Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

As we previously reported, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued a proposed rule expected to significantly increase the number of employees who are eligible for overtime. Most notably, the proposed rule seeks to increase the minimum salary threshold for exempt workers from the current level of $23,660 to $50,440.

In a December 16, 2015 interview with Bloomberg BNA, Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez stated he was “confident” that the final rule would be “out by the spring of next year.” This prediction falls ahead of other recent DOL estimations. In its latest regulatory agenda, released in November, the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division estimated that the final rule would be published in July of 2016. And while speaking on a recent panel at the American Bar Association’s Labor and Employment Law conference in Philadelphia, Solicitor of Labor M. Patricia Smith predicted that the new rule was not likely to appear before “late 2016.”

On December 24, 2015, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) held that rules in Whole Foods’ General Information Guide prohibiting unapproved tape and video recording in the workplace violate Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or the “Act”).

A rule violates Section 8(a)(1) if it would reasonably tend to chill employees’ exercise of their Section 7 rights, including the right to engage in protected concerted activity. If the rule in question explicitly restricts activity protected by Section 7, it is automatically unlawful; if it does not, the rule violates Section 8(a)(1) only if: (1) the employees would reasonably construe the rule’s language to prohibit Section 7 activity; (2) the rule was promulgated in response to union activity; or (3) the rule was applied to restrict the exercise of Section 7 rights.

For years, there has been nearly universal agreement among the courts that managers do not engage in “protected activity” for retaliation claim purposes under most employment laws when they raise concerns about compliance issues in the regular course of performing their job duties. The traditional reasoning held that a manager whose job includes evaluating and/or reporting compliance issues, and who does so in furtherance of his or her job duties, should not become cloaked in anti-retaliation protection for merely doing the job he or she is employed to do. Instead, to engage in protected activity, the manager must step outside his or her role as a manager and become adversarial to the employer. The so-called “manager rule” has been consistently used by courts to reject retaliation claims under various employment statutes by human resources professionals and supervisors who report employment-related compliance issues related to other employees.

On November 24, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit refused to enforce an arbitration clause in an employee handbook on the grounds that the employee never agreed to be contractually bound by the handbook, and that a court can only compel arbitration where it is satisfied that the parties have agreed to arbitrate. This case, Lorenzo v. Prime Communications, L.P., should serve as a warning to employers to review their employee handbooks to be sure that provisions, like an arbitration clause, will be enforceable.

Please join us via webinar for a dynamic roundtable discussion with our distinguished panel of experts who will share their thoughts on changes in the law, what steps a company should take to comply with the new law and issues employers should consider as they evaluate their employee compensation.

Tuesday, January 19, 2016
11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. PT
(2:00 p.m. ET – 3:00 p.m. ET)

On December 7, 2015, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania permitted a plaintiff to pursue discrimination claims alleging that she had been forced to retire as a result of her age and disability status—despite the fact that she had voluntarily agreed to retire as part of a union grievance settlement. This case, Melan v. Belle Vernon Area School District, serves as a warning to employers settling grievances under a collective bargaining agreement that implicate employees’ federally protected rights.

On November 3, 2015, Houston voters rejected Proposition 1, a broadly-worded human rights ordinance that would have made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of, among other things, gender identity. Opposition to that ordinance coalesced around the issue of restrooms, with many citizens expressing fear that the law would allow men to use women’s restrooms.

Retailer Big Lots Stores, Inc. is facing a putative class action in Philadelphia, wherein the plaintiff alleges that the company “systematically” violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s (“FCRA”) “standalone disclosure requirement” by making prospective employees sign a document used as a background check consent form that contained extraneous information. Among other things, the plaintiff alleges that Big Lots’ form violates the FCRA because it includes the following three categories of extraneous information: (1) an “implied liability waiver” (specifically, a statement that the applicant “fully understand[s] that all employment decisions are based on legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons”); (2) state-specific notices; and (3) information on how background information will be gathered and from which sources, statements pertaining to disputing any information, and the name and contact information of the consumer reporting agency.

In Danbury Hospital (Case 01-RC-153086), after an initial election victory for the employer, an NLRB Regional Director ordered a second election as a result of the employer’s non-compliance with the new ambush election rules. In doing so, the NLRB again demonstrates why employers should be vigilant and proactive in preparing for an election long before the arrival of a union petition.

Under the new rules, employers must, within two business days after the approval of an election agreement or the issuance of a Direction of Election, submit a voter list of employees’ “available” personal email addresses and personal cell phone numbers. These requirements differ from the old election rules in that previously, the employer was only required to provide a voter list of the employees’ full names and home addresses within seven calendar days after the approval of an election agreement or the issuance of a Direction of Election.

This week, the EEOC announced that an Illinois-based packing company, Pactiv LLC, agreed to pay $1.7 million to resolve a charge alleging that the company discriminated against employees who needed time off from work for medical reasons.

According to the EEOC, the company maintained a nationwide policy that assessed “attendance points” to employees who needed time off for medical reasons. The company also allegedly failed to provide employees with intermittent and extended leave as a “reasonable accommodation” under the Americans with Disabilities Act.