The Department of Labor has issued its Final Rule explaining when separate companies will be deemed joint employers of a single employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In so doing, the DOL has made findings of joint employer status to be less likely, including in franchise situations.
In Shakespeare’s play, Julius Caesar cried out “Et Tu Brute?” – translated “Even you Brutus?” – as he lay dying from the assassin’s sword that had been plunged into his chest by his friend and confidant, Marcus Brutus. These words came to mind as I read an article about a sordid tale of rampant sexual misconduct by SEIU officials. Even them???
As of January 1, 2020, employers need to ensure that employees classified as “exempt” from overtime requirements are being paid the required salary. Pursuant to the U.S. Department of Labor’s final rule, the minimum salary for executive, professional, and administrative employees has increased. As we reported in our September 24, 2019 E-Lert, the new rule increases the salary required to meet the exemptions to $684 per week (the equivalent of $35,568 per year). The required compensation for highly compensated employees is raised to $107,432. Our E-Lert provides further details about the new rule. If you need assistance determining whether your employees meet the exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act, please contact any Shawe Rosenthal attorney. Continue Reading Changes to Wage and Hour Law Took Effect January 1, 2020
In its unpublished decision in Bloomsburg Care and Rehabilitation Center, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) expressed a willingness to reconsider, and likely expand, what constitutes an alleged supervisor’s ability to “effectively recommend” discipline. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) provides that if an individual performs one of several functions, including the ability to discipline, or can “effectively recommend” one of these functions (e.g., discipline or hire), the individual is a supervisor. Under current law, which was applied by one of the Board’s Regional Directors, the Board will not find that an individual effectively recommends discipline if the recommendation is reviewed or independently investigated by upper management.
The National Labor Relations Board issued on December 17 two decisions that are sure to put employers in the holiday spirit. In a long-awaited decision, the Board overturned Purple Communications and held that employers have the right to control the use of their e-mail and IT systems to restrict employee union and protected concerted activity. In a second decision, the Board determined that an employer work rule requiring confidentiality during an employer investigation is lawful to maintain. Continue Reading The NLRB Provides Two More Gifts – Employers May Restrict Nonbusiness Use of E-Mail, Require Confidentiality During Investigations
This is a new entry in our occasional series on extremely bad behavior by employees. I am constantly amazed by the lack of awareness and judgment exhibited by employees in the workplace. I was baffled when I read Hennessey v. Dollar Bank, FSB, a case in which a Caucasian employee at Dollar Bank was terminated when, over the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday weekend, he hung a brown monkey from the ceiling of a workspace utilized by African American employees.
NLRB Delivers A “Holiday Gift” To Employers: New Union Election Timelines
On December 13, 2019, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a final rule revising the Obama-era union election procedures (known as “R-Case” rules). The revision to the procedures will become effective 120 days from its publication in the Federal Register next week.
On December 12, 2019, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced a revised interpretation listing payments that can be excluded from the “regular rate” used to compute overtime pay for non-exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The DOL also issued a Fact Sheet and Highlights on this revised interpretation.
Several years ago, I blogged about Emeryville, California’s paid sick leave ordinance, which is the only sick leave law that allows employees to take leave specifically to care for a sick service animal. As I noted then, “[t]he concept makes sense – employees can take sick leave because they (or their family member) is temporarily incapacitated because of the illness of the [service animal]. (Not because the dog is a family member!).” I also wondered whether other jurisdictions would adopt similar provisions. But now, I’m not sure they have to.
Most human resources folks know that, under the Family and Medical Leave Act, eligible employees can take leave to care for a child with a serious health condition, and that the FMLA defines “child” as being under the age of 18. But what some perhaps don’t realize is the FMLA has an additional definition of “child”: one over 18 years who is “incapable of self-care because of a mental or physical disability.” And even if they’re aware of that definition, they may not understand that the disability can be quite temporary in nature. A recent case, Gibson v. New York State Office of Mental Health, clearly makes this point.