).

5. What is a “love contract”?

With a workplace romance, particularly one involving a supervisor and subordinate, there is some risk that an employee may allege that a relationship was involuntary. To mitigate that risk, some employers require employees to disclose any workplace romance and enter into a consensual relationship agreement, commonly called a “love contract.” A love contract is a written acknowledgment signed by both employees involved in a relationship confirming the voluntary and mutual nature of the relationship. Generally, a love contract states that both employees have received, read, and understood the company’s anti-harassment policy and that the relationship does not violate the policy. Love contracts can be perceived negatively by employees, so it is prudent to carefully consider their pros and cons.

© 2020, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

For more on HR-related concerns, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

Happy New Year! – Prepare to Track Time of More Employees or Increase Salaries

The US Department of Labor finally released its highly anticipated changes to the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This rule, which goes into effect on January 1, 2020, will make more employees eligible for overtime because it updates the minimum salary thresholds necessary to exempt certain employees from the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime pay requirements, as it will:

  • Raise the salary level from the current $455 per week to $684 per week (or $35,568 per year for a full-year worker)
  • Raise the total annual compensation level for highly compensated employees from the current $100,000 per year to $107,432 per year
  • Allow employers to use nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) that are paid at least annually to satisfy up to 10 percent of the salary level
  • Revise the special salary levels for workers in US territories and in the motion picture industry

This means all employees who are paid a salary falling below the new salary threshold will be non-exempt beginning on January 1, 2020. Said another way, these employees will be eligible for overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

Remind Me About the Exemptions Affected

The FLSA generally requires employees to be paid at least minimum wage for every hour worked, and overtime (time and a half) for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Certain employees are “exempt” from the FLSA’s minimum wage, overtime, and record-keeping requirements. Key here are the “white collar” exemptions, namely the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions, which depend on three things:

  1. The employee must be paid on a “salaried basis,” meaning the employee receives a fixed, guaranteed minimum amount for any workweek in which the employee performs any work. This means there can be no change in salary regardless of the hours worked.
  2. The employee must be paid a minimum salary of, as of January 1, 2020, $684 per week ($35,658 annually).
  3. However, paying a sufficient salary is not enough — the employee must also perform exempt job duties under one of the exemptions to satisfy this test. (Notably, the new rule did not make any changes to the job duties test, despite ambiguity and years of employer confusion.)

Let’s reiterate this important point again: to be exempt under one of these exemptions, all three prongs above must be satisfied.

I’m Busy — Can I Deal with This Later?

We wouldn’t recommend that. It’s time to start preparing because there are many moving parts when making classification decisions, and, as we all know, 2020 will be here sooner than we think. Also, we suspect these won’t be unilateral decisions made by the human resources department but that others will need to be involved; for most companies, that won’t happen overnight, as it may require significant analysis of the budgetary impact of potential salary increases before employee classifications can be finalized.

So what can you do now? We suggest you start by identifying employees who are currently classified as exempt but whose salaries fall below the new $684 weekly salary. Then, try to estimate the number of hours worked by the employee each workweek, which may be more difficult than it sounds, since exempt workers typically don’t track their time. Depending on the employee’s salary and the number of hours worked, you’ll want to consider whether you’re going to raise the employee’s pay to meet the new threshold or reclassify the employee as non-exempt and pay overtime; and, if you’re going to reclassify the employee, you’ll have to determine how and what the employee will be paid. You should go through the same analysis for those employees who are classified as exempt under the highly compensated employee exemption if their annual salary falls below the new $107,432 threshold.

Think you’re done? Wait, there’s more! Once you identify employees who will be reclassified, you’re going to need to craft your message to explain the changes and new expectations. You may need to develop new policies and/or train the newly non-exempt employees (and possibly their supervisors) on the company’s timekeeping policies as well as on the consequences for failing to follow them. Remember that the FLSA provides strict record-keeping requirements for employers to track the working hours of non-exempt employees. And you may be faced with the need to soothe the egos of employees who feel like being paid hourly is beneath them. (We know this sounds silly, but these morale concerns are real.)

Finally, if you have concerns about the classification of any of your other employees, or if it has simply been awhile since your employee classifications were reviewed, this is a prime time to conduct a general audit of your wage and hour practices. With many employees across the country, and likely within your own organization, being reclassified and becoming eligible for overtime come January 1, you’ll be able to make changes to the classification of other employees who may not meet any exemptions while drawing less attention.

© 2019 Jones Walker LLP

For more on the New DOL Overtime Rule, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.

Job Applicant Pay History Inquiries Now Off-Limits in Illinois

As of September 29, 2019, Illinois employers may not ask job applicants or their prior employers about salary history. The change comes after Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed an amendment to the Illinois Equal Pay Act of 2003.

The New Requirements

The Illinois Equal Pay Act of 2003 made it illegal to pay employees differently on the basis of sex or the employee’s status as an African American, subject to exceptions. The impetus behind the law is to address historic pay disparities for the same or substantially similar work. The amendment now takes the law a step further to address the practice of using pay histories of applicants to set wages (including benefits and other compensation). Specifically, the amendment makes the following additions to the Illinois Equal Pay Act of 2003:

  • Employers, including employment agencies, may not screen out applicants on the basis of their current or prior wage history by setting a maximum or minimum wage level that applicants must satisfy.
  • Employers may not request or require disclosure of an applicant’s wage history as a condition of employment.
  • More specifically, employers may not request or require disclosure of an applicant’s wage history as a condition of being considered for employment, being interviewed, continuing to be considered for employment, or receiving a job offer.
  • Employers may not seek the wage history of an applicant from any current or prior employer.

If an applicant voluntarily discloses his or her pay history this does not create a violation. However, the employer cannot then use the voluntarily disclosed pay history in consideration of employment, an offer of compensation, or setting future wages, benefits, and other compensation.

What Are Employers Permitted to Do?

While employers cannot look into the wage histories of applicants, they are still permitted to share salary and benefit information about the position the applicant seeks. Employers can also discuss salary expectations with applicants without running afoul of the law.

Employers with Illinois employees should review their recruitment and compensation practices, including paper applications and online forms, to remove any references and requests regarding an applicant’s pay history. Further, human resources employees should be trained on appropriate recruitment procedures for Illinois employees.

©2019 von Briesen & Roper, s.c

For more state salary history bans, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.

New Jersey and New York Further Strengthen Wage and Hour Laws to Protect Employees: Part 1 – NJ Developments

On August 6, 2019, New Jersey substantially amended its wage and hour laws in several critical respects by, among other provisions, expanding the statute of limitations, increasing damages and criminal penalties, strengthening anti-retaliation provisions and, overall, making it easier and more lucrative for employees to prevail on wage and hour claims. The new “Wage Theft” Law is effective immediately, except for one provision identified below. Here is a summary of the key provisions:

    • The Statute of Limitations Expands from 2 to 6 years – The amendment triples the amount of time available to file claims for unpaid minimum wage and overtime payments, thereby tripling the potential damages available to employees. New Jersey now joins New York in implementing a 6-year statute of limitations for such claims. In contrast, the statute of limitations under federal law remains at 2 years or 3 years, depending on whether a willful violation was committed.

    • Liquidated Damages – The amendment provides that, in addition to having to pay earned, unpaid wages, employers also will be liable for liquidated damages of up to 200% of the wages owed. Previously, liquidated damages were not available under New Jersey law. A limited “good faith” defense will be available to first-time violators under certain circumstances.

    • Anti-Retaliation – The amendment expands the anti-retaliation provisions by making it a disorderly persons offense to take retaliatory action by discharging or otherwise discriminating against an employee for making a complaint, instituting an action, or informing other employees about their rights concerning wages and hours of work.There is a rebuttable presumption of retaliation for adverse actions taken within 90 days of an employee filing a complaint with the Department of Labor or a court action. Liquidated damages are available for claims of retaliation.

    • Fines and Penalties – It is now a disorderly persons offense for an employer to (i) knowingly fail to pay wages, compensation or benefits when due, (ii) take retaliatory action, or (iii) fail to pay agreed-upon wages within 30 days of the date when payment is due. An employer who commits any such offense must pay wages due plus 200% of that amount in liquidated damages, reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees, a fine of $500 for a first offense (which increases for subsequent offenses) and, under certain circumstances, an additional penalty of 20% of wages due and/or imprisonment. The amendment provides for a broad definition of “employer” to include officers of a corporation and “any agents having the management of that corporation.”

    • Creation of a New Crime – The amendment creates a new crime of “pattern of wage nonpayment” for a person convicted of violating certain provisions of the Criminal Justice Code and/or wage and hour laws on two or more occasions. Though this is classified as a “3rd – degree” crime, there is no presumption of nonimprisonment. This provision will become effective three months from the August 6 enactment date.

    • Joint and Successor Liabilities – The amendment expands the circumstances under which organizations may now be held liable as joint or successor employers.

    • Failure to Maintain Records – The amendment provides that employers who fail to produce required records are subject to a rebuttable presumption that allegations by the employee concerning the time period the employee was employed and the wages that are due are true.

    • Employer Notice Requirement – The amendment imposes a new written notice obligation on employers. NJ employers will be required to distribute both to current employees and new hires a form the NJ Department of Labor and Workforce Development will publish.

Take Aways

Wage and hour compliance has long been a vulnerable area for employers, and New Jersey employers must now contend with wage and hour protections that are among the strongest in the nation. It is more imperative than ever for New Jersey employers to (i) properly classify workers, where warranted, as employees rather than as independent contractors, (ii) properly classify employees as exempt or non-exempt from overtime requirements, (iii) timely pay employees all wages, compensation and benefits due, including overtime, and (iv) maintain required wage and hour records for at least 6 years.

 

© Copyright 2019 Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.
For more wage-hour laws, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.

Does Inconsistency Always Kill the Cat?

Spoiler alert – this article doesn’t have anything to do with cats. But it is about something you hear all the time from employment attorneys. You have to be consistent when it comes to enforcing your attendance policies and plant rules. You have to treat all employees the same. If you don’t, there is a huge risk you won’t be successful in defending your disciplinary decisions in labor arbitrations and employment litigation. As a general rule, this is excellent advice.

Does this mean, though, that you absolutely have to be consistent 100% of the time? If you make an exception to your attendance policy by giving a particular employee one last chance (other than for reasons relating to the ADA or the FMLA), will that be the end of your ability to enforce the policy?

Will excusing a violation of a plant rule in one instance mean you can never enforce it? Will your company be a victim of the “no good deed goes unpunished” rule?

The answer is that if you make exceptions sparingly, and wisely, you will probably be okay. Here are some tips that will put you in a better position to defend the (very) occasional exception:

  1. Make sure you have a compelling reason for making an exception, something that really makes this employee’s situation very different from other cases (e.g., some combination of a long service employee, an otherwise outstanding overall record, and a believable and sympathetic explanation from the employee as to why there was a problem and why it won’t be repeated).
  2. Document why you made an exception. Two years from now, when you are defending an employment litigation and the plaintiff is pointing out how he/she was treated “worse” than the employee for whom you made an exception, you will be in a far better position to remember and explain why you made the exception, and have a judge or jury decide the exception shouldn’t be held against you, if you have contemporaneous documentation explaining the exception.
  3. Be extremely judicious in your use of exceptions. If lack of consistency becomes the rule, rather than the exception, you are going to have a very hard time enforcing your policies and rules.
  4. Make sure the circumstance in front of you today (when you are not making an exception) really is different from the circumstance where you made an exception two years ago. In other words, if the employee you are considering disciplining now is in substantially the same boat as the employee for whom you made an exception, you should rethink whether to impose the discipline.

None of this is meant to minimize the problems that can be caused by inconsistent treatment. Even the EEOC, however, recognizes that there are circumstances where disparate treatment is justifiable. Enforce your rules and policies consistently, but don’t be afraid to make an exception where circumstances, and fairness, demand it.

© 2019 Foley & Lardner LLP
For more in employment  & scheduling, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment page.

Maryland’s Montgomery County Joins Jurisdictions Increasing Minimum Wage to $15.00

Montgomery County, Maryland, where the minimum wage already is $11.50, is set to join two states (California and New York), the neighboring District of Columbia and at least six local jurisdictions (Flagstaff (Arizona), Los Angeles, Minneapolis, San Francisco, San Jose, SeaTac and Seattle) that have enacted legislation increasing the minimum wage for some or all private sector employees to $15 over the next several years.

On November 7, 2017 the Montgomery County Council unanimously passed Bill 28-17, which increases the minimum wage for “large employers” — those with 51 or more employees in the county — to $15.00 by July 1, 2021, with intermediate increases to $12.25 on July 1, 2018, $13.00 on July 1, 2019, and $14.00 on July 1, 2020.

The bill also increases the minimum wage to $15.00 by July 1, 2023 for “mid-sized employers,” those who (1) employ 11 to 50 employees; (2) have tax exempt status under IRC Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; or (3) provide “home health services” or “home or community based services,” as defined under federal Medicaid regulations and receive at least 75% of gross revenues through state and federal medical programs.

The bill additionally increases the minimum wage to $15.00 by July 1, 2024 for “small employers” — those with 10 or fewer employee (including non-profits and Medicaid funded home health and home or community based service providers of that size) — with intermediate increases to $12.00 on July 1, 2018, $12.50 on July 1, 2019, $13.00 on July 1, 2020, $13.50 on July 1, 2020, $14.00 on July 1, 2022 and $14.50 on July 1, 2023.

Notably, the rates of increases  is considerably slower than in the neighboring District of Columbia, which is already at $12.50 and will reach $15.00 on July 1, 2020 for all private sector employers.

In addition, the bill includes an “opportunity wage” that allows payment of a wage equal to 85% of the County minimum wage to an employee under the age of 20 for the first six months of employment.

The bill further adopts provisions to automatically adjust the minimum wage rate (1) for large employers annually starting July 1, 2022 to reflect average increases in the CPI-W for Washington-Baltimore for the previous year, and (2) for mid-sized and small employers starting July 1, 2024 and 2025, respectively, to reflect the same CPI-W increase for the previous year, plus one percent of the previous year’s required minimum wage, up to a total increase of $0.50, until the rate is equal to the amount for large employers. An employer’s size is calculated as of the time it first becomes subject to the law, and it remains subject to the applicable schedule regardless of the number of employees employed in subsequent years.

In addition, the Director of Finance must make certifications by January 31 of each year from 2018 through 2022 regarding certain reductions in county private employment, negative growth in the gross domestic product, or whether the U.S. economy is in recession. If certain targets are for that year, for no more than two times.

The bill specifically addresses concerns the County Executive expressed in vetoing a prior version of the bill that passed by a narrow majority in January 2017, by postponing the prior effective dates for large and small employers by one and two years, respectively; increasing from 26 to 51 the number of employees required to be a larger employer; creating a new mid-size employer category of 11 to 50 employees and defining a small employer as one with ten or fewer employees; and adding non-profits and Medicaid funded home health and home health services providers with more than ten employees to the extended schedule for mid-size employers. The County Executive has stated that he will sign the bill.

Notably, it is likely that an effort will be made in the upcoming state legislative session to further increase the state minimum wage, already at $9.25 and set to go to $10.10 on July 1, 2018.

This post was written by Brian W. Steinbach of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.,©2017

For more Labor & Employment legal analysis, go to The National Law Review

US Attorney General Jefferson Sessions Issues New Guidance On Transgender Employees

Yesterday, U.S. Attorney General Jefferson Sessions issued new guidance reversing the federal government’s former position that gender identity is protected under Title VII.

In a memo sent to the heads of all federal agencies and the U.S. attorneys, the attorney general stated that as a matter of law, “Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on gender identity per se.” The memorandum further stated the DOJ will take the position in all pending and future matters that Title VII does not protect against discrimination on the basis of gender identity or transgender status.

Sessions’ memo explains Title VII expressly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex but makes no reference to gender, and that courts have interpreted “sex” to mean biologically male or female. Sessions concluded employers may differentiate on the basis of sex in employment practices, so long as the practices do not expose members of one sex to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which the other sex is not exposed. The memo highlighted sex-specific bathrooms as such an example. Sessions explained while Title VII prohibits “sex-stereotypes,” insofar as that sort of sex-based consideration causes disparate treatment between men and women, Title VII is not properly construed to proscribe employment practices that take into account the sex of employees, but do not impose different burdens on similarly situated members of each sex.

This guidance reverses and withdraws previous guidance by Attorney General Eric Holder in a December 15, 2014 memorandum in which Holder stated Title VII prohibits employers from using “sex-based considerations,” such as gender identity, in employment decisions. Sessions’ memo also runs contrary to the current position of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which treats discrimination against an employee on the basis of gender identity, including transgender status and sexual orientation, as violations of Title VII.

Currently, there is a split of authority in the courts on whether sex discrimination under Title VII includes discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sex stereotyping, and thus prohibits discrimination against transgender individuals. The U.S. Supreme Court will likely have to resolve the issue in the future, but may issue some relevant guidance this term in the Gloucester County School Board v. G.G. case (involving issues of a school district’s obligations to a transgender student).

While it is now the position of the Department of Justice that Title VII protections do not extend to transgender individuals, employers should still be careful to avoid discrimination on the basis of gender identity, as the law is still unsettled. As Attorney General Sessions’ memorandum notes, there are still federal statutes that prohibit discrimination against transgender persons, and states and localities may have additional protections. Moreover, the EEOC could still bring suit against employers who engage in transgender discrimination.

This post was written by Allison L. Goico & Hayley Geiler of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved., © 2017
For more Labor & Employment legal analysis, go to The National Law Review