Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

In a statement issued last week, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, along with state house and senate leadership, announced that lawmakers had agreed to implement a three-month delay to the Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) law, which Hunton Andrews Kurth, LLP previously reported about here. In the joint statement, the leaders explained:

To ensure that businesses have adequate time to implement the state’s Paid Family and Medical Leave program, the House, Senate, and Administration have agreed to adopt a three-month delay to the start of the required contributions to the program. We will also adopt technical changes to clarify program design. We look forward to the successful implementation of this program this fall.

In Corona Regional Medical Center v. Sali, No. 18-1262 (May 3, 2019), the Supreme Court recently dismissed a petition for a writ of certiorari that would have resolved a circuit split as to whether expert testimony must be admissible to be considered at the class certification stage.  As a result, the Ninth Circuit remains one of only two circuits that have ruled workers are not required to submit admissible evidence to support a motion for class certification.  In contrast, the Second, Third, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits have all held that expert testimony must be admissible to be considered at the class certification stage.

Paid Family and Medical Leave, or PFML, is fast approaching and Massachusetts employers need to begin preparing for the upcoming July 1, 2019 effective date.

Not only do employers need to understand their obligations, but there are affirmative actions they must take now – which is well in advance of the January 1, 2021 commencement of the benefits taking effect.

Originally published in The Business Journals, Jayde Brown and Alan Marcius discuss considerations when accommodating nursing mothers in the workplace.  Read more here.

Originally posted on the Hunton Retail Law Resource Blog, members of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee recently announced a bipartisan committee of senators to consider federal paid family leave policy.  Read more here.

A new Virginia law will require employers to provide current or former employees with copies of certain employment-related documents upon request.

Effective July 1, 2019, Virginia employers must provide a copy of a limited set of employment documents to employees upon receipt of a written request for such information from the employee, her attorney or an authorized insurer.  The law applies to current and former employees, and allows an employer 30 days to produce the documents after receipt of the request.

In a recent advice memorandum, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) set forth its position that drivers for the rideshare company Uber are independent contractors, not employees, for purposes of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).  This means that the Board, as it is currently comprised, will not entertain efforts of drivers to unionize or seek other protections under the NLRA.  Because it is only a directive from the Board’s General Counsel, as opposed to a decision by the five-member Board, the advice memorandum is not appealable to a federal appellate court, and those who oppose the Board’s position will not have judicial recourse.  The Board’s advice memorandum comes on the heels of the Department of Labor’s recent opinion letter stating that workers for a “virtual marketplace company that operates in the so-called ‘on-demand’ or ‘sharing’ economy” are not employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and thus not covered by the law’s minimum wage and overtime requirements.

Originally published in The Business Journals, Jayde Brown and Alan Marcius discuss considerations when creating an electronic communications policy.  Read more here. 

California First Appellate District’s recent decision in Subcontracting Concepts, LLC v. DeMelo, A152205 (April 10, 2019) applies well-established unconscionability principles to an arbitration agreement signed by an employee of an independent contractor.

The employee, DeMelo, was hired directly by Express Messenger Systems, Inc. (d/b/a OnTrac), which contracted with Subcontracting Concepts, LLC (SC).  At the start of his eCamployment, DeMelo was required to sign SC’s “Owner/Operator Agreement,” a five-page, 27-paragraph agreement with an arbitration clause in paragraph 26.  Two and one-half years later, DeMelo filed a wage claim with the California Labor Commissioner. The two corporate entities and several individually-named supervisors petitioned to compel arbitration and stay the Labor Commissioner proceeding.  The San Francisco Superior Court denied the petition, finding the arbitration agreement to be unconscionable. The First Appellate District agreed, and certified this case for publication.

On April 10, 2019, the California Court of Appeals, Second District, in Diaz v. Sohnen Enterprises, 2019 S.O.S. 1722, ruled that an employee impliedly consents to an arbitration agreement by simply continuing to work, despite never signing the arbitration agreement and even outright rejecting it.

Prior to distributing arbitration agreements to its employees, Sohnen notified them that it was adopting a new dispute resolution policy requiring arbitration of all claims and specified that continued employment would constitute an implied consent of the agreement’s terms.  One of Sohnen’s employees, Erika Diaz, verbally rejected the arbitration agreement but nevertheless continued working at Sohnen.

New legislation requires that New York employers provide annual, interactive anti-harassment training.  What does this mean for your business?  Hint: that training video you’ve been showing to new employees for years is no longer sufficient.  Failing to provide the training could result in hefty penalties.    

 Partners J.R. England and Ryan Bates discuss “Things You Need to Know in 5 Minutes or Less” here.

Originally published by Law360, Robert Quackenboss and Madalyn Doucet discuss the “faith at work” movement and what it means to employers.  

Originally published in The Business Journals, Jayde Brown and Alan Marcius discuss proactive ways for employers to investigate complaints in the #metoo era.  

Massachusetts’ highest court, The Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”), recently issued its long awaited decision in Sullivan v. Sleepy’s LLC, SJC-12542, in which the SJC responded to certified questions of first impression from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The case is particularly important for businesses which pay employees through commissions or draws (i.e., advances on commissions), particularly in the retail context where the ruling departs considerably from federal law.

Originally published in The Business Journals, Jayde Brown and Alan Marcius discuss proactive steps small businesses can take to avoid common employment-related legal problems.  Read more here. 

To all employers in Washington DC who employ tipped workers, heed this warning: as of July 1, 2019, you must comply with new notice, reporting, and training requirements, as set forth in the Tipped Wage Workers Fairness Amendment Act of 2018 (the “Act”).  The Act, which became effective December 13, 2018, repealed a ballot initiative (Initiative No. 77) that would have changed how tipped workers in DC would have been paid to eventually match the standard minimum wage by 2026.  With the goal of protecting the rights of tipped workers, the Act sets forth the following requirements for all employers of tipped workers in the District:

On May 2, 2019, the Ninth Circuit ruled in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, holding that the new independent contractor test established by the California Supreme Court in its 2018 decision in Dynamex v. Superior Court applies retroactively to franchisors. As a result of this decision, employers and franchisors who have classified workers as independent contractors may see an increase in wage and hour class actions alleging that the workers are or have been misclassified. Additionally, the decision has serious implications for any California companies that operate under a franchise business model.

In a positive development for employers, the California Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for an employer in a class action alleging willful violations of the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA” or “Act”).  In Culberson v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, the plaintiffs alleged Disney willfully violated two provisions of the FCRA: (1) plaintiffs alleged Disney’s disclosures letting job applicants know they may be subject to a consumer report were not contained in a standalone document; and (2) plaintiffs alleged Disney rejected some applicants based on information in their consumer reports without first providing the notice required by the FCRA.  In affirming summary judgment, the court concluded that it need not decide whether Disney violated the FCRA, because the court found that any such violation was not willful. 

Many workplace policies and employee handbooks contain restrictions on employees speaking to the media.  Through these policies, employers often seek to limit what organizational information is disclosed to third parties, and to exercise at least some control over statements that may be attributed to the company.  Such restrictions, though, may be found to violate employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act (“the Act”) due to overbreadth when not drafted carefully.  And, while the National Labor Relations Board in the Trump era has seemed willing to revisit pro-worker rulings, the General Counsel last month released an Advice Memorandum affirming this long-standing precedent.

Earlier this month, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) settled a long-standing debate amongst opposing parties in wage-hour class actions regarding the standard for class certification. The SJC’s decision in Gammella v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., No. SJC-12604, 2019 WL 1575527, definitively establishes that Rule 23 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure – viewed as a stricter standard for certification and the same civil standard applicable to most other Massachusetts state court class actions – is the applicable standard for determining class certification in wage and hour cases.   The SJC also weighed in on satisfaction of the “numerosity” requirement for certification under Rule 23 and held that a rejected offer of judgment to a named plaintiff that covers all potential damages does not cut off that plaintiff’s claims.

Background

The Department of Labor earlier this month proposed employer-friendly amendments to its rules regarding joint employer liability under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the DOL proposed the adoption of a four-factor test to assess joint employer status under the FLSA.  The test would consider an employer’s actual exercise of significant control over the terms and conditions of an employee’s work, rather than attenuated control or contractually reserved control that goes unexercised.

Each year, the California Chamber of Commerce (“Chamber”) identifies proposed state legislation that the Chamber believes “will decimate economic and job growth in California.”  The Chamber refers to these bills as “Job Killers.” In March, the Chamber identified the first two Job Killers of 2019: AB 51 and SB 1. Both bills would negatively impact retailers in California. You can view the Chamber’s Job Killer site here.

Continue Reading

Today, New York City’s anti-sexual harassment training law goes into effect. Under the new law, private employers must provide annual “interactive” sexual harassment training to their entire workforce, including some independent contractors and part-time employees. The NYC law is similar—but not identical—to a recently enacted New York state law mandating sexual harassment training.

In the wake of the #MeToo movement, the EEOC reconvened its task force on sexual harassment in June 2018.  Most recently, in a continued effort  to focus on leading harassment prevention efforts, the EEOC organized the “Industry Leaders Roundtable Discussion on Harassment Prevention.” On March 20, 2019, the EEOC held a roundtable discussion with various industry leaders to strategize regarding effective harassment prevention efforts and to “inform strategies for the next generation of issues flowing” from the EEOC’s task force reports and the #MeToo movement. Top tier representatives from national associations of homebuilders, manufacturers, human resources, retailers, hospitality providers and others attended and offered their perspectives.

The U.S. Department of Labor on Thursday issued its new proposal to amend the salary threshold for employees to qualify for the Fair Labor Standards Act’s white-collar exemptions from overtime pay requirements to $35,308 per year ($679 per week).

The much-anticipated proposed rule would raise the minimum annual salary requirement for the white-collar exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act from $23,600, a level that has been in place since 2004.  The DOL estimates that the rule change will make just more than one million new employees eligible to earn overtime, assuming that employers do not increase employees’ salary levels to meet or exceed the new level.

Employers breathed a collective sigh of relief in August 2017, when the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced it was staying the requirement that employers report W-2 wage information in the annual EEO-1 Report.   Now, though, the reprieve seems over.  On March 4, 2019, the District of Columbia Federal Court ruled that OMB improperly issued the stay without good cause, and put the wage report back into effect.  See National Women’s Law Center v OMB, No. 1:17-cv-2458 (D.D.C.  March 4, 2019).

Historically, bank executives have faced civil liability for breach of contract and violations of state laws governing the misappropriation of trade secrets for misusing their employer’s confidential and proprietary information. However, a recent “notice of intent to prohibit” issued by the Federal Reserve indicates that bank executives may now face a much harsher consequence than mere civil liability for misappropriating their employers’ information — namely, a ban from the business of banking altogether.

Continue

This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court punted a key Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) case back to the Ninth Circuit because the decision’s author, Judge Stephen Reinhardt, passed away shortly before the decision was formally issued.

Yovino v. Rizo is a significant EPA case that has been winding its way through the courts for years.  In 2017, a Ninth Circuit panel held that a wage differential based on prior salary can qualify as a “factor other than sex” under the EPA.  But, in 2018, the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, came to the opposite conclusion: “prior salary alone or in combination with other factors cannot justify a wage differential.”  The en banc opinion was authored by Judge Reinhardt, who passed away 11 days before the decision was issued.  The opinion acknowledged the Judge’s passing with a footnote stating that voting had been completed and the decision was written prior to his death. 

If your background check forms include too much information about rights under state law, or even grammatical errors, you might be in trouble according to the Ninth Circuit.  In Gilberg v. California Check Cashing Stores, the appeals court recently ruled against an employer for using background check disclosure forms that violate both the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA).

As anticipated and previously reported, the Republican-controlled Board is overturning Obama-era rulings. For example, in a recent decision, SuperShuttle Inc. DFW, Inc. (16-RC-010963), the National Labor Relations Board affirmed the Board’s adherence to the traditional common-law agency test.  This decision overrules the NLRB’s 2014 Decision, FedEx Home Delivery, 361 NLRB No. 65, which had modified the NLRB’s long-standing test for independent contractor status.

The California Second Appellate District has held that retail employees who were required to “call in” two hours before their scheduled shift to find out if they actually needed to report to work were entitled to reporting time pay. The Court held that California retail employees do not need to physically appear at the workplace in order to “report for work,” and be entitled to reporting time pay, under the Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Order 7.  Given the robust dissent and sweeping change this decision could bring about, this is a case to watch as it may find its way to the California Supreme Court.

The presence of alcohol in offices has ebbed and flowed over time and largely depended on the type of business, from drink carts in advertising agencies à la Mad Men to keg refrigerators at startups. The once popular office perk may or may not be waning, but the number of companies addressing the issue and the attention those decisions are generating is certainly increasing. Companies across the country are evaluating their alcohol policies, or lack thereof, particularly in light of #MeToo developments and are considering the following:

2018 was a big year for insurance coverage cases, especially those involving social engineering phishing, spoofing and other schemes of trickery and deception.  The insurance recovery lawyers at Hunton Andrews Kurth have compiled their list of the top insurance cases of 2018.  A copy of the Review can be found here.

In a rare win for plaintiffs seeking to avoid arbitration, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a trucking company’s attempt to compel arbitration in a driver’s proposed minimum wage class action.  The Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act’s exemption for interstate transportation workers applies not only to employees, but also to those classified as independent contractors.

As the new year gets off to a start, employers in the retail industry will be making wage adjustments to meet current and future minimum wage increases.  Employees in 21 states around the country will see their state’s minimum wage increase.

CONTINUE READING

The Scope of the Issue

The Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) has been the source of a tremendous amount of litigation since President George H.W. Bush signed it into law in 1990.  Over the past few years, Plaintiffs’ counsel have developed a cottage industry of sorts by filing thousands of lawsuits alleging that company websites are not accessible to the blind or visually impaired, in violation of Title III of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in “places of public accommodation.”  42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).  While ADA lawsuits previously focused on physical access barriers to businesses, these new lawsuits allege that:  (1) private company websites qualify as places of public accommodation; and, (2) websites with access barriers (e.g., websites without compatible screen-reading software) deny plaintiffs the right of equal access.   Plaintiffs have also challenged the accessibility of mobile applications and online job application interfaces.

In Hernandez v. Pacific Bell Co., a California court held that employees who drive between their homes and a client worksite (in this case, a customer’s residence) using a company vehicle under the company’s voluntary vehicle take-home program need not be compensated for the commute time.

Employers failing to strictly comply with FCRA requirements in conducting background checks continue to face expensive consequences.  On November 16, 2018, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California approved a $1.2 million settlement of a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the FCRA filed against the popular pet supplies chain Petco.

In the recent election, Californians voted to add an employer-friendly provision to the Labor Code that allows emergency ambulance workers to be on-call during breaks.  California is one of 24 states that allow voters to initiate laws through the petition process.

Voters in Michigan, Utah and Missouri passed marijuana-related ballot measures in the November 2018 elections.  Michigan, which legalized medical marijuana in 2008, became the tenth state to legalize recreational use of marijuana.  Utah voters agreed to institute a formal structured medical marijuana program, greatly expanding the scope of the state’s existing medical marijuana law, and Missouri voters for the first time authorized the state to create a system of licensed marijuana dispensaries for medical purposes. Each of these measures recognizes that marijuana remains a controlled substance, and illegal, under federal law, and that authorized users, growers, physicians, and any others who properly support or participate in these programs will be shielded from liability only under state law.

In the wake of the #MeToo movement, many state legislatures have begun to take action to provide greater protections for victims of sexual harassment and make it easier for them to make complaints in the workplace.  For example, in California, AB 2770 amends Civil Code Section 47 to protect alleged victims of sexual harassment by a co-worker in making complaints to the employer without the fear of being found liable for defaming the alleged harasser.  It similarly protects employers when making statements to interested parties (such as the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and/or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) concerning the complaints of sexual harassment.  In both instances, however, the statements and/or complaints are only protected from liability for defamation if they are made without malice and based upon credible evidence.

In a new class action filed recently against a hospital housekeeping company, employees allege their employer’s fingerprint scanning time-tracking system runs afoul of privacy laws.  The Pennsylvania-based company Xanitos Inc. now faces the lawsuit in federal court in Illinois, claiming the company violated the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).

According to the National Human Trafficking Hotline, California has had the highest number of reported cases of human trafficking in the country over the last six years, followed by Texas and Florida.  Human trafficking victims include men and women, adults and children, and foreign nationals and United States citizens. Recent studies indicate that hotels and motels are common locations for sex trafficking.

In light of these startling statistics, now is a good time for employers to become informed about new legislation associated with human trafficking crimes and to implement or update their anti-human trafficking policies and practices.

Sexual harassment is a recurring theme in the bills signed into law by California Governor Jerry Brown on September 30, 2018.  These new laws, which take effect on January 1, 2019, continue the trend of expanding protections for California employees.

 Hush-Money – Three of the bills signed by Governor Brown on September 30 target settlement agreements that prohibit disclosure of sexual harassment claims. AB 3109 makes void and unenforceable any provision in a contract or settlement agreement that waives a party’s right to testify in an administrative, legislative, or judicial proceeding concerning alleged criminal conduct or sexual harassment.  SB 820 prohibits settlement agreements from including a provision that prevents the disclosure of factual information related to claims of sexual assault and sexual harassment.  However, this bill does not prohibit confidentiality of the settlement amount.  SB 1300 voids any agreement in which an employee forfeits his or her right to disclose unlawful acts in the workplace, including acts of sexual harassment.

Redefining The Hostile Work Environment Standard – SB 1300 also declares that a single incident of harassing conduct could be sufficient to create a triable issue regarding the existence of a hostile work environment in certain circumstances.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) issued a new “A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act” (“FCRA”)  (“Summary of Rights”) form on September 12, 2018.  This form replaces the previous version issued on November 12, 2012, and is expected to be implemented by employers on September 21, 2018.

Employers who operate in New York State and City are likely aware of the new sexual harassment laws that are starting to take effect.  Many companies have already revised their sexual harassment policies to comply with the new laws, but now face the hurdle of complying with the sexual harassment training requirements under both the State and City laws.

While there is overlap between the State and City requirements, there are differences that employers should note.

As we wrote about last month, on May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1632 (2018), rejecting perhaps the largest remaining obstacles to the enforcement of class action waivers in arbitration agreements in the employment context.  The Court concluded that the class action waivers did not violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).  Although the Court’s opinion also seemed dispositive of whether such agreements could be avoided under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), at least one claimant tried to continue to litigate the issue, which was disposed of last week in Gaffers v. Kelly Servs., Inc., No. 16-2210 (6th Cir. 2018).  And now the Sixth Circuit has addressed whether Epic Systems would apply to arbitration agreements with putative independent contractors who contended that they should have been treated as employees.

On May 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, holding that the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) does not prohibit the use of arbitration agreements with class/collective action waivers covered by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).   The Sixth Circuit has now concluded in Gaffers v. Kelly Services, Inc.  that the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), like the NLRA, does not bar the use of arbitration agreements with class/collective action waivers.

The National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) has taken the first step to potentially reshape labor law since the May 21, 2018 Epic Systems case, in which the Supreme Court held that class waivers in arbitration agreements do not violate the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”).

On August 15, 2018, the Board vacated its decision and order in Cordúa Restaurants, Inc., 366 NLRB No. 72 (April 26, 2018), where a three-member panel of the Board held that an employee engaged in concerted, protected activity by filing a class action wage lawsuit against his employer.

The Board’s recent vacating of this order is noteworthy for two reasons.

After the Eleventh Circuit’s holding in Asalde v. First Class Parking Systems LLC 894 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2018), more small employers may be subject to the requirements of the FLSA.  By expanding the “handling clause,” the case chips away at the degree of interstate commerce necessary for the FLSA to apply.

The California Supreme Court has ruled that California employers cannot rely on the federal de minimis doctrine to avoid claims for unpaid wages on small amounts of time.   Under the de minimis doctrine, employers may be excused from paying workers for small amounts of otherwise compensable time if the work is irregular and administratively difficult to record.  Federal Courts have frequently found that daily periods of approximately 10 minutes are de minimis even though otherwise compensable.

In Troester v. Starbucks Corporation, the California Supreme Court held that California wage and hour laws have not adopted the FLSA’s de minimis doctrine.  As a result, Starbucks was not permitted to avoid paying an employee who regularly spent several minutes per shift working off-the-clock.  The Supreme Court acknowledged, however, that there may be circumstances involving “employee activities that are so irregular or brief in duration that it would not be reasonable to require employers to compensate employees for the time spent on them.”

Criminal Background Inquiries in the Hiring Process:  Class Action Litigation and “Ban the Box” Trends in 2018

Wednesday, August 8, 2018 1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. ET

Speakers

Robert T. Quackenboss Partner, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Washington, DC

Susan Joo Associate, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP San Francisco, CA

In AHMC Healthcare, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. B285655 (June 25, 2018) (“AHMC Healthcare”), California’s Second District Court of Appeals upheld an employer’s use of a payroll system that automatically rounds employee time up or down to the nearest quarter hour.  Although the California Supreme Court has not yet addressed this issue, AHMC Healthcare aligns with decisions from the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, many federal district courts, and California’s Fourth District Court of Appeals, which also upheld time-rounding practices.

As website accessibility lawsuits continue to surge, places of public accommodation oftentimes battle multiple lawsuits filed by different plaintiffs represented by different attorneys.  Even after entering into private settlements, which include detailed website remediation plans, defendants may continue to be the target of these lawsuits by copycat plaintiffs.  The Eleventh Circuit recently addressed this dynamic head-on, and held that a private settlement entered into by Hooters and a first-filed plaintiff did not moot a nearly identical, later-filed website accessibility lawsuit by a different plaintiff.  This case underscores the importance of quickly remediating website accessibility issues, as well as taking care to draft settlement agreements to maximize arguments that future lawsuits are barred.

The Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), confers federal subject matter removal jurisdiction over purported class actions filed in state court when, among other things, there is an amount-in-controversry (“AIC”) exceeding $5,000,000.  Deciding whether a class action can be properly removed under CAFA typically turns on whether this high jurisdictional threshold can be met.

Andrea Mickles filed a complaint against her employer Country Club Inc., alleging it had violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by improperly classifying her and other employees as independent contractors and failing to pay them minimum wage and overtime.  She filed her case as a collective action, and others opted into the case before any ruling on conditional certification.  Those opt-ins eventually provided the Eleventh Circuit with an opportunity to address an issue of first impression in any Circuit: What is the status of individuals who opt into a case that is never conditionally certified?

Legislative responses to the #metoo movement continue to develop across the country.   Joining this movement, New York State and New York City recently have passed some of the strongest anti-harassment laws on the books.  Below is a summary of key elements for private employers: 

A magistrate judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon recently made findings and recommendations to dismiss a purported class action against Kroger subsidiary Fred Meyer.  The suit alleges that the retailer’s background check process for prospective employees violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act by both failing to properly disclose that a report will be run, and failing to comply with the statute’s procedural requirements before taking adverse action against an applicant.

In a time when workplace violence seems to be on the rise, many companies have adopted a strict no tolerance policy even for conduct outside the workplace.  In California, however, employers need to be cognizant of the protections afforded individuals that may make such terminations riskier than the company may expect.  One employer got just such a reminder last week when a California jury returned an $18M verdict against it for terminating an employee after he was arrested for threatening his girlfriend outside of the workplace.

In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cty., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (June 17, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court established limitations on personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants in “mass actions,” a litigation strategy often utilized by plaintiffs’ class action attorneys to sue corporations in plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions that have little to no connection with the underlying dispute.  The Supreme Court determined that the requisite connection between the corporate defendant and the litigation forum must be based on more than a combination of the company’s connections with the state and the similarity of the claims of the resident plaintiffs and the non-resident claimants.  The ruling directed the dismissal of 592 non-California claims from 33 other states.  As a result, the ruling supports the view that plaintiffs cannot simply “forum shop” in large class and collective actions and instead must sue where the corporate defendant has significant contacts for purposes of general jurisdiction or limit the class definition to residents of the state where the lawsuit is filed.

New Jersey’s Paid Sick Leave Act will go into effect on October 29, 2018, making it the tenth state plus Washington DC and dozens of localities to mandate paid sick leave.

New Jersey’s Act requires employers of all sizes to provide employees with up to 40 hours of paid leave per 12-month period.  Key aspects of the new law include:

There may be some changes coming to how California enforces its antidiscrimination law, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).  In February 2017, a bill (Senate Bill 491) was introduced in the California Senate proposing to allow local government entities to enforce antidiscrimination statutes.

When a franchisor provides a California franchisee with detailed instructions about how to operate the franchise business, but allows the franchisee to manage its own workforce, can the franchisor be held liable for the franchisee’s wage and hour violations?  The California Court of Appeals found the answer to be no under the facts in Curry v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC, 2018 WL 1959472 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2018).  There, the Court of Appeals concluded Equilon Enterprises, LLC, doing business as Shell Oil Products US (“Shell”), was not liable for the alleged wage and hour violations of the company that operated its Shell-branded gas stations throughout California.

The California Supreme Court has adopted a new three-part test to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee under California’s wage orders, which regulate wages, hours, and working conditions.  The highly anticipated ruling could have wide ranging effects for businesses operating in California and beyond, as companies try to navigate the new gig economy.

On April 3, 2018, San Francisco amended its Fair Chance Ordinance, the city and county’s so-called “ban-the-box” legislation that limits how private employers can use an applicant’s criminal history in employment decisions.  The amendments, which take effect on October 1, 2018, expand the scope and penalties of the San Francisco ordinance and add to the growing framework of ban-the-box legislation across California.  The complete text of the amendment can be found here.

On February 5, 2018, the American Bar Association (ABA) adopted Resolution 302, which “urges all employers, and specifically all employers in the legal profession, to adopt and enforce policies and procedures that prohibit, prevent, and promptly redress harassment and retaliation based on sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and the intersectionality of sex with race and/or ethnicity.”

Resolution 302 was unanimously passed by voice vote of the ABA’s House of Delegates, the 601-member governing body of the country’s largest legal association, after further edits by employment lawyer Mark Schickman to strengthen its language.

In the #MeToo era, Resolution 302 is a reminder to all employers of harassment policy best practices, and should be of particular interest to employers in the legal industry.

A single paragraph in an otherwise routine opinion could have reverberations in FLSA exemption cases for years to come.

Earlier this week, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held in Encino Motorcars LLC v. Navarro et al. that auto service advisors are exempt under the FLSA’s overtime pay requirement.  While the case resolved a circuit split for a discrete exemption, the Court’s decision has broad implications for all employers.

In June, new laws will go into effect that restrict employers’ ability to request and use criminal history information about applicants in three jurisdictions: Kansas City, Missouri; the State of Washington; and the city of Spokane, Washington.

Continue Reading

The practice of “tip-pooling,” which refers to the sharing of tips between “front-of-house” staff (servers, waiters, bartenders) and “back-of-house” staff (chefs and dishwashers), has been in the news recently as the Trump Department of Labor (“DOL”) seeks to roll back a 2011 Obama-era rule limiting the practice under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

Say an employee slips $20 from the register and even admits to it when you show the camera footage.  Or, more innocently, say an employee is overpaid $20 entirely by accident.  If the employee refuses to give it back, should you deduct the $20 from the employee’s paycheck?

It depends.  Here are four questions to ask yourself. 

Under a new DOL pilot program, employers can self-report wage violations and potentially avoid costly litigation.

Last week, the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) launched a six-month pilot program to resolve FLSA violations.  Under the Payroll Audit Independent Determination (PAID) program, employers may self-report potential overtime or minimum wage violations to the WHD, which will then resolve the matter by supervising payments to employees if the employees accept the settlement.  Importantly, the WHD will not impose penalties or liquidated damages on employers that participate in the program and proactively work with the WHD to resolve the compensation errors.  Further, if an employee accepts a supervised settlement through PAID, s/he waives his or her right to file an action to recover damages and fees for the violations and time period identified by the employer.  To participate in the PAID program, an employer must identify: (1) the wage violation(s); (2) the impacted employee(s); (3) the time period(s) in which the violation(s) occurred; and (4) the amount of back wages owed to the impacted employee(s).  However, employers may not participate if they are in litigation or under investigation by the WHD for the practices at issue, or to repeatedly resolve the same potential violations.

Recently the National Labor Relations Board invited interested parties and amici to submit briefs in Velox Express, Inc. (15-CA-184006) to address under what circumstances, if any, the Board should deem an employer’s misclassifying statutory employees as independent contractors constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (“the Act”).  Briefs from parties and interested amici must be submitted on or before April 16, 2018.

The Sixth Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s summary judgment decision finding that an employer, Plastipak Holdings, Inc., Plastipak Packaging, Inc., Plastipak Technologies, LLC, Plastipak, and William C. Young (collectively, “Plastipak”) properly had paid employees using the “fluctuating workweek” method and dismissing plaintiffs’ claims for underpayment of wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

This week the LGBT community and its supporters won an important case in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  In Zarda v. Altitude Express, the Court ruled that Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination extends to same-sex, or “anti-gay,” discrimination.  In that case, Donald Zarda, a gay skydiving instructor, alleged he was unlawfully fired after a customer complained about him disclosing his same-sex orientation.

On February 1, 2018, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed an overtime class action suit brought on behalf of a group of former democratic campaign workers for their work during the 2016 presidential election.  See Katz v. DNC Services Corp., Civil Action No. 16-5800 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2018).  In dismissing the overtime suit, the Court relied on an often-overlooked defense to the Fair Labor Standard Act (“FLSA”) – namely, that the FLSA only covers employees engaged in interstate commerce as opposed to employees engaged in purely local activities.

On February 15, 2018, by a vote of 225 to 192, the House of Representatives passed the ADA Education and Reform Act (HR 620).  Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted to ensure access for persons with disabilities to public accommodations.  Too often however, serial litigants have abused Title III to shake down businesses for quick settlements over minor, technical violations without actually seeking to improve access.  By amending the ADA to include a notice and cure provision, proponents of HR 620 say this bill will curb predatory public accommodations lawsuits brought by serial plaintiffs and their lawyers against businesses.

Driven by the wave of publicity surrounding sexual harassment allegations against prominent artists, executives, news anchors, filmmakers and legislators, and the ensuing #MeToo movement, legislators in California and several other states recently have introduced bills designed to prevent such harassment.  Below we summarize four bills introduced in the California Senate and Assembly in January 2018.  Employer groups have not yet publicly mounted a challenge to any of these bills, and it is not possible to say which, if any, of these bills will move all the way through the legislative process and be signed into law by the Governor.

The Department of Justice’s top antitrust official announced that criminal charges against companies who agreed not to hire one another’s employees will be forthcoming, with announcements to be made in the coming months.

On January 8, 2018, the United States Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari seeking to overturn the Fourth Circuit’s new joint employer test under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  As a result, employers will continue to be faced with differing joint employer standards in the various federal circuits.

On Friday, January 5, 2018, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) posted a brief statement and updated its Fact Sheet on Internship Programs Under the Fair Labor Standards Act to clarify that going forward, it will use the “primary beneficiary” seven factor test for distinguishing bona fide interns from employees under the FLSA.  The DOL’s approach is consistent with the test adopted by appellate courts such as the Second and Ninth Circuits.

The 2017 Tax Act (the “Act”) imposes a 21 percent excise tax on compensation in excess of $1 million and “excess” severance paid by covered tax exempt organizations to certain employees starting in 2018.  As reflected in the Act’s legislative history, the general intent behind this excise tax is to put tax exempt organizations (which are generally exempt from income taxation) in roughly the same position tax-wise as publicly held and other for-profit companies which cannot deduct excess compensation and “golden parachute” payments paid to their covered employees.   However, unlike the changes made in the Act to the excess compensation rules for publicly traded companies, there is no transition relief for existing tax exempt organization compensation arrangements.  This means that the new excise tax will apply to all compensation paid by a covered organization to a covered employee in tax years beginning after 2017.

Set out below is an overview of the scope and application of the new excise tax provision.

Raytheon Network Centric Systems, 365 NLRB No. 161 (Dec. 15, 2017) (“Raytheon”), is one of several decisions issued this month by the National Labor Relations Board’s (the “Board”) new Republican majority which reverse Obama-era precedent.  Raytheon overrules the Board’s decision E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 364 NLRB No. 113 (2016) (“DuPont”), which limited the changes employers can make unilaterally in a union environment.  Raytheon clarifies the degree to which employers may rely on past practice to make unilateral changes to terms of employment once a collective bargaining agreement has expired, and, more specifically, offers welcome guidance to employers with regard to continuation of health benefits under those circumstances.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) seeking to repeal a 2011 rule that significantly impacted the compensation of hospitality workers.  Specifically, the NPRM proposes to allow hospitality employers to control the distribution of the tips they pool assuming their employees are paid the full minimum wage.  By way of background, the FLSA requires employers to pay employees a minimum wage (currently $7.25 per hour) plus overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a single workweek.  Employees who “customarily and regularly receive tips” must still receive the minimum wage, but employers may elect to take a “tip credit” by counting up to $5.12 per hour of those employees’ tips toward the minimum wage, meaning employers may pay a reduced wage of $2.13 to tipped employees.  Historically, employers that take the tip credit have been prohibited from sharing money from a tip-pooling system to employees who do not traditionally receive direct tips (cooks, dish washers, etc.).  In 2011, the DOL extended the tip-pooling prohibition to apply to employers even if they do not take the tip credit and pay their employees the full federal minimum wage.

On December 14, 2017, in a 3-2 decision along party lines, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) issued a decision in The Boeing Company, 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017) case.  This is a significant and long-awaited victory for employers grappling with unfair labor practice charges stemming from facially neutral workplace rules and signals the Board’s intent to retreat from regulating non-union activity.  Specifically, Boeing  rescinds the onerous workplace rule standard in Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004) in favor of a new, more rational test.

On November 10, 2017, the New York Department of Labor released a set of proposed regulations affecting the Minimum Wage Order for Miscellaneous Industries and Occupations, which applies to most employers, except hotels and restaurants. The regulations propose the following call-in pay requirements for employers:

• Reporting to work. An employee who, by request or permission of the employer, reports for work on any shift must be paid for at least four hours of call-in pay.
• Unscheduled shift. An employee who, by request or permission of the employer, reports to work for any shift for hours that have not been scheduled at least 14 days in advance of the shift must be paid an additional two hours of call-in pay.
• Cancelled shift. An employee whose shift is cancelled within 72 hours of the scheduled start of such shift must be paid for at least four hours of call-in pay.
• On-call. An employee who, by request or permission of the employer, is required to be available to report to work for any shift must be paid for at least four hours of call-in pay.
• Call for schedule. An employee who, by request or permission of the employer, is required to be in contact with the employer within 72 hours of start of the shift to confirm whether to report to work must be paid for at least four hours of call-in pay.

Date: Thursday, November 16, 2017
Time: 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM PST

Please join Hunton & Williams LLP for a complimentary webinar that will address current concerns faced by employers in California. This program, co-sponsored by Welch Consulting, will examine the following issues:

• Fair Pay issues
• Recent PAGA concerns
• “Ban the Box” and background checks
• Sick leave
• Changing local and regional ordinances
• Sexual harassment

We will also discuss ways to address potential risks proactively, including the use of statistical analyses to avoid future litigation.

We hope you can join us for ...

Gender Pay Transparency Act Vetoed.  On Sunday, October 15, California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the California Gender Pay Gap Transparency Act, AB 1209, a proposed law that would have required (1) large employers in California to collect and disclose data on how they’re paying men and women differently, and (2) the California Secretary of State to publicly post the data on a state government website.  The proposal – previously deemed a “job killer” by the California Chamber of Commerce, and characterized as the “public shaming of California employers” bill by many – was strongly opposed by the business community.  The Governor expressed concern about the proposal’s ambiguous language and expressed concern that  the ambiguity “could be exploited to encourage more litigation than pay equity.”

On October 5, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions released a formal letter on behalf of the United States Department of Justice stating the DOJ’s official position that Title VII “does not prohibit discrimination based on gender identity per se, including transgender status,” officially retracting the DOJ’s previous position under the Obama Administration and setting up a direct conflict with the EEOC’s current position on the scope of Title VII.

On August 31, 2017, a federal district court judge in Texas struck down the Department of Labor’s Obama-era controversial 2016 rule that raised the minimum salary threshold required to qualify for the Fair Labor Standards Act’s “white collar” exemption. Under the proposed regulations, the minimum salary threshold was raised to just over $47,000 per year, and increased the overtime eligibility threshold for highly compensated workers from $100,000 to about $134,000.

Continue Reading

The day employers have been waiting for, has finally arrived.  The government has indefinitely stayed the requirement that companies begin reporting “Component 2” wage data in their EEO-1 Reports.  Companies around the country are breathing a collective sigh of relief.

A New York Appellate decision issued last week—finding that firing an employee for being sexually attractive states a claim for gender discrimination—exemplifies the broad interpretation of discrimination laws in recent years.

Plaintiff Dilek Edwards worked as a yoga instructor and massage therapist for a Manhattan-based chiropractor and wellness center owned and operated by a married couple.  Edwards maintains that she was regularly praised for her performance and maintained a “purely professional” relationship with the husband-owner.

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) not only prohibits discrimination, harassment and retaliation, but goes a step farther than similar state laws in its explicit requirement that employers take reasonable steps to prevent and correct such conduct.  Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(k).  In 2016, the California Fair Employment and Housing Council promulgated regulations which set forth the required elements of a compliant prevention and correction program (2 CCR §§ 11023-11024), and in May 2017 the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) issued a Workplace Harassment Guide (the “Guide”) to clarify further employers’ obligations under these regulations.  

On June 30, 2017, Missouri Governor Eric Greitens signed a bill into law, Senate Bill 43 (SB 43), that makes substantial changes to Missouri’s employment discrimination laws. The Bill, which goes into effect on August 28, amends the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) and creates the “Whistle Blower Protection Act.”

Numerous changes have been made to the MHRA, so the Bill is worth a read.  A few key changes that are likely of particular interest to employers relate to who may be liable for violations, the level of proof required to establish a violation, and the amount of damages that may be awarded.

Massachusetts’ highest court last month became the first nationally to rule that many job applicants and employees who are medically certified to use marijuana cannot be automatically denied employment if they test positive for the drug.

Massachusetts is one of many states – now more than half – with statutes permitting marijuana use for medicinal purposes.  Those state laws protect users from criminal prosecution, but the large majority of the statutes (including in Massachusetts) are silent on whether employers are free to deny employment to those who test positive for “medical marijuana.”  Until now, every court to rule on the issue had held that employers may refuse to hire those individuals based simply on a positive test.

With this ruling, employers in the Bay State must revamp their thinking and possibly even hire or retain known medical marijuana users.

The New York City Commission on Human Rights recently amended its rules to establish certain definitions and procedures applying the Fair Chance Act.  The Act makes it unlawful to discriminate against job applicants and employees on the basis of criminal history, and is particularly important for employers for two reasons: (1) it applies not only to criminal background checks performed by third-party vendors but also to checks performed entirely by the company, and (2) out-of-state non-employers may be held liable for aiding and abetting violations of the Act.  For more on this latter point, read our prior post on the New York Court of Appeals opinion in Griffin v. Sirva, Inc.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently held in Marlow v. The New Food Guy, Inc. that an employer that pays its employees a set wage over the minimum wage can retain tips for itself and does not have to share them with employees. No. 16-1134 (10th Cir. June 30, 2017).

The New Food Guy, Inc., a Colorado company doing business as Relish Catering, employed Bridgette Marlow to provide catering services. Relish paid Marlow a base wage of $12 an hour and $18 an hour for overtime. Although this was well above the $7.25 federal minimum required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Marlow sued Relish because it did not increase her wage with a share of the tips paid by customers. Relish moved for a judgment on the pleadings and the United States District Court for the District of Colorado held in its favor. After failing to get the Colorado court to reconsider the judgment, Marlow appealed.

Washington state has enacted a paid family leave program that will go into effect in 2020. Through this enactment, Washington has joined just four other states and the District of Columbia in requiring paid leave benefits for eligible employees. Under this new law, the state insurance program will provide private-sector employees up to 12 weeks of income for leave related to childbirth, a child’s adoption, a relative’s illness, or an employee’s own health condition. An employee’s maximum combined family and medical leave will be 16 weeks a year, with an additional two weeks in cases involving pregnancy complications. The new law also requires employers to hold the employee’s job open, regardless the size of the business, until he or she returns from leave. The employer may, however, hire a temporary worker to substitute for the employee on family or medical leave.

The U.S. Department of Labor continues to work towards dismantling the Obama administration’s overtime rule, saying that it intends to revise the controversial rule to lower the salary threshold under the Fair Labor Standards Act’s white-collar exemptions. The Obama administration’s rule sought to more than double the current salary requirement of $23,660 a year for white-collar exemptions. Though the rule was estimated to make 4 million additional workers eligible for overtime pay, it was also expected to cause employers significant financial and regulatory burdens.

Georgia’s “kin care law” went into effect on July 1, 2017.  Under this new law, Georgia employers with 25+ employees must permit employees who work 30+ hours per week to use up to five hours of their earned sick leave to take care of immediate family members.  “Immediate family member” is defined as the employee’s child, spouse, grandchild, grandparent, parent, or dependents listed on the employee’s most recent tax return.

The Department of Justice’s (“DOJ’s”) often criticized rulemaking delays have resulted in no new website accessibility rules for places of public accommodation to receive notice of and implement. Notwithstanding the obvious due process concerns raised by these delays, more and more website accessibility cases are being threatened and filed every day. Most, not unexpectedly, settle. Winn-Dixie did not, and what happened next is worth a closer look.