Monthly Archives: May 2014

May 30, 2014

Hot tips for FMLA Compliance and Curbing Abuse

Ritchie_JBy Jason Ritchie

Here are some top tips for complying with the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and curbing FMLA abuse.

Tip #1: Use the new forms

Last year, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) published new forms employers may use when employees request FMLA leave. Although employers aren't required to use the new forms, those that do will seldom make mistakes. The forms, including certification of an employee's serious health condition (Form WH-380-E) and certification of a family member's serious health condition (Form WH-380-F), are available on the DOL's website at www.dol.gov/whd/fmla. Form WH-381, the notice of eligibility employers must give to employees, has also been revised. If you use it, it will cover all the bases.

The new forms are very helpful in identifying exactly which kind of leave an employee needs. The forms require healthcare providers to be specific on how often, when, and why an employee needs intermittent FMLA leave.

Tip #2: Don't accept incomplete certifications

You are not required to accept a certification that is incomplete or unclear. If you receive an incomplete or unclear certification, you may contact the healthcare provider to request additional information. In fact, it is recommended that you do so. Although the duration of some medical conditions may be "unknown," the duration of the requested leave must be spelled out.

Tip #3: You are entitled to information

If an employee takes intermittent leave, you are entitled to sufficient information to determine whether the leave qualifies as FMLA leave. An employee cannot simply say, "I'm sick." She must give you enough information to allow you to determine whether the FMLA applies.

Tip #4: Use recertification

If you receive information that leads you to believe that an employee is using FMLA leave contrary to the original certification, you may request recertification (except in cases involving injured servicemembers or caretaker leave).

If you request recertification, you may write a letter to the doctor who filled out the original certification and present the facts as you know them. You may ask the doctor whether the employee's behavior is consistent with the original certification. Of course, avoid making judgmental or derogatory statements about the employee, even if you think he is malingering. You may request recertification every six months (or sooner if the original certification was for less than six months).

Tip #5: You can obtain new certifications

Recertification and a new certification are not the same. Employers may request an entirely new certification if (1) an employee's health condition or need for leave ends and later returns or (2) a new serious health condition arises.

When obtaining a new certification, you are entitled to a second or third opinion on the employee's serious health condition. However, second and third opinions may be used only for new certifications, not recertifications. You are entitled to a new certification every 12 months.

Tip #6: Record intermittent leave arrangements

If you and an employee have agreed that she will take intermittent FMLA leave, you should memorialize the agreement. That may include spelling out the employee's new schedule or duties. Remember, you can temporarily transfer an employee to an alternate position to accommodate her need for planned intermittent FMLA leave.

Tip #7: Enforce your policies

The FMLA rules state, "Employees who have been approved for intermittent FMLA leave still are required to comply with the company's regular notice policies or show why they cannot do so." If your policy requires employees to call when they will not be at work, you may enforce that policy, even if an employee is taking intermittent FMLA leave.

Tip #8: Involve your supervisors

Once you have agreed on the parameters of an employee's intermittent FMLA leave, provide supervisors with basic information regarding the leave. Supervisors should understand the time period of an employee's leave, whether it will be intermittent or continuous, and whether it has been approved. Supervisors should obtain their information from you, not the employee.

Also, supervisors should be trained to avoid interrogating employees about their serious health conditions and refrain from making remarks that could be construed as interfering with employees' leave. To illustrate this point, advise supervisors that under the FMLA, they can be held individually liable for preventing employees who are entitled to leave from obtaining it or for retaliating against employees who have taken leave.

Tip #9: You can require fitness-for-duty certification

Under the FMLA's rules, you can require an employee to provide certification that he can perform all of his job's essential functions before he is allowed to return to work. There is one caveat: At the beginning of the employee's leave, you must tell him that you will require such certification. The forms on the DOL's website provide space for you to do this.

However, remember that you also must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and any state law equivalents, such as the Montana Human Rights Act (MHRA). If the employee is disabled, you must engage in the interactive process and provide reasonable accommodations that allow him to perform the essential functions of his job.

Tip #10: The employer decides

The employer decides whether leave is designated as FMLA leave. Occasionally, employees will ask that leave not be counted against their FMLA entitlement. You do not have to grant such a request. Under the FMLA regulations, if you have a reason to believe that an employee's health condition warrants it, you may designate her leave as FMLA leave regardless of whether she wants you to.

Bottom line

In summary, it is in your best interest to use the DOL's new FMLA forms. Memorialize all agreements regarding employees' FMLA leave, and expect and require employees to follow your policies. Most important, when an employee's FMLA leave expires, be mindful of your obligations under the ADA and the MHRA.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

May 14, 2014

MSHA’s Coal Dust Rule Lowers Acceptable Concentrations and Requires Continuous Monitoring

Matt LintonBy Matthew M. Linton 

The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) has finalized significant changes to the rule governing total permissible coal dust concentrations and the methods for sampling dust concentrations in underground and surface coal mines. 

Effective August 1, 2014, MSHA inspectors will use single, full-shift samples to determine noncompliance with the respirable dust standards. The rule also requires immediate operator corrective action on a single, full-shift operator sample that meets or exceeds the Excessive Concentration Value (ECV) for the applicable dust standard, changes the averaging method to determine compliance on operator samples, expands requirements for medical surveillance of coal miners, and strengthens the certification requirements for certified persons who perform dust sampling and who maintain and calibrate sampling equipment. 

Furthermore, on February 1, 2016, mine operators are required to use continuous personal dust monitors (CPDM) to monitor the exposures of underground coal miners in occupations exposed to the highest respirable coal mine dust concentrations and the exposures of part 90 miners.  Use of the CPDM will be optional for surface coal mines, nonproduction areas of underground coal mines, and for underground anthracite mines using the full box, open breast, or slant breast mining methods. 

Finally, starting August 1, 2016, the concentration limits for respirable coal mine dust will be lowered from 2.0 milligrams of dust per cubic meter of air (mg/m³) to 1.5 mg/m³ at underground and surface coal mines, and from 1.0 mg/m³ to 0.5 mg/m³ for intake air at underground mines and for part 90 miners (coal miners who have evidence of the development of pneumoconiosis). 

As part of its justification, the new rule states that “[l]owering the concentration of respirable coal mine dust in the air that miners breathe is the most effective means of preventing diseases caused by excessive exposure to such dust.” 

The National Mining Association filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit challenging the new rule and asking that MSHA postpone the implementation of the rule pending judicial review.  The National Mining Association asserts that the required CPDM equipment will not be available until after the August 1, 2014 deadline and that there will not be enough time for mine operators to implement changes in sampling methods, among other things. 

Text of the entire rule may be found here.  We will keep you posted on any further developments related to this MSHA rule.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

May 13, 2014

Independent Contractor Status — Colorado Supreme Court Sets Forth Applicable Test

Brad WilliamsBy Bradford J. Williams 

Yesterday we posted an article describing the unsettled test for independent contractor status under Colorado’s unemployment insurance benefits laws after the Colorado Court of Appeals issued a new decision last week.  Now, that test has been settled as the Colorado Supreme Court issued its decision in the Softrock and Western Logistics cases.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled yesterday that determining whether a worker is “customarily engaged in an independent trade, occupation, profession, or business” in order to be deemed an “independent contractor” under Colorado’s unemployment insurance benefits laws requires an evaluation of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the relationship between the worker and the putative employer.  In two companion cases, the Court rejected a stringent, single-factor test for determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor for purposes of unemployment insurance tax liability and benefits.  Reversing decades of case law, the Court ruled that no single factor is dispositive of an employer-employee relationship.  Instead, courts and agencies may consider nine factors enumerated in a statute pertaining to independent contractor agreements, as well as “any other information relevant to the nature of the work and the relationship between the employer and the individual.”  ICAO v. Softrock Geological Servs., 2014 CO 30; Western Logistics, Inc. v. ICAO, 2014 CO 31. 

Putative Employer Must Prove Independent Contractor Status 

Under the Colorado Employment Security Act (CESA), employers must pay unemployment taxes on wages paid to employees, but not on compensation paid to independent contractors.  Similarly, employees are entitled to collect unemployment insurance benefits under the CESA whereas independent contractors are not.  Putative employers bear the burden of proving that workers are independent contractors, not employees, for purposes of the CESA. 

In order to establish that a worker is an independent contractor, a putative employer must prove that the individual (i) is free from control and direction in the performance of his or her service, and (ii) is customarily engaged in an independent trade, occupation, profession, or business related to the service performed.  C.R.S. § 8-70-115(1)(b).  The CESA does not define what must be shown to satisfy the second part of this test.   

2012 Court of Appeals Decisions on the Single-Factor Test 

For years, the Colorado Division of Employment and Training and most courts have applied a single-factor test, rejecting claims that workers are independent contractors, and thus ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits, where they do not provide similar services to others while working for the putative employer.  It has not mattered, for instance, whether the workers were directed or controlled by the putative employer, whether they maintained separate business entities, whether they set their own hours, whether they were trained by the putative employer, whether they were paid an hourly or fixed rate, whether they provided their own equipment, whether they had their own offices, or whether they advertised their own businesses.  If they did not provide similar services to others while working for the putative employer, they were almost always deemed to be employees for purposes of receiving unemployment insurance benefits. 

In 2012, one division of the Colorado Court of Appeals reaffirmed this decades-old case law effectively mandating a single-factor test.  Western Logistics, Inc. v. ICAO, 2012 COA 186.  Another division of the Court of Appeals, however, rejected the stringent, single-factor test, holding for the first time that agencies and courts must instead apply a multi-factor test to determine whether an individual “is customarily engaged in an independent trade, occupation, or business related to the service performed.”  Softrock Geological Servs. v. ICAO, 2012 COA 97.  In Softrock, the Court of Appealsstated that the factors to be considered in the “customarily engaged” inquiry are the nine factors set forth in statutory section 8-70-115(1)(c), which defines evidence that must be included in an independent contractor agreement to create a presumption that a worker is an independent contractor rather than an employee.  In March 2013, the Colorado Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeals in both the Western Logistics and Softrock cases in order to finally determine the appropriate test for deciding whether a worker is customarily engaged in an independent business for purposes of the CESA. 

Single-Factor Test No Longer Dispositive 

In its decision yesterday, the Supreme Court concluded that the appropriate test for courts and agencies to apply is a totality of the circumstances test that looks at all the relevant factors bearing upon the relationship between a worker and his or her putative employer.  The Court rejected the stringent, single-factor test used in Western Logistics and numerous other cases, finding that relying on a single factor – i.e., whether a worker provides similar services to others at the same time he or she works for the putative employer – is unfair to putative employers because it leaves the independent contractor determination up to the unpredictable decisions of workers.  For instance, it ignores the putative employer’s own intent regarding the working relationship, and also ignores whether workers even desire to find other work in the same field. 

In its decision, the Court broadly adopted the Court of Appeal’s approach in Softrock, concluding that the statutory factors should be considered in determining whether a worker is engaged in an independent business under the CESA.  However, the Supreme Court went even further, holding that other factors may also be relevant to this determination.  The Court rejected “a rigid check-box type inspection,” and opted instead for a fact-specific inquiry into the nature of the working relationship between a worker and his or her putative employer where no single factor is dispositive of the worker’s status. 

Interestingly, just last week, yet another division of the Colorado Court of Appeals anticipated the Supreme Court’s ruling in these two cases, concluding that virtually any relevant circumstances may be considered in weighing independent contractor status.  The decision rejected both the Western Logistics single-factor test and the Softrock multi-factor test that limited the determination to just those factors specifically delineated in statute.  See Visible Voices, Inc. v. ICAO, 2014 COA 63

Many Factors May Determine Independent Contractor Status 

The Supreme Court’s new totality of the circumstances test is very helpful to putative employers because it allows them to prove independent contractor status based on the entire working relationship between the worker and the putative employer.  A putative employer seeking to prove that a worker is an independent contractor engaged in an independent business or trade may now produce evidence bearing upon the nine factors set forth in statute, showing that the putative employer did not

  1. Require the worker to work exclusively for the putative employer; except that the worker may choose to work exclusively for that business for a finite period of time specified in the independent contractor agreement;
  2. Establish a quality standard for the worker; except that the putative employer can provide plans and specifications regarding the work but cannot oversee the actual work or instruct the worker as to how the work will be performed;
  3. Pay a salary or hourly rate but rather a fixed or contract rate;
  4. Terminate the worker during the contract period unless the worker violates the terms of the contract or fails to produce a result that meets the specifications of the contract;
  5. Provide more than minimal training for the worker;
  6. Provide tools or benefits to the worker; except that materials and equipment may be supplied;
  7. Dictate the time of performance; except that a completion schedule and a range of mutually agreeable work hours may be established;
  8. Pay the worker personally but rather makes checks payable to the trade or business name of the worker; and
  9. Combine the putative employer’s business operations in any way with the worker’s business, but instead maintains such operations as separate and distinct. 

The putative employer may also invoke other evidence not set forth in the statute, but nonetheless relevant to whether the worker maintains an independent trade or business.  As suggested in recent cases, these factors include, but are not limited to, whether the worker: 

  • Maintains an independent business card, listing, address, or telephone;
  • Has a financial investment in the project or risks suffering a loss;
  • Uses his or her own equipment on the project;
  • Sets the price for performing the project;
  • Employs others to complete the project; or
  • Carries liability insurance. 

Although we have yet to see how the courts and agencies will apply this new totality of the circumstances test, putative employer should try to satisfy as many of these factors as possible in order to establish that workers are independent contractors, not employees.  Putative employers should also continue to use independent contractor agreements that satisfy all the statutory factors needed to create a presumption that workers are independent contractors.  However, there is now no limit to the types of evidence putative employers may invoke to establish independent contractor status, and putative employers are no longer bound by the outdated rule that workers must always offer their services to others at the same time the work for the putative employer in order to be considered independent contractors.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

May 12, 2014

Independent Contractor Status Dependent On More Than One Factor, Says Second Colorado Court

Brad WilliamsBy Bradford J. Williams 

A second division of the Colorado Court of Appeals has just rejected a stringent, single-factor test for determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor for purposes of receiving unemployment insurance benefits. On May 8, 2014, a division of the Court of Appeals issued a decision in an unemployment insurance tax liability case, rejecting longstanding case law holding that a worker is an employee, and thus entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, unless he “actually and customarily provides similar services to others while working for the putative employer.” Visible Voices, Inc. v. ICAO, 2014 COA 63.  

For years, the Colorado Division of Employment and Training has rejected claims that workers are independent contractors, and thus ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits, based solely upon the fact that they do not provide similar services to others while working for the putative employer. It has not mattered whether the workers were directed or controlled by the putative employer, whether they maintained separate business entities, whether they set their own hours, whether they were trained by the putative employer, whether they were paid an hourly or fixed rate, whether they provided their own equipment, whether they had their own offices, or whether they advertised their own businesses. If they did not provide similar services to others while working for the putative employer, they were almost always deemed to be employees for purposes of receiving unemployment insurance benefits. 

In rejecting this stringent, single-factor test, the Visible Voices court followed the 2012 lead of another division of the Colorado Court of Appeals in Softrock Geological Servs. v. ICAO, 2012 COA 97 (cert. granted Mar. 25, 2013). First breaking with the decades-old, single-factor assessment, the Softrock court held that the Division of Employment and Training must instead apply a multi-factor test to determine whether an individual “is customarily engaged in an independent trade, occupation, or business related to the service performed.” This multi-factor test considers factors set forth in Colorado statute. 

While broadly adopting the Softrock court’s reasoning, the Visible Voices court went even further, holding that factors not listed in the Colorado statute may also be considered in assessing independent contractor status. The Visible Voices court further noted that some of the statutory factors might also not be relevant to a particular worker depending on the circumstances. In short, the Visible Voices court concluded that virtually any relevant circumstances may be considered when weighing independent contractor status, and rejected the argument that the multi-factor test is limited to just those factors specifically delineated in statute. 

By choosing to consider multiple factors, the Visible Voices court expressly declined to follow Western Logistics, Inc. v. ICAO, 2012 COA 186 (cert. granted Mar. 25, 2013), in which yet another division of the Colorado Court of Appeals recently reaffirmed the decades-old cases effectively mandating a single-factor test. Unlike the Western Logistics court, the Visible Voices and Softrock courts have decided that no single factor is determinative of independent contractor status. 

Two divisions of the Colorado Court of Appeals have now rejected the single-factor test that has long stymied putative employers’ attempts to prove that their workers are independent contractors for purposes of unemployment insurance benefits. However, the Colorado Supreme Court will have the last word on the proper test for determining independent contractor status as it is currently reviewing both the Softrock and Western Logistics cases. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in both cases on March 6, 2014 (audio of the oral arguments may be accessed here), and a decision is expected in the coming months. Based on the oral arguments, a favorable ruling for putative employers seems possible. We will let you know the outcome as soon as the Supreme Court rules on this issue.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

May 9, 2014

Colorado Legislative Wrap-Up: Wage Theft, Disability Definition and Workers’ Comp Physician Choice Bills Pass

By Emily Hobbs-Wright 

The Colorado General Assembly wrapped up its 2014 Legislative Session this week, passing a number of bills that change the landscape for Colorado employers.  Here is a look at the significant employment-related bills that passed and are expected to be signed into law by Governor Hickenlooper as well as other bills that were introduced but did not make it through the legislative process. 

Bills that Passed This Session. 

Wage Protection Act of 2014.  Senate Bill 14-005 establishes an administrative procedure to adjudicate wage claims under Colorado law. For wages and compensation earned on or after January 1, 2015, the Colorado Division of Labor may receive complaints and adjudicate claims for nonpayment of wages or compensation of $7,500 or less.  The written demand for unpaid wages to the employer may come from or on behalf of the employee and is satisfied if a notice of complaint filed with the Division is sent to the employer.  In addition to existing fines that may be levied against employers who fail to pay wages, the new law allows the Director of the Division of Labor or a hearing officer to impose a fine of $250 on an employer who fails to respond to a notice of complaint or any other notice from the Division when a response is required.  All fines collected will be credited to the State Wage Theft Enforcement Fund to be used for enforcement of this law. 

The Wage Protection Act also requires Colorado employers to keep payroll records, including the information contained in an employee’s itemized pay statement, for at least 3 years after payment of wages and to make such records available to the employee and the Division of Labor. (C.R.S. §8-4-103 (4.5)).  Employers who violate this record retention requirement are subject to a fine of $250 per employee per month, up to a maximum fine of $7,500.  

This new law also provides for the recovery of reasonable attorney fees and court costs for an employee who recovers unpaid wages under Colorado’s minimum wage requirement.  Additionally, the new law sets forth procedural requirements for employers responding to a demand for payment and procedures for resolving wage disputes through the administrative procedure.  The majority of the new provisions in this law go into effect on January 1, 2015. 

Definition of Disabled Individuals Aligned with Americans With Disabilities Act. Senate Bill 14-118 conforms state law definitions of a disability to match definitions under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  Specifically, the terms “disability” and “qualified individual with a disability” under Colorado Revised Statute section 24-34-301 are given the same meaning as under the ADA. This bill also moves the definition of “sexual orientation” out of the Employment Practices definition section (C.R.S. § 24-34-401) and into the general definition section for the Civil Rights Division (C.R.S. § 24-34-301.) It also changes the term “assistance dog” to “service animal” and provides additional penalties for violations of the rights of an individual with a disability who uses a service animal and for persons who cause harm to service animals.  The law also expanded the available remedies for retaliation and violations of the fair housing and public accommodations discrimination prohibitions.  Once signed into law by the Governor, these provisions will go into effect on August 6, 2014. 

Expanded Doctor Choice for Workers’ Compensation. House Bill 14-1383 changes the Colorado workers’ compensation law to allow injured workers more choice of doctors.  Currently, an employer or workers’ compensation insurer must provide a list of at least 2 physicians or corporate medical providers from which an injured employee may select a treating physician.  This bill expands that number to 4.  There are additional provisions related to the location and shared ownership status of the health care providers.  After signed into law by the Governor, this law will become effective on April 1, 2015. 

Clarification of Credit Report Restriction Allowing Employment Use By Financial Institutions.  Senate Bill 14-102 amends last year’s Employment Opportunity Act which restricts an employer’s use of credit reports.  This amendment clarifies that all positions at a bank or financial institution are jobs for which credit information is deemed to be “substantially related to the employee’s current or potential job.” As a result, financial institutions will be able to obtain and use credit information on employees and applicants when making employment decisions for all job positions.  Governor Hickenlooper signed this bill into law on March 27, 2014 and it became effective immediately. 

Bills that Failed to Pass This Session. 

Paid Sick Leave.  Called the Family and Medical Leave Insurance Act (FAMLI), Senate Bill 14-196 sought to create an insurance program to provide pay to employees who take unpaid FMLA or sick leave.  The program would be paid for by employees who pay premiums into a “fund” in the state treasury; employers would not be funding it.  Eligible employees would be able to receive a percentage of their pay while on leave, not to exceed $1,000 per week. The bill would have prohibited Colorado employers from discharging, discriminating or retaliating against employees who seek to use benefits under the program or assist in a related-proceeding.  Advocated by the Colorado chapter of 9 to 5, this bill, introduced on April 15th, differed from previous paid sick leave bills as it did not require employers to fund the program.  On May 1, this bill was postponed indefinitely in committee and therefore, did not make it to a vote. 

Drug Testing Misdemeanor. House Bill 14-1040 would have established a drug misdemeanor for an employee who is legally required to undergo drug testing as a condition of his or her job and either tests positive for a controlled substance without a prescription, or knowingly defrauds the administration of the drug test by an employer.  To “defraud the administration of a drug test” is defined in the bill to include submitting a sample from someone else or a sample collected at a different time or some other conduct intended to produce a false or misleading outcome.  This bill passed the House but the Senate sent it to committee where it was postponed indefinitely. 

Anti-Union Bills. – House Bills 14-1087 would have prohibited collective bargaining for the state’s public employees.  House Bill 14-1098 and Senate Bill 14-113 would have prohibited employers from entering into agreements to require employees to join a union.  All three bills failed shortly after introduction as expected due to the democratic majority in both chambers of Colorado’s legislature. 

The bills that passed in the 2014 Legislative Session reflect a continued trend at the state level to implement new or refine existing employment-related laws.  We will keep you posted on any further developments.    

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

May 6, 2014

Separation Agreements Targeted By EEOC Again

Wiletsky_Mark_20090507_NM_crop_straightBy Mark Wiletsky 

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently filed a lawsuit seeking to stop a Colorado employer from using its form separation and release agreement and to allow employees who have signed the form agreement to file charges of discrimination and participate in  EEOC and state agency fair employment investigations.  In its federal court complaint, the EEOC alleges that CollegeAmerica Denver violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) by conditioning employees’ receipt of severance benefits on signing a separation and release agreement which, according to the EEOC, chills and interferes with the employees’ rights to file charges and/or cooperate with the EEOC and state fair employment practice agencies.  

As we wrote on this blog earlier, the EEOC has been scrutinizing employers’ separation agreements.  This is the second such lawsuit challenging language in the separation agreements that does not permit the filing of discrimination or retaliation charges with the EEOC or other government agencies.  As in the EEOC’s earlier complaint against a national pharmacy, the recent complaint against CollegeAmerica Denver targets numerous provisions in the separation agreement, including the release of claims, a non-disparagement clause and provisions in which the employee represents that he/she has not filed any claims, has disclosed to the company all matters of non-compliance and will continue to cooperate with and assist the company with any investigation or litigation.  

Many of the targeted provisions are standard clauses in form separation agreements.  Although it remains to be seen whether the courts will agree with the EEOC’s claims, it is always a good idea for organizations to review their agreements and ensure they do not raise any red flags for the EEOC while still protecting the company from future payouts for employment-related claims.  We will continue to provide updates as new developments arise.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.