Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

As payroll debit cards receive increased scrutiny from state agencies, the plaintiff’s bar, and the media, employers using debit cards to pay their employees’ wages should review their practices to ensure they are compliant with existing state laws and recommended best practices.

As reported on Hunton & Williams’ Privacy and Information Security Law Blog, on June 5, 2013, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied an employer’s motion to dismiss, holding that the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) can apply when an employer reads a former employee’s personal emails on a company-issued mobile device that was returned when the employment relationship terminated. The defendants, Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) and the manager who allegedly read the plaintiff’s emails, argued that the SCA applies only to ...

EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS

Vance v. Ball State University: Narrow Definition of Supervisor in Harassment Suits
In Vance, the Supreme Court announced a narrow standard for determining which employees constitute “supervisors” for purposes of establishing vicarious liability under Title VII. In a 5-4 decision, the Court decided that a supervisor is a person authorized to take “tangible employment actions,” such as hiring, firing, promoting, demoting or reassigning employees to significantly different responsibilities. The majority opinion rejected the EEOC’s ...

Now that summer is here and the interns have arrived, it is important to consider whether your interns should be paid.  A New York District Court has recently issued a decision highlighting this concern in its ruling against unpaid internships.  In Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc. interns who worked on the set of Black Swan brought suit alleging that Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc. and Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the New York Labor Laws (“NYLL”) by classifying them as unpaid interns rather than employees.  11 Civ 6784 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2013).

Last week, in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-3 ruling, reversed the Second Circuit and held that a contractual waiver of class arbitration is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) even if the cost of proving an individual claim in arbitration exceeds the potential recovery.  In holding that a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement is enforceable, even as to federal anti-trust claims, this decision builds upon the trend set in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010), AT & T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), and CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 132 S. Ct. 665 (2012) – that arbitration agreements should be enforced according to their terms even for claims under federal statutes.

A new case under the amended American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) may add to employers’ confusion over how to handle medical and disability issues.   Butler v. Louisiana Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr., No. 3:12-cv-000420 (M.D. La. 2013).  In Butler, a state trooper alleged he was “regarded as” disabled by his employer, who allegedly thought he had obsessive compulsive disorder and germaphobia.  He claimed he was placed on involuntary leave, subjected to an excessive fitness-for-duty exam, and denied overtime opportunities.  The defendant employer denied the allegations and asserted the “direct threat” defense.  It sought discovery of the plaintiff’s psychiatric records and moved to compel production when the employee objected to the requests.  The court denied the motion to compel and made several interesting pronouncements.

In Weiss v. DHL Express, Inc., the First Circuit held that the employee was not entitled to a bonus based on the language of the company’s bonus plan and the bonus plan committee’s determination that the employee had been terminated for good cause.  The Court also held that the employee had no recourse under the Massachusetts Wage Act because his bonus did not qualify as wages under the Act.  Nos. 12-1853 and 12-1864 (1st Cir. June 3, 2013).

The Supreme Court has unanimously upheld an arbitrator’s ruling that a contract that required arbitration of “any dispute” constituted an agreement to class-wide arbitration. The Court’s narrow ruling turns on the parties’ express agreement to allow the arbitrator to decide whether their contract, which contained an arbitration provision but did not mention class proceedings, authorized class arbitration. However, the opinion has significant implications for companies desiring to avoid class arbitration—and class actions generally—through provisions ...

In an article to be published this month in the Seton Hall University Law Review, Hunton & Williams partners, Terry Connor and Kevin White have challenged the authority of the EEOC to publish its April 2012 Guidance.  That Guidance interprets Title VII to impose disparate impact liability on employers who consider the criminal background of applicants for employment as a criterion for selection.

Pundits have written much about the Affordable Care Act’s forthcoming Health Insurance Exchanges, but they have paid little attention to employers’ obligations to notify employees of those Exchanges.  The state-based Exchanges, also known as the Health Insurance Marketplace, are expected to go into effect on January 1, 2014, with open enrollment beginning on October 1, 2013.  Employees may purchase health insurance through these Exchanges.

For 60 years psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have been using the American Psychiatric Association’s “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” (DSM) as the “bible” for diagnosing mental diseases and disorders.  Health and disability insurance providers  use the DSM in deciding what conditions and treatments to cover, as do government agencies in determining eligibility for benefits and services.  These and other factors make the DSM an unusually powerful document.

The latest DSM revision (the DSM-5) is set for release later this month.   It creates several new mental disorders and broadens the definition of a number of existing ones.  These changes will affect employers in a variety of ways, from expanded protection under the ADA and FMLA to increased benefit costs.  

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) announced that it won what it describes as a “historic” verdict last week when an Iowa federal jury awarded $240 million to a group of intellectually disabled plant workers who were subjected to disability-based discrimination and harassment.  The award is the largest in the agency’s history.  The EEOC’s General Counsel, David Lopez, remarked that the verdict is “one of the EEOC's finest moments in its ongoing efforts to combat employment discrimination.”

On March 13, 2013,  the New York City Council, over Mayor Bloomberg’s veto, passed a law prohibiting discrimination against the unemployed in hiring.  The law, effective June 11, 2013, amends the New York City Human Rights Law to expand the class of protected individuals to include the unemployed.  The law applies to employers in New York City who employ four or more persons (including employees and/or independent contractors).  The law defines an unemployed person as someone “not having a job, being available for work, and seeking employment” and prohibits covered employers from basing employment decisions “with regard to hiring, compensation or the terms, conditions or privileges of employment on an applicant’s unemployment.”  Additionally, it prohibits all employers from advertising that a particular position requires applicants to be currently employed or that the employer will not consider applicants who are unemployed.

Many buyers in asset sales may assume that if the seller and buyer agree that the buyer does not assume the seller’s liabilities, the buyer would have no liability for employment-related issues pertaining to the seller prior to the sale.  A recent Seventh Circuit decision authored by the influential Judge Posner in Teed v. Thomas & Betts Power Solutions, L.L.C. reminds purchasers that their assumption is not necessarily true, as the Seventh Circuit noted that when liability is based upon a violation of a federal labor or employment statute, courts apply a more aggressive standard of successor liability than the typical state-law standard to which courts might otherwise look.

The 2012-2013 flu season continues to take a toll on the workplace.  According to the Centers for Disease Control (”CDC”), this year’s flu season began four weeks earlier than most recent seasons and, as of the week ending March 9, 2013, flu season activity has remained elevated across the United States.  Having already taken the lives of 64 children, and with adult numbers  unavailable until the end of the flu season, many employers are considering the implementation of mandatory flu vaccination policies.  While such policies may serve business and safety needs of protecting their workplace and workforce, employers should ask themselves the following three questions before adopting such a policy:

A pending federal case highlights some of the wage-and-hour pitfalls emerging from the use of e-mail and smartphones.  Chicago Police Department Sergeant Jeffrey Allen originally filed his suit, alleging overtime compensation violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 2010.  On January 14, 2013, U.S. Magistrate Judge Sidney Schenkier of the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted Allen’s conditional certification for a collective action under the FLSA.  In his suit, Allen claims that the City of Chicago violated the FLSA when it failed to compensate him, an hourly non-exempt employee, and a putative class of Chicago police officers for time spent reading and responding to emails via city-issued BlackBerries outside of normal working hours.

California employers may be familiar with Wang v. Chinese Daily News, a wage-and-hour class action that has been in litigation for almost a decade. The latest decision in this case, a published opinion from the Ninth Circuit on March 4, 2013, offers a boost to defense counsel who face a class actions in this circuit.

The Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion on March 7, 2013 that eliminated an oft-used tool in the defense arsenal by limiting application of the economic loss rule to products liability cases.

Continue Reading...

Effective February 28, 2013, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP” or “Office”) has rescinded two guidance documents implemented during the Bush administration that outlined methods for investigating and evaluating pay discrimination claims against federal contractors and replaced them with new guidelines emphasizing a case-by-case approach that provides investigators with authority to conduct more thorough investigations and identify a broader range of compensation-related discrimination.  The first document, Interpreting Nondiscrimination Requirements of Executive Order 11246 With Respect to Systemic Compensation Discrimination (“Compensation Standards”), set forth the procedures OFCCP followed when issuing a notice of violation for pay discrimination; and the second document, Voluntary Guidelines for Self-Evaluation of Compensation Practices for Compliance with Nondiscrimination Requirements of Executive Order 11246 (“Voluntary Guidelines”), contained directions that federal contractors themselves could follow to preemptively show compliance with their obligation to evaluate their internal pay practices for fairness.

What should an employer do when a pregnant employee has used all of her allotted leave under CFRA (the California Family Rights Act) and PDLL (Pregnancy Disability Leave Law) but is still not yet able to return to work? Following the appellate court’s recent decision in Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc., No. B237761 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2013), the employer may be required to grant even more leave.

CNN is reporting that a Colorado school has decided that a 6-year-old boy, who identifies as a girl, and whose family is raising her as a girl, must use the boy’s bathroom or the staff or nurse’s bathroom for sick children.  The family is worried about the stigmatizing impact this would have, and is worried about bullies, and has decided to keep the child home for now. 

This story brings the national spotlight on an issue that employers are increasingly facing in the workplace. Transgender is a protected class in many cities and states across the Country, including ...

Following the Supreme Court’s game-changing decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011), courts have struggled to determine the level and nature of proof a class plaintiff must present at the class certification stage. This is especially so when it comes to the requirements related to commonality: that there be questions of law or fact common to the class and that the common questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2), (b)(3). Recently, Chief District Judge George King of the Central District of California refused to certify a wage-and-hour class on the ground that plaintiff was unable to establish commonality. See Pedroza v. PetSmart, Inc., No. ED CV 11-298-GHK (DTBx) (C.D. Cal. Jan. 28. 2013) (minute order).  This detailed order offers many great lessons for wage-and-hour actions brought on a class basis.

In Harris v. City of Santa Monica, No. S181004 (Cal. Feb. 7, 2013), the California Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can establish a claim of employment discrimination by showing that discrimination was a substantial motivating factor in the decision-making process.  The Supreme Court also held that even if a plaintiff establishes that discrimination was a substantial motivating factor in the decision-making process, the defendant is entitled to establish a “mixed motive” defense by proving that legitimate factors would have been sufficient, absent the discrimination, to produce the same decision.  On the surface, these two holdings appear contradictory.  That each of those propositions is true highlights the significance of the Court’s rulings on remedies.  Even if the defendant establishes its mixed motive – or same-decision – defense, that defense does not immunize the employer from liability.  Instead, the plaintiff may potentially be entitled to declaratory or injunctive relief, and may recover attorneys’ fees even though the employer successfully establishes its defense.

As reported on Hunton & Williams’ Privacy and Information Security Law Blog, on January 25, 2013, Kmart Corporation (“Kmart”) agreed to a $3 million settlement stemming from allegations that it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) when using background checks to make employment decisions. The FCRA addresses adverse actions taken against consumers based on information in consumer reports and includes numerous requirements relating to the use of such reports in the employment context.

Continue Reading...

On January 14, 2013, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued guidance further defining the meaning of “son or daughter” within the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).  The FMLA provides qualified employees up to 12 weeks of leave within a 12 month period to care for a son or daughter with a serious health condition.  Under certain circumstances, a son or daughter may include an individual over the age of 18, if that individual has a disability.  The DOL now clarifies, that a child over the age of 18 with a disability may qualify as a son or daughter within the FMLA, regardless of the individual’s age when the disability occurred.

As a result of the National Labor Relations Board’s (the “Board”) decision in Latino Express, Inc., 359 NLRB No. 44 (Dec. 18, 2012), employers will now have greater obligations in cases where individuals are awarded lump-sum backpay.  Making good on its earlier promise, the Board held that employers must reimburse individuals for any additional federal or state income taxes, which may result when a lump-sum backpay award covers more than one calendar year.  The Board also held that employers must submit appropriate documentation to the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) so that backpay is allocated to the appropriate calendar quarters.  The Board’s decision follows, a March 2011 memorandum issued by Acting General Counsel, Lafe Solomon, in which he addressed both of these issues instructing Regions to seek a remedy with a tax component in cases involving lump-sum backpay as well as a remedy requiring employers to notify the SSA of the appropriate periods for allocating backpay.

Beginning January 1, 2013, employers must issue an updated notice form to applicants and employees when using criminal background information under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Commission recently amended its regulations to the state’s Pregnancy Disability Leave Law.  The new regulations provide expanded protections and clarifications with regard to employer obligations related to Pregnancy Disability Leave (“PDL”).  The regulations take effect on December 30, 2012.

On December 6, 2012, New Jersey Assembly Bill 3581 was introduced and referred to the Assembly Budget Committee.  The Bill would amend New Jersey’s current statute concerning enforcement, penalties and procedures for law regarding failure to pay wages and provide for enhanced penalties, among other things.  The Bill is part of the Assembly’s recent push to promote job creation and economic development through a series of legislative initiatives.

The Second Circuit this week overturned the conviction of a pharmaceutical sales representative for conspiracy to engage in “off-label” marketing in violation of the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (the “Act”) in a decision that has implications for “whistleblower” cases brought against pharmaceutical employers by their employees.  In United States v. Caronia, No. 09-5006-cr, 2012 WL 5992141 (2d Cir. Dec. 2, 2012), a divided panel held that the Act could not be interpreted to criminalize truthful “off-label” marketing because such a reading would render the Act an unconstitutional violation of the drug manufacturer’s First Amendment rights.  “Off-label” marketing occurs when a drug or device is approved for one purpose but is marketed for other, non-approved purposes.

Last Monday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Vance v. Ball State University in order to resolve a circuit split over how much authority an alleged harasser must have to be considered a supervisor.  The definition of supervisor is important because two earlier Supreme Court cases, Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), establish that employers may be found vicariously or strictly liable for the conduct of supervisors who discriminate against or harass subordinate employees.

The growth of social media as a low-cost, widely-accessible form of communication has made it an ideal tool for businesses large and small to market themselves and reach out en mass to consumers in a manner more direct, personal, and in many ways effective than traditional media.  With Americans spending more time on-line than ever before, the value of such social media accounts can be considerable.  So when an employee who has used social media to develop his employer’s business and goodwill resigns, who owns the account, the contacts, and valuable consumer data that come with it?

Arbitration provisions are increasingly a focus in non-competition litigation these days and are being used in a variety of strategic ways to assist with the enforcement of non-competition clauses.  The United States Supreme Court recently held that an arbitrator, not a state court, should have decided the enforcement of non-competition clauses.  The employer filed for arbitration when two of its employees, who had arbitration provisions in their employment contracts, went to work for a competitor.  The employees filed a state court action challenging the enforcement of the ...

In September, the Newark Municipal Council passed Ordinance 12-1630, which prohibits any employer with five or more employees from asking job candidates before or during the application process about their criminal history (i.e., the ordinance “bans the box” from an employment application). 

The Supreme Court of Virginia recently ruled in VanBuren v. Grubb that supervisors or managers who participate in the termination of an employee may be held liable in claims of wrongful discharge.  This ruling is significant because it places supervisors in the shoes of their employers and threatens them with liability.

The National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) General Counsel recently released an analysis of contested at-will employment clauses in two employment handbooks and ultimately concluded that neither violated the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).

Employees had filed charges with the NLRB alleging that the at-will employment clauses contained in the employee handbooks distributed by Rocha Transportation, a California trucking company, and SWH Corporation d/b/a Mimi’s Café, a restaurant in Arizona, defined at-will employment so broadly that employees would reasonably think that they could not engage in activity protected by the NLRA.  The clause contained in Rocha Transportation’s handbook advised its employees that their employment is at-will and may be terminated at any time.  It also stated that “No manager, supervisor, or employee of Rocha Transportation has any authority to enter into an agreement for employment for any specified period of time or to make an agreement for employment other than at-will.  Only the president of the Company has the authority to make any such agreement and then only in writing.”  Mimi’s Café’s description of at-will employment in its handbook included the sentence: “No representative of the Company has authority to enter into any agreement contrary to the foregoing “employment at will” relationship.”  The NLRB’s Division of Advice prepared two memos which found that each of the clauses described above were lawful.

A 2-1 California Court of Appeal held on October 17 that drivers for a food service provider did not have to arbitrate their state statutory claims brought under the California Labor Code despite a binding arbitration agreement covering the “application or interpretation” of the driver agreements.  The drivers alleged that their employer, Mike Campbell & Associates, misclassified them as independent contractors, denying them wage law protections under the California Labor Code, and was thus liable for nonpayment of wages, illegal deductions, and recordkeeping violations.  Rather than challenge the trial court’s ruling that they were bound by the arbitration clause, the drivers argued that their statutory claims did not arise out of the arbitration agreement and thus did not require an interpretation of the arbitration clause. 

A California Court of Appeal recently found that California employers can lawfully apply the federal standard for rounding. This standard is set forth in 29 CFR Sec. 785.48(b), and previously has been adopted by California’s Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”).  29 CFR Sec. 785.48 (b) permits an employer to round an employee’s starting time and stopping time to the nearest 5 minutes, or one-tenth, or quarter of an hour, assuming the rounding will not result in a failure to compensate the employees, over time, for all the time they have actually worked. The DLSE had previously adopted this standard in its Enforcement Manual. In the October 29, 2012 published decision in See’s Candy Shops v. Superior Court of San Diego County, No. D060710, the court concluded that the federal/DLSE standard is legal in California, if the employees are fully compensated over a period of time.  See also Alonzo v. Maximus, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2011) 832 F.Supp.2d 1122, 1126. (“[t]his ‘regulation permits employers to use a rounding policy for recording and compensating employee time as long the employer’s rounding policy does not ‘consistently result[] in a failure to pay employees for time worked.’ ’ ”). The Court rejected Plaintiff’s argument that the federal regulation is inconsistent with California Labor Code Section 204, which provides that “all wages [other than certain specified exceptions] are due and payable twice during each calendar month.” Plaintiff essentially argued that employers should be required to engaged in a mini actuarial process at the time of payroll. The Court rejected this argument.

At an SEC enforcement conference held last Thursday, October 18, 2012, several SEC speakers remarked that the agency had received an average of eight whistleblower tips per day, for a total of nearly 3000 tips from 45 countries, in the first year of operation of the SEC’s Dodd-Frank whistleblower rules.  The SEC’s revised whistleblower rules, which took effect in August 2011, permit each whistleblower to receive a bounty of 10-30% of all monetary sanctions collected by the SEC on cases associated with the whistleblower’s tip.  To be eligible for a bounty, a whistleblower must voluntarily provide the SEC with original information that leads to a successful SEC enforcement action in which the SEC obtains monetary sanctions greater than $1 million.  This announcement follows the first award (and first denial of an award) of bounty payments to SEC whistleblowers in August 2012.

On April 25, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission  adopted its Enforcement Guidance: Consideration of Arrest - Conviction Records in Employment Decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“2012 Guidance”), expanding on its 1987 and later policy statements to its field offices.

Continue Reading...

The EEOC is targeting pregnancy discrimination in several states.  The EEOC has filed a string of recent cases in an apparent attempt to crack down on workplace discrimination against pregnant women.  A California-based security guard contractor was recently sued by the EEOC on September 20 after it terminated a female employee when she tried to return to work after her pregnancy leave.  A week later, a Texas-based restaurant was also sued after terminating eight pregnant employees. The restaurant allegedly had in place a written policy that instructed managers to terminate pregnant employees three months into their pregnancies.  One of the fired employees was terminated pursuant to the policy even though her doctor had cleared her to work without restrictions until the 36th week of her pregnancy.   In another restaurant-related complaint, this one filed September 27, the EEOC sued a Florida-based restaurant in Panama City, Florida for terminating two pregnant waitresses.  According to the EEOC, the restaurant told pregnant workers that their pregnancies made them a “liability” to the company.  In a related matter, the EEOC is seeking an injunction against a Michigan juvenile detention center to prevent it from maintaining a policy that requires women to immediately notify the company when they become pregnant.

In an update to a recent article posted in July, the California Supreme Court agreed on October 10 to hear Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, a sexual harassment case in which the court will decide whether a franchisor can be held liable for the acts of an employee of one of its franchisees.  The case comes before the court after an appeals court found that Domino’s exerted enough control over the employees of Sui Juris, its franchisee, for it to be potentially liable for sexual harassment. 

If the high court affirms the appellate court’s decision, franchisors could be vulnerable to a ...

On September 30, 2012, California Governor Jerry Brown announced that he had signed AB 2675, involving “employment contract requirements.”  This bill amends Labor Code § 2751, which requires any employment contract for services to be rendered in California that “involves commissions” to “be in writing and set forth the method by which the commissions are to be computed and paid.”  AB 2675 adds an important exemption to the definition of “commission” that will substantially reduce the possibility that the statute could be applied to non-commission compensation plans.

Employees use social media extensively in communication for personal and business reasons.   Employers are increasingly monitoring this use, and insisting on access to some of the more popular sites.   California took  notice of this trend and passed legislation to protect employee privacy.  On September 27, 2012, Governor Brown signed AB 1844 making California the third state to limit access to employees’ social media account, joining Maryland and Illinois.

When employers pay severance, it is common to withhold both income tax and payroll taxes under the Federal Income Contribution Act (“FICA”).  It is equally common for employers to pay the employer’s share of the FICA tax attributable to the severance payment.  These are common practices because Revenue Rulings issued by the Internal Revenue service classify most severance payments as “wages,” thereby subjecting those payments to the FICA tax.

On September 20, 2012, Administrative Law Judge Clifford H. Anderson struck down telecommunications company EchoStar Corp.’s policy prohibiting employees from making disparaging comments about it on social media sites. The NLRB judge found that the prohibition, as well as a ban on employees using social media sites with company resources or on company time, chilled employees’ exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). The EchoStar decision comes on the heels of the NLRB’s recent ruling striking down Costco Wholesale Corp.’s policy barring employees from posting statements online that were harmful to the company’s reputation.

We live in a society that is obsessed with appearance, and studies show that many people equate appearance to success.  While employers may not be aware of these studies, some are trying to control appearance in the workplace by imposing weight restrictions on job applicants or employees as a condition of employment.  

Whether these policies are permissible can only be answered with a “maybe.” 

Continue Reading...

A recent case from Ohio highlights the evolution of both “cat’s paw” liability and “gender stereotyping” claims in employment litigation.  In Koren v. The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, No. 1:11-cv-2674 (N.D.Ohio Aug. 14, 2012), plaintiff Jason Koren, then known as Jason Cabot, first worked for Ohio Bell from 2000 to 2006.  He told his co-workers he was gay and had AIDS.   He left his employment on good terms and subsequently married his partner in Massachusetts, taking his husband’s last name of Koren.  Koren was rehired by Ohio Bell as a sales consultant in 2009.   Koren alleged one of his managers refused to recognize his marriage or name change and persisted in calling him Cabot.  Koren also described a number of allegedly discriminatory job actions.  In 2009, Koren’s father died, and he missed nine days of work.  Ohio Bell terminated Koren for excessive absences.  He sued for gender and disability discrimination under Federal and Ohio law.

The Seventh Circuit gave an unexpected answer when asked:  is the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) the exclusive remedy for federal age discrimination?   Deciding an issue of first impression for that court, it said no.  Levin v. Madigan, 7th Circuit, No. 11-2820, August 17, 2012.   The Seventh Circuit is an outlier, as every other circuit to consider the question (the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th and D.C. Circuits) has held the ADEA is the sole remedy for federal age discrimination claims.

The Texas Supreme Court just accepted certified questions from the Fifth Circuit on two Texas employment law issues of first impression for the high court.  Sawyer v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., No. 12-0626.  The Texas Supreme Court will decide:  (1) whether at-will employees may bring fraud claims against their employers relating to the loss of their employment; and (2) if not, whether employees subject to a 60-day cancellation-upon-notice collective bargaining agreement that limits their employer’s ability to discharge its employees only for just cause constitute at-will employees under Texas law.

On July 24, 2012, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued what may turn out to be one of the more significant Fair Labor Standards Act rulings in recent years.  In Martin v. Spring Break ’83 Productions, LLC, the Fifth Circuit held that, under certain circumstances, a settlement agreement between an employer and its employees involving FLSA claims is enforceable notwithstanding the fact that neither the Department of Labor nor a court approved the agreement.  This ruling is the first appellate-level decision enforcing a private FLSA settlement and potentially opens the door for other circuits and district courts to follow suit.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania held recently that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s “pattern and practice” disability discrimination claims are subject to a 300-day limitations period, furthering a pronounced split among federal district courts on the issue.  In the case, the EEOC took the position that its pattern or practice claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act were not subject to the limitations period, or, in the alternative, that the employer’s violations constituted a “continuous violation” and the EEOC’s claims were, thus, exempt from the 300-day limitations period.  The court, however, agreed with the employer’s position that the EEOC’s claims were subject to the limitations period based upon the plain language of the statute.  The decision holds the EEOC subject to the same limitations period applicable to individual claimants in any Title VII context.

As reported on Hunton and Williams LLP’s Privacy and Information Security Law Blog, on August 8, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement agreement with employment screening company HireRight Solutions, Inc. (“HireRight”). In its first enforcement action against an employment background screening company for Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) violations, the FTC alleged that HireRight functioned as a consumer reporting agency, but failed to comply with certain FCRA requirements. The proposed consent order imposes a $2.6 million penalty on ...

The NLRB has again asserted its willingness to encroach upon employers’ long standing legitimate employment policies in a non-unionized workforce.  In Banner Health System, 358 NLRB No. 93 (July 30, 2012), the Board held that a blanket policy prohibiting an employee from discussing an ongoing investigation violates section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act.

In Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, the California Court of Appeals overturned the lower court’s order granting summary judgment to a franchisor and held that the terms of the franchise agreement did not necessarily govern whether the franchisor could be held strictly liable for the actions of an employee of the franchisee. 

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Once an employer becomes aware of an employee’s disability, the ADA requires the employer to provide a “reasonable accommodation” to enable the employee to perform the essential functions of his or her job.  While the type of reasonable accommodation required can vary greatly depending on an employee’s disability and essential job functions, it was not until recently that a court found that permitting an employee to work in natural light can be a reasonable accommodation.

The Supreme Court recently announced the cases for which it has granted certiorari for the 2012-2013 term.  Among these, and now slated to be adjudicated in the nation’s highest court next term, are the appeals of three cases that will surely impact employment litigation.  In these cases, the Court will discuss (1) what the evidentiary standard is in federal courts, post-Dukes,  for class certification, (2) whether a case becomes moot, and thus beyond the judicial power of Article III, when the lone plaintiff receives an offer from the defendants to satisfy all of the plaintiff's claims, and (3) what constitutes a “supervisor” for a vicarious liability claim under Title VII.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Nat’l Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”). In upholding the constitutionality of PPACA, the Court held:

Read More...

In recent years, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and unions have placed a growing emphasis on extending the application of labor law into the social media arena.  As part of this initiative, the NLRB has adopted a strong stance against social media policies that it believes pose a threat to employees’ right to engage in protected activities under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

On June 18, 2012, in Christopher, et. al. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision interpreting the so-called white collar exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act and finally resolved the circuit split over whether pharmaceutical sales representatives are exempt as outside salespeople.  This decision is not only a long-awaited victory for the pharmaceutical industry, but also a key win for employers in all industries. In Christopher, the Supreme Court held that pharmaceutical sales reps qualify for the outside salesman exemption and are not entitled to overtime wages. The Court also unanimously rejected the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) attempt at back-door regulation through an amicus brief, delivering a blow to the DOL’s recent enforcement campaign.

The EEOC is appealing the recent decision in EEOC v. Houston Funding II, Ltd., et al., Case No. H-11-2442 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 2, 2012), which dismissed a complaint filed by the EEOC, and held that “firing someone because of lactation or breast-pumping is not sex discrimination.”  The District Court stated that even if the EEOC could prove that Houston Funding had fired an employee because she sought permission to pump breast milk at the office, the agency would not have a Title VII claim because lactation is not pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.

On June 4, 2012, the California Court of Appeal held that class-action waivers in employment arbitration agreements are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).  In Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC, the appeal court affirmed an order to compel arbitration of wage-and-hour claims in light of the 2011 United States Supreme Court case AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion.  As a result, Iskanian provides employers with the necessary ammunition to argue for the enforceability of employment contract provisions providing for arbitration of claims and waiver of class-action lawsuits.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that discrimination on the basis of immigration status is not covered under Title VII.  In Cortezano v. Salin Bank & Trust Co., No. 11-1631, the facts involved spouses Kristi and Javier Cortezano.  Javier was an unauthorized immigrant from Mexico, while his wife Kristi was employed as a sales manager at Salin Bank. When Kristi’s supervisor discovered Javier’s unauthorized immigrant status, the bank initiated a process that ultimately led to Kristi’s termination.  Kristi filed suit against Salin Bank alleging, among other things, employment discrimination under Title VII.  The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted Salin Bank’s motion for summary judgment. 

In what has roundly been hailed as a landmark decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) held in Macy v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (April 20, 2012) that, although no federal statute explicitly prohibits employment discrimination based on gender identity, transgender individuals may nonetheless state a claim for sex discrimination under Title VII.

On May 21, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in a split decision that the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) does not bar discrimination based on marijuana use unless that use is authorized under federal law.  In James v. City of Costa Mesa, No. 10–55769, the court held that even marijuana use under a doctor’s supervision in accordance with state law was not protected under the ADA.  The court held that the ADA excludes illegal drug users from its definition of qualified individuals with a disability.  Although generally-applicable California drug laws carve out an exception for uses of marijuana for medical purposes under doctor supervision, there are no such exceptions to the federal Controlled Substances Act.  Since the ADA defines “illegal drug use” by reference to federal law, and the federal law does not authorize marijuana use for medical purposes, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that discrimination in the provision of public services based on marijuana use was not prohibited by the ADA.

In wage and hour collective actions, the "recruit, probe and multiply" nature of the litigation results in the redefinition of workers' duties, solicitation of collective groups, and countless depositions to establish liability, collectivity and damages. These tactics increase the costs for employers and make litigation impossibly expensive.

In Victoria, Texas, the Citizens Medical Center prohibits hiring obese employees.  The hospital promulgated a policy that requires all potential employees to have a body mass index (BMI) of less than 35.  For example, an applicant who is 5-foot-5 could not weigh more than 210 pounds, and an applicant who is 5-foot-10 could not weigh more than 245 pounds.  All potential employees are screened by a physician to assess their fitness for duty.  According to the hospital’s policy, an employee’s physical appearance “should fit with a representational image or specific mental projection of the job of a health care professional.”

A federal court jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Tyson Foods today in a Rule 23 class and FLSA collective action, alleging failure to pay overtime under state and federal law.  Tyson was represented at trial by Hunton & Williams' lawyers Michael J. Mueller, Emily Burkhardt Vicente and Evangeline Paschal and local Baird Holm lawyer, Thomas E. Johnson.

Brinker International, one of the world's leading casual dining restaurant companies, announced yesterday that the California Supreme Court has issued an opinion in Brinker Restaurant Corp. et al. v. The Superior Court for the State of California for the County of San Diego (Hohnbaum). This long-awaited decision, on which Hunton & Williams attorneys M. Brett Burns, Laura M. Franze, and Susan J. Sandidge served as counsel of record for Brinker, resolves multiple first-impression issues regarding California meal period and rest break class actions. Among other things, the Court ...

On March 12, 2012, OSHA issued a memorandum expanding on specific policies and practices that OSHA asserts can discourage employees from reporting workplace injuries or illnesses, and thus, violate the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSH Act” or “Act”) and/or the Federal Railroad Safety Act (“FRSA”).  Intended as guidance to both field compliance officers and whistleblower investigative staff, the memorandum notes four programs or practices that, while potentially useful to management as a metric for safety performance, cannot be condoned without careful scrutiny because of the risk they could chill employee reporting of workplace injuries or illnesses.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, there has been a significant amount of educated speculation about the effect of that decision on class action litigation in general and more particularly on class actions involving claims of employment discrimination.  Dukes is seen as creating an impassable barrier for class actions claiming discrimination in multiple locations based on excess subjectivity arising from decentralized decision-making.  Dukes instead focuses the inquiry on the existence and discriminatory effect of enterprise-wide policies such as an employment test or standardized performance criterion.  The question remains: what constitutes an enterprise-wide policy or practice?  This is a question that has challenged practitioners since General Tel. Co. of the Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 159 n. 15 (1982), and before.

On February 28, 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued additional guidance to wounded veterans and to employers under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.  The two publications are revised versions of guides that originally were posted by the EEOC in February 2008. This guidance reflects another move by federal agencies to address the employment of disabled persons.  Last December, we reported that the OFCCP issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would, among other things, establish a national utilization goal for individuals with disabilities. There is certainly more than one indication from the federal government that employers will likely continue to face heightened responsibilities concerning the employment of disabled individuals.

In its decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S.Ct. 2658 (2009), the Supreme Court sought to resolve a conflict between the “twin pillars of Title VII,” the Act’s disparate-impact and disparate-treatment provisions.  Ricci involved a promotional examination administered by the City of New Haven.  After candidates took the examination, the City refused to certify the test results because of a concern that the test had a disparate impact on African-American candidates and would lead to the promotion of white candidates.

CONTINUE READING…

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) budget request for next year reflects its intent to increase aggressive enforcement.  The OFCCP, part of the U.S. Department of Labor, is the agency charged with enforcing the affirmative action obligations of federal contractors and subcontractors.   Approximately 25% of the American workforce is employed by federal contractors and subcontractors, whose federal contracts total more than $700 billion annually.  The OFCCP’s proposed budget for FY 2013 is now available online.

Last week, the NLRB’s Acting General Counsel, Lafe Solomon, released a second report containing guidance relating to employees’ use of social media.  This report comes less than six months after the release of the NLRB’s first report on the subject in August 2011.  Like the August report, the new release summarizes a number of recent cases decided by the NLRB in which an employee was terminated, at least in part, because of his or her comments on social media websites.

Many large employers no doubt thought they could ignore the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for any employee who had yet to reach his anniversary date.  The Eleventh Circuit torpedoed those assumptions earlier this month.

Despite its enactment nearly two decades ago, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) continues to evolve through judicial interpretation.  The following five cases from 2011 present lessons of which all employers should be mindful heading into 2012.

The U.S. Department of Labor provides general information and compliance guidance regarding numerous wage, hour, employment, and labor laws via “fact sheets” which are available to employees, employers, and the general public. Fact sheets can serve as helpful reference and compliance material for employers. On December 23, 2011, the DOL issued three new fact sheets on the issue of unlawful retaliation.  These newly released fact sheets address retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act (“MSPA”).

On December 15, 2011, the Department of Labor issued proposed rule changes that would extend the Fair Labor Standards Act’s minimum wage and overtime protections to the roughly two million in-home caregivers providing services to the elderly and infirm.  If enacted, the changes would eliminate the FLSA’s longstanding companionship and live-in domestic service exemptions, and likely lead to a major change in the in-home care worker industry.

The Ninth Circuit did an about-face last week by reversing its earlier decision in Sepulveda v. Wal-Mart and nixing the proposed class action.  The decision is further evidence of the post-Dukes difficulty plaintiffs face when attempting to certify Rule 23(b)(2) classes seeking monetary relief.

On December 6, 2011, just five days after it heard oral arguments in the case, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a victory for a transgender woman, Vandiver Elizabeth Glenn, who sued her former employer, the Georgia state legislature, for violating the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.  A three-judge panel unanimously affirmed a summary judgment for the plaintiff, who was fired from the General Office of Legislative Council for undergoing a gender transition.

The U.S. Department of Justice has moved to intervene to defend the constitutionality of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“Act”) against a consumer reporting agency accused of violating § 605 of the Act.

On November 23, 2010, Shamara T. King filed suit against General Information Services, Inc. (“GIS”) in Pennsylvania federal court claiming violations of the Act.  (See, King v. General Information Services., No. 2:10-CV-06850 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 23, 2010).  Specifically, King claims that when she applied for a job with the United States Postal Service, GIS performed a background check that included details about a car theft arrest that occurred more than seven years prior to the requested background check.  According to § 605(a)(5) of the Act, consumer reporting agencies cannot provide adverse information, except for criminal convictions, “which antedates the report by more than seven years.”

The EEOC recently voted to move forward on new regulations that will likely make it easier for older workers to bring disparate impact claims, and harder for employers to defend against such claims.  The EEOC is taking the position that employers have to prove their choices are reasonable when adopting policies that might adversely affect older workers, and the rules provide several guidelines for consideration.  In light of the new regulations, employers should revisit the factors used in making hiring, promotion, and termination decisions and take steps to minimize the use of subjective criteria and procedures.  Employers should also consider the likelihood that litigation costs may increase as more cases may survive summary judgment, and consult with legal counsel to determine whether additional precautions must be put into place to proactively address potential disparate impact issues.

Thirty-four percent of adults in the United States presently qualify as obese under standards adopted by the Center for Disease Control.  Morbid obesity (defined as having a body weight more than 100% over the norm) and obesity caused by a psychological disorder are "disabilities" as defined by the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), according to the EEOC.  Lawsuits involving morbid obesity are on the rise and come in many shapes and sizes.  The most common involves a “substantially limiting” health condition such as diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension.  Others involve employers who assume an obese employee would pose a direct threat to the health and safety of him or herself or other employees if he or she were to carry out the essential functions of the job.

On October 9, 2011, California Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 459, legislation that creates new and significant civil penalties for employers that misclassify employees as independent contractors. The newly enacted Section 226.8 of the California Labor Code authorizes civil penalties under two circumstances: (1) “Willful misclassification of an individual as an independent contractor;” and (2) “Charging an individual who has been willfully misclassified as an independent contractor a fee, or making any deductions from compensation, for any purpose . . . .” In either case, the “person or employer” responsible for the violation “shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) and not more than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for each violation, in addition to any other penalties or fines permitted by law.” Moreover, if there is a determination that a person or employer has engaged in “a pattern or practice” of violations, “the person or employer shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and not more than twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for each violation.”

California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed into law Senate Bill No. 559 (SB 559), which prohibits discrimination based on an individual’s genetic information.  While SB 559 significantly expands the protections from genetic discrimination provided under the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), at this time, its impact on most California employers is thought to be limited to the potential for greater damages to be awarded under it than under its federal counterpart.

On October 10, 2011, California became the seventh state to enact legislation restricting public and private employers alike from using consumer credit reports in making hiring and other personnel decisions.  Assembly Bill No. 22 both adds a new provision to the California Labor Code -- Section 1024.5 -- and amends California’s Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (“CCRAA”).  Effective January 1, 2012, California employers will be prohibited from requesting a consumer credit report for employment purposes unless they meet one of the limited statutory exceptions, and those employers meeting an exception, will be subjected to increased disclosure requirements.  Connecticut, Illinois, Hawaii, Oregon, Maryland and Washington already have similar laws on the books, and many other states, as well as the federal government, are contemplating similar legislation.  This trend creates a potential “credit-centric” minefield for employers that do business in any one or more of these states.  In light of the multiple laws affecting their use, employers who utilize consumer credit reports in making personnel decisions should proceed cautiously.  Employers must evaluate the need for these reports in making personnel decisions, review and modify their policies to ensure compliance with the myriad of regulations in this area, and monitor any new developments to ensure continued compliance. 

On October 3, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., 623 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 2010), and remanded it “for further consideration in light of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. ___ (2011).” The Supreme Court did not provide any further analysis of the Wang decision in its granting of the petition for a writ of certiorari.

On September 28, 2011, an Illinois federal district court dismissed the putative class action claims brought by U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against United Parcel Service Inc. (UPS) in a case where the EEOC alleged that UPS’s 12 month medical leave policy violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by not providing reasonable accommodations to disabled employees.  (EEOC v. United Parcel Service Inc., N.D. Ill, No. 1:09-cv-05291.)

On October 4, 2011, the California Supreme Court announced that it will hear oral argument in Brinker v. Superior Court (Hohnbaum) on Tuesday, November 8, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. in San Francisco.  Because the Court’s procedures typically require it to file its written opinion within 90 days of oral argument, employers can reasonably expect a decision in the case sometime between December 2011 and February 2012.

The long-awaited decision is expected to provide clarity concerning the proper interpretation of California’s statutes and regulations governing an employer’s duty to ...

When it comes to disabled access and the Americans with Disabilities Act, it’s not just ramps and restrooms anymore. Now plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Justice and disability rights groups are looking beyond brick-and-mortar issues and are seeking accessibility to company websites, particularly those websites where business is transacted.

The Texas Supreme Court officially closed the door on the ability of workers’ compensation claimants to seek supplemental relief under the Texas Insurance Code.  In Texas Mutual Ins. Co. v. Ruttiger, --- S.W.3d ---, No. 08-751 (Tex. Aug. 26, 2011), the Court held that the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (“Act”) preempts claims against workers’ compensation insurers for unfair or “bad faith” settlement practices under the Texas Insurance Code. 

Effective September 1, 2011, many Texas employers may no longer prohibit some employees from keeping guns in their vehicles while parked on company property. On June 17, 2011, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed SB 321, which amends Chapter 52 of the Texas Labor Code and makes it unlawful for a public or private employer to prohibit licensed or legally authorized employees from keeping a firearm or ammunition in a locked, privately owned vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other employer-provided parking area. SB 321 will require many employers to revise the anti-weapon policies that likely have been in place for years.

The focus on social media by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) continues as evidenced by its recent report issued by Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon.  The report discusses fourteen social media cases that were decided by the Board after Regional Directors submitted requests for advice to the Board’s Division of Advice.  The cases highlighted by Solomon give some insight to how the NLRB will handle various social media issues in the future.

The Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3) ("FLSA") forbids an employer from retaliating against an employee for making prior FLSA complaints.  Simple concept, one would think.  But with most employment related legal issues, the "devil" is often in the details.  What is an "employee," exactly, under the FLSA?  Does it include an applicant for employment, who is retaliated against by a prospective employer?  A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently ruled that the answer is "no," rejecting a claim that a prospective employer violated the FLSA by rescinding an employment offer to an applicant after learning about a FLSA lawsuit the applicant filed against her prior employer.  Dellinger v. Sci. Applications Int'l Corp., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16635 (4th Cir. Aug. 12, 2011).

In the current economy, with unemployment over 9% and multiple applicants for every position, an out-of-work individual should be doing everything possible to get a new job, right? Perhaps, but not for purposes of “mitigation” under fair employment statutes.

On August 11, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York ruled that a fired employee alleging discriminatory discharge under Title VII had no obligation to enroll in vocational training in order to mitigate his damages from the alleged discrimination. EEOC v. Dresser Rand Co., No. 04-CV-66300, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89466 (Aug. 11, 2011).

On August 8, 2011, the Second Circuit issued a decision in Millea v. Metro-North Railroad Co., taking an expansive view of the Family and Medical Leave Act’s (“FMLA”) anti-retaliation provision.  Turning to Title VII for guidance, the Court held that the jury should have received an instruction that broadly defined the term “materially adverse action.”

On August 9, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a putative class action cannot be rendered moot by a defendant’s Rule 68 offer of judgment to the named plaintiff, even when the offer of judgment fully satisfies the named plaintiffs claim.  In doing so, the Ninth Circuit joined the other three circuits that have considered the pre-certification effect of an offer of judgment on the mootness of a class action.  The other three circuits (Second, Third, and Fifth) have similarly held that a defendant cannot “pick off” lead plaintiffs with an offer of judgment in order to avoid a class action.

The national unemployment rate, as reported by the Department of Labor, has stubbornly remained at about 9% or higher for more than two years. As many of these unemployed individuals search for new jobs, some have purportedly been denied available employment opportunities simply because they were unemployed. Unemployment discrimination, as it is often called, is not currently prohibited under federal law. The EEOC and Congress, however, have taken steps focused on so-called unemployment discrimination that could affect how employers conduct their hiring processes.

In March, we reported on the increasing attention that federal and state legislatures, as well as the EEOC, were paying to employers’ use of employee credit checks in employment decisions. At the time of posting, four states had laws regulating employer use of credit history data and fourteen additional states were considering similar measures. Earlier this month, Connecticut passed Public Act No. 11-223 regulating employer use of credit reports.