Laws & Regulations

Subscribe to Laws & Regulations via RSS

On January 29, 2016, President Obama announced a series of actions intended to close the gender pay equity gap, including proposed revisions to the EEO-1 form that would require the submission of detailed pay information.

As President Obama stated in his press conference, and as set forth in a White House Fact Sheet, “New Steps to Advance Equal Pay on the Seventh Anniversary of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act,” the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission today issued a proposed rule to expand the information collected on the EEO-1 form. The EEO-1 form must be submitted annually in September by (1) employers with more than 100 employees and (2) government contractors with more than 50 employees and more than $50,000 in federal contracts or subcontracts. It requires employers to provide information regarding the race, ethnicity, sex, and job category of their workforce. The proposed revision would add the requirement to provide aggregated data on pay and hours worked, broken down into pay bands by the same race, ethnicity, and sex categories. According to the EEOC’s press release on the EEO-1 revisions, the EEOC and the OFCCP will use the submitted data to analyze pay disparities across industries and occupations, and facilitate federal antidiscrimination actions. In addition, EEOC will publish aggregated data that employers can use in their own voluntary compliance efforts.
Continue Reading President Obama Radically Expands EEO-1 Reporting Requirements

With the imminent blizzard of 2016, employers are thinking about work coverage issues. This is of particular concern for those employers who function on a 24-hour basis, like healthcare entities. In order to ensure coverage during perilous travel conditions, some employees may agree to (or even be required to) stay overnight. Obviously, any hours actually spent working must be paid, but they are likely not working during all of that time onsite. In fact, some of that time may be sleep time. What are the rules on pay under those circumstances? going%20to%20bed%20at%20night

The Fair Labor Standards Act provides that if an employee works for more than 24 hours, up to 8 hours of sleep time may be deducted pursuant to an agreement between the employer and employee.  The FLSA does not define what is such an “agreement.”  However, various courts have done so, and these courts have found that if an employer publishes a policy that explains the sleep time deduction and if employees continue to work for the employer, this constitutes an agreement for the deduction.  In at-will employment states, any employee who chooses not to agree to any company policy, including one like this, can certainly choose not to work for the company.  Conversely, the company can choose to terminate any employee who chooses not to agree to any of its policies.  That is what at-will employment entails.  If the company does not have a published policy on this issue, it will not be able to deduct for the sleep time.
Continue Reading Employees Staying Over in the Storm – Sleep Time Deductions

According to the federal district court in Mendillo v. The Prudential Ins. Co. of America, the answer is “yes.” But I struggle with this decision, because I think it ties an employer’s hands and undercuts the employer’s right to demand medical information under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In this case, a call center employee was pretty seriously injured in a car accident.  There were some performance issues that pre-dated her car accident, and they continued after her return to work. About four months later, the employee’s responsibilities were changed so that her off-line work was taken away and she did telephone work full-time. She told her supervisor that the full-time telephone work would exacerbate her back pain, since she was able to get up and stretch  when she was doing off-line work. In fact, her back pain did worsen with the full-time telephone work, which caused her doctor to order that she cut back on her hours. In addition, her performance took an immediate and significant turn for the worse. She was able to improve her performance, but it fluctuated over the next year, finally resulting in her termination. She then sued, alleging a number of claims including that the company failed to accommodate her in violation of the ADA.
Continue Reading Must Employers Accept An Employee’s Stated Disability Without Question?

Fire Icon clip art Free VectorAs you may know, I love the quirky cases (like the Playgirl model who sued for sexual harassment). I recently came across a 2014 state case that falls into this category – the firefighter who is afraid of fire.

In City of Houston v. Proler, the captain of a firefighting crew refused to enter a burning apartment building, appearing to be frightened. He was reassigned to the training academy, but was eventually transferred back to active firefighting duty. Two years after the first incident, the captain arrived at a house fire. Again, he appeared to be frightened – unable to put on his equipment, take or give orders, and showing physical distress. He was hospitalized and diagnosed with “global transient amnesia.” Management (reasonably) considered this a “possibly dangerous situation,” and he was again reassigned to the training academy.

Nonetheless (and despite all common sense), the captain wanted to be reassigned to active firefighting. Because he was a union member, he filed a grievance under the collective bargaining agreement. Shockingly (to me), a hearing examiner ordered that he be returned to his fire suppression duties. Unsurprisingly (to me), the City appealed this decision to the trial court, at which point the captain brought claims against the City for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Texas state law. Shockingly (to me), the jury found that the City had engaged in disability discrimination against the captain, although it awarded him no damages (he did get $362,000 in attorneys’ fees). Shockingly (to me) the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the disability discrimination verdict.
Continue Reading Firefighter’s Fear of Fire Is Not Disability

Last time I talked about how to determine if an employee is a “key employee” under the Family and Medical Leave Act. This time, we’re going to talk about the actual steps you need to take in order to invoke this exemption.golden-key

There are very specific, mandatory notice requirements that apply. 29 C.F.R. Section 825.219(a) requires an employer to notify the employee of the employee’s status as a “key employee,” that it may deny reinstatement following FMLA leave if it determines that substantial and grievous economic injury will occur, and the potential consequences with respect to the maintenance of health benefits. This requirement may be met by checking off the appropriate provision on the DOL’s model “Notice of Eligibility and Rights & Responsibilities,” WH-381. (Are you using the DOL’s model forms? If not, why not? They’re actually pretty good – and I have never seen an individualized employer-prepared form that was any better! In fact, most employer-prepared forms that I’ve seen have various problems. Big ones.)

The employer should give this first notice as soon as it is able to determine that the employee is a key employee. Hopefully, this should happen when the employee gives notice of the need for leave, but may occur after the leave begins if the employer needs time to make that determination. Please note that if the employer fails to give timely notice, the employer will not be able to deny restoration – even if there is substantial and grievous economic injury!!!Continue Reading The Rules on the Key Employee Exemption Under the FMLA (Part II)

I’m an Family and Medical Leave Act geek – I find the twists and turns and intricacies of this law and its regulations just fascinating. ( I know, that’s really geeky). I was recently advising a client on the key employee exemption under the FMLA, which reminded me of how technical the rules are with regard to this particular issue. I thought some of you might appreciate a primer on this exemption – what it is and how to apply it.golden-key

Under the FMLA regulations, a key employee may be denied restoration to his job position if such restoration would cause “substantial and grievous economic injuries to the employer’s operations.” 29 C.F.R. Section 825.216. A key employee is a salaried FMLA-eligible employee who is among the highest paid 10 percent of all the employees employed by the employer within 75 miles of the employee’s worksite. (Keep in mind that overtime payments to non-exempt employees can increase their income significantly and throw off the top 10%!)

The regulations discuss what “substantial and grievous economic injury” means. Of particular note, the “substantial and grievous economic injury” must be based on the restoration, and “not whether the absence of the employee will cause such substantial and grievous injury.” (Emphasis added). 29 C.F.R. Section 825.216. This is a very important distinction – several courts have found the employers failed to establish “substantial and grievous economic injury” where the employer focused on the effect of the employee’s absence rather than the impact of the employee’s restoration on its operations. Let me repeat that – FOCUS ON THE IMPACT OF THE RESTORATION, NOT THE ABSENCE!

Continue Reading The Rules on the Key Employee Exemption Under the FMLA (Part I)

Most employers are aware that violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act can result in an investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor, leading to back pay damages, as well as possible liquidated damages in an amount equal to back pay, and even civil penalties up to $1000 for each willful or repeated violation. prison-silhouetteState departments of labor may also conduct such investigations for violations of state wage and hour laws, which can result in similar monetary consequences. Employees may also bring a lawsuit against their employer in federal or state court.  But what many employers don’t know is that they could even end up in jail!

Under the FLSA, willful violations can result in criminal prosecution, with a second conviction resulting in imprisonment! State laws can be even more aggressive, as a Papa John’s franchisee recently learned to his dismay.Continue Reading Making Up Fake Employees Can Land You in Jail

As the Wall Street Journal reported this week, the Department of Labor’s (DOL) highly anticipated rules regarding employees’ eligibility for overtime are not likely to be finalized until sometime in mid to late 2016. This timeline, which is later than the Spring-time anticipated date, was acknowledged by the Department of Labor (DOL) Solicitor, Patricia Smith, during the American Bar Association, Labor and Employment Section Conference two weeks ago. I attended the panel at which Solicitor Smith spoke, and counsel for both management and employees were surprised by this revelation.

portraitAs my firm previously reported, in June 2015, the DOL proposed revisions to the overtime rules. The proposed rules significantly increased the required salary for employees to qualify as exempt. The current salary threshold is $23,660. The proposed rules more than double it to $50,400! Clearly, this is a significant increase and would make many more employees eligible for overtime pay.

Solicitor Smith said the reason for the delay in the issuance of the final rules is the significant number of comments that were received by the DOL, which are in excess of 200,000!  This is three times more than the number of comments received by the DOL when it revised the regulations back in 2004.Continue Reading From the DOL Solicitor’s Mouth to Our Ears: Update on DOL’s Overtime Rules

So I found this case, Smith v. URS Corp., interesting because it involved a black employee Dollar signwho got what he wanted, but was still able to sue for discrimination.

The black employee received the job he applied for (training specialist) and more pay than he asked for ($57,668 instead of $46,000). He was given a classification title and job code of “Senior Training Specialist (65010)” and a job grade of S5.12. Five months later, a white applicant applied for the same training specialist job but asked for a $65,000 salary. He was hired into a Senior Training Specialist role at his requested salary, with a classification title and job code of “Staff Training Specialist (65010) and a job grade of S5.13. Shortly after that, another black applicant applied for a training specialist position with a desired salary of “58K to 65K.” He was given the same job title, classification, code and grade as the other black employee.

The first black employee sued for race discrimination after he was terminated pursuant to a reduction in force. The trial court threw out his claims on summary judgment before trial because the black employee had received the job he wanted and more pay than he sought. (Hmm, that seems pretty logical, doesn’t it?)Continue Reading Giving Employees What They Want Doesn’t Preclude Discrimination Claim

As you may know, the National Labor Relations Board substantially revised the rules governing the union elections process, by which employees choose whether or not they wish to be represented by a union. The controversial revisions greatly sped up the process, with the effect that employer had less time to educate their employees about the impact of unionization before an election is held – which means more unionization (hence the controversy!).

These revised “quickie election” rules took effect in April 2015. Because the rules themselves were not troubling enough for employers, we now have to contend with the Board’s expansive interpretation of those rules. Here’s an example of what I mean.

As part of the election process, the employer must provide a voter list to the union, containing the names and contact information for all employees eligible to vote in the election. Before the revisions, this list consisted of the names and addresses of eligible voters. This information is readily available from a company’s human resources department, through its database or records. The revised rule, however, requires that the list must now include “available” personal e-mail addresses, and home and cell phone numbers.Voting List

What does this mean? Well, in the Danbury Hospital of the Western Connecticut Health Network case, the employer generated a list from its HR database. The list contained the addresses and emails for all the eligible voters, and phone number for 94% of them.
Continue Reading NLRB Imposes Expansive (and Onerous) Requirements For Preparation of Voter List