Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

The Department of Labor issued two opinion letters on Tuesday in response to specific inquiries that may nonetheless provide some clarity for employers in general.

The first letter was in response to an inquiry from an employer that offers its employees a non-discretionary lump sum bonus of $3,000 (in addition to their regular hourly rate) for completing a 10-week training program.  During the training program, the employees may work more than 40 hours in a given week and the employer requested an opinion from the DOL on the proper method for calculating overtime pay.  In response, the DOL stated that the $3,000 bonus must be included in the regular rate of pay (for purposes of calculating overtime) “as it is an inducement for employees to complete the ten-week training period.”  The DOL then explained that the bonus should be divided into ten $300 increments to be added to the employees’ pay for each week of the training program for purpose of making the overtime calculation.

Could the onslaught of anticipated accessibility litigation surrounding Braille Gift Cards in 2020 be limited by a strict construction of the ADA Title III standing requirement? Maybe so.

The cottage industry of accessibility litigation in New York was recently dealt a blow when the Eastern District of New York dismissed a serial plaintiff’s class action accessibility complaint by strictly construing the standing requirement and finding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) recently updated its Sexual Harassment Prevention Training FAQ guidance to address some of the questions surrounding SB 1343, which requires employers with five or more employees to provide classroom or “other interactive training” for all California employees (not just supervisors) every two years. SB 1343 was initially set to go into effect on January 1, 2020. But in 2019, Governor Newsom signed two amendments to SB 1343 that push the effective date out to January 1, 2021. The deadline to comply with SB 1343 does not change the obligation of an employer with 50 or more employees to train new supervisory employees within six months of their promotion or hire.

The last few weeks of a National Labor Relations Board Member’s term can be a busy time.  This is especially true when a Member’s imminent departure will leave the Board without any Members from the minority political party.  The Board historically has avoided major shifts in precedent without the participation of both parties.

Last month was no different.  As the clock wound down on Democrat Lauren McFerran’s term this December, the Board issued a flurry of significant rules and opinions that pare back many of the most anti-employer precedents set during the Obama-era.  Issuing these rulings prior to Member McFerran’s departure allowed the Board to include her dissenting views in most cases.  But ultimately, the Republican-majority prevailed–resulting in good news for employers going forward on multiple fronts.  We summarize the Board’s “December to Remember” below.

New York joins a handful of other states when its broad prohibition on employer inquiries into applicants’ prior wage or salary information takes place today, January 6, 2020.  As detailed in our previous alert on this issue, New York previously had expansive pay equity laws in effect for public employers, but the new law expands the prohibition to private employers throughout the state.

A Texas judge has ruled that Hunton Andrews Kurth is entitled to coverage from Great Northern Insurance Co., a unit of Chubb, Ltd. (“Chubb”), for losses its predecessor firm suffered when Hurricane Harvey closed its Houston office and disrupted business in 2017. The decision illustrates that law firms, like businesses in virtually every other economic sector, including the labor and employment industries, are susceptible to widespread damage caused by storms and other natural disasters.  The decision also stands as a reminder that businesses must be ready to enforce their right to receive the benefit of their insurance when a covered loss occurs.

Illinois joined the growing list of states to legalize marijuana as of January 1, 2020.  Employers with employees in Illinois should consider how the new law may affect their business, and review their policies to ensure compliance with the statute.

As an initial matter, state legalization will not affect employees in certain job positions.  The Illinois law states that corrections officers, law enforcement officers and several other public employees cannot use marijuana, even when they are off-duty.  In addition, employees with commercial drivers’ licenses subject to federal Department of Transportation regulations will remain subject to federal restrictions.

Earlier today, District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, granted a temporary restraining order that temporarily prohibits the state of California from enforcing AB 51, a law that would prohibit companies in California from requiring arbitration agreements as a condition of employment.

You can read more about AB51 here and here.

Yesterday, the National Labor Relations Board published a final rule modifying its representation case procedures.

The final rule takes effect April 17, 2020, and scales back—but does not completely undo—the changes to election regulations instituted by the Obama-era’s Board that have caused employers heartburn since 2015. Those changes effectively sped up the election process and cut down on employers’ ability to litigate many important legal issues prior to voting, putting employers at a disadvantage.

A recent California appellate court decision has held that a banquet hall’s “mandatory service charge” could, under the right circumstances, be a “gratuity” that must be paid to employees under California Labor Code § 351. In O’Grady v. Merchant Exchange Productions, the defendant-employer added on a percentage service charge for all banquet contracts for food and beverages. Some, but not all, of the service charge was distributed to managers who did not serve food or beverages at the banquet. Plaintiff brought a putative class action alleging that the defendant’s practice of distributing the service charge proceeds to non-managerial banquet staff violated California Labor Code § 351, which states that gratuities are the sole property of the employees, and the employer (including managers) may not take any portion of the gratuity. The trial court held as a matter of law that a service charge cannot be a tip or gratuity under § 351 and dismissed the case.