Category Archives: Colorado

September 12, 2017

Employer May Keep Tips As Long As Employees Are Paid Minimum Wage, According To 10th Circuit

By Brad Cave

By invalidating a U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) regulation that states that tips are the property of employees, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (whose opinions apply to Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico) rejected an employee’s wage claim based on her employer’s practice of keeping all tips. But employers in states with an analogous state law governing ownership of tips, such as Wyoming, need to be aware that the 10th Circuit’s ruling may not change how they handle tips.

Caterer Kept Tips But Paid More Than Minimum Wage

Relish Catering regularly receives tips from its customers in the form of a gratuity added to their final catering bill at the end of an event. Relish retains those tips for itself rather than passing them along to its employees who work at the events. However, it pays its employees at or above the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour as well as time and a half for overtime and does not rely on any sort of tip credit to meet the minimum wage.

Bridgette Marlow believed Relish was required to turn over her share of the catering tips under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Despite making $12 per hour (and $18 per hour for overtime), she sued Relish and Brett Tucker, a manager and part owner of the company, alleging they violated the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA by retaining the tips.

FLSA Restrictions Apply Only When Tip Credit Taken

Marlow argued that by retaining all of the tips, Relish was essentially paying employees below minimum wage. For example, she suggested that if she received her $12 hourly wage but Relish retained $11 in tips for each hour she worked, the result was the same as if Relish turned over all of the tips to her and paid her a $1 hourly wage. In essence, she argued that the company could be paying less than the required amount for tipped employees.

The 10th Circuit didn’t bite on Marlow’s rationale. The Court stated that it doesn’t matter where the money to pay wages comes from so long as the company paid at least the minimum wage required under the FLSA. The Court rejected Marlow’s argument that the FLSA’s tip-credit provision applied to her case because Relish doesn’t take a tip credit.

The FLSA tip-credit provision allows employers of “tipped employees” to pay a reduced hourly wage of $2.13 per hour so long as employees receive sufficient tips to raise their earnings to the $7.25 hourly minimum. But this provision applies only if the employer counts tips toward the minimum wage, said the Court. The tip-credit provision does not apply if the employer doesn’t count tips toward the minimum and instead pays the full hourly minimum wage.

The Court stated that the FLSA tip-credit provision does not require that employers turn over all tips to employee in all circumstances, as Marlow urged. Instead, when an employer doesn’t take the tip credit, the tip-credit provision imposes no restrictions on what it may do with tips as long as it pays an hourly wage above the $7.25.

DOL’s Tip-Ownership Regulation Invalid

Marlow relied extensively on a 2011 DOL regulation that provides:

Tips are the property of the employee whether or not the employer has

taken a tip credit under section 3(m) of the FLSA. The employer is

prohibited from using an employee’s tips, whether or not it has taken a tip

credit, for any reason other than that which is statutorily permitted in

section 3(m): As a credit against its minimum wage obligations to the

employee, or in furtherance of a valid tip pool.

From the language of that regulation, it would seem that Marlow had a valid claim. But the 10th Circuit said not so fast and looked at whether the DOL had the authority to implement the regulation in the first place.

Relying on U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the 10th Circuit pointed out that federal agencies may create rules only to fill “ambiguities” or “gaps” in statutes. In a “friend-of-the-court” brief, the federal government argued that the FLSA is silent on the issue of who “owns” tips when an employer does not take the tip credit, and therefore, the DOL had the authority to create a tip ownership rule to fill in that gap.

Despite the Ninth Circuit’s acceptance of that argument, the 10th Circuit disagreed with it, finding that nothing in the FLSA directs the DOL to regulate the ownership of tips when the employer doesn’t take the tip credit. Because the FLSA limits the tip restrictions to employers who take the tip credit, the DOL lacked the authority to regulate otherwise.

The Court invalidated the DOL’s tip-ownership regulation, finding it was beyond the DOL’s authority, and affirmed the lower court’s judgment in favor of the employer. Marlow v. The New Food Guy, Inc., No. 16-1134 (10th Cir. June 30, 2017). Read more >>

August 31, 2017

Court Invalidates Overtime Rule That Increased Exempt Salary Levels

By Mark Wiletsky 

The Department of Labor (DOL) exceeded its authority when it doubled the minimum salary levels for exempt executive, professional, and administrative employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), ruled federal judge Amos Mazzant of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas today. Granting summary judgment in favor of the states and business plaintiffs who challenged the new overtime rule last November, Judge Mazzant determined that the DOL’s new overtime rule “effectively eliminates a consideration of whether an employee performs ‘bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity’ duties.”

Exempt Duties Are Part Of The Analysis

Judge Mazzant wrote that although Congress delegated authority to the DOL to define and delimit the white-collar exemptions, Congress was clear when enacting the FLSA that the exemption determination needs to involve a consideration of an employee’s duties, rather than relying on salary alone. He stated that the Obama-era overtime rule that significantly increased the minimum salary levels would result in entire categories of previously exempt employees who perform “bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity” duties being denied exempt status simply because they didn’t meet the salary threshold. Consequently, the elimination of an analysis of duties for those who failed to meet the new high salary level was inconsistent with Congressional intent.

A Minimum Salary Level Still Acceptable

When issuing a preliminary injunction last November, Judge Mazzant’s ruling raised the question as to whether any salary threshold could be used as part of the white-collar exemption tests. In his summary judgment order, Judge Mazzant appears to leave the salary-level part of the test stand, writing “[t]he use of a minimum salary level in this manner is consistent with Congress’s intent because salary serves as a defining characteristic when determining who, in good faith, performs actual executive, administrative, or professional capacity duties.” He notes that even though the plain meaning of Section 213(a)(1) does not provide for a salary requirement, the DOL has used a permissible minimum salary level as a test for identifying categories of employees Congress intended to exempt. Citing to a report on the proposed regulations, Judge Mazzant seems to approve of setting that salary level at “somewhere near the lower end of the range of prevailing salaries for these employees.”

No Automatic Increase Mechanism

The ruling also strikes down the mechanism in the DOL’s overtime rule that provided for automatic updates to the exemption’s salary levels every three years. In a cursory paragraph, Judge Mazzant wrote that having found the rule unlawful, the automatic updating mechanism was similarly unlawful.

Back To Square One

Now that the existing, never-implemented rule has been invalidated, the DOL is starting over with revising and updating the overtime exemption rule. The DOL recently published a request for information seeking public input on what the new salary levels should be, how updates should be made, whether duties tests should be changed, and other issues affecting the white-collar exemptions. We will have to see what new proposals the DOL puts out in the months to come. But in the meantime, employers can abandon plans to address the doubled salary thresholds under the Final Rule.

On Another Note, No Pay Data To Be Collected With EEO-1 Reports

In another development, on August 29, 2017, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to immediately stay the requirement that certain employers provide pay data as part of a new EEO-1 report. The controversial pay-data rule would have required companies with 100 or more employees (and federal contractors with 50 or more employees), to submit the wage and hour information for employees according to race, gender, and ethnicity, with the information being used by the EEOC to analyze pay discrepancies and identify possible Equal Pay Act violations. Because of the stay, covered employers should use the previous EEO-1 form, which still collects data on employee race, ethnicity, and gender by occupational categories. Despite the reprieve for employers on the pay-data rule, EEOC Acting Chair Victoria Lipnic states that her agency remains committed to strongly enforcing federal equal pay laws.

If you have any questions about these new developments, be sure to reach out to the employment counsel with whom you typically work.

August 14, 2017

Only Certain Types of Speech Are Protected In The Workplace

By Steve Gutierrez

This past week, talk abounds over Google’s firing of a software engineer after he posted a lengthy memo criticizing the company’s diversity policy and culture on the company’s internal website. Google says he crossed a line and violated its Code of Conduct. The engineer says he engaged in protected speech and filed an unfair labor practice charge against Google with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The case will be interesting to follow, especially to the extent that it resolves the dispute between Google’s conduct policy and this employee’s criticisms of his former employer.

No Free Speech Guarantee

Some discussions about the Google memo have centered around the belief that employees should have free speech protections to say whatever they like, even about their employer. U.S. workers employed by private entities, however, do not have so-called free speech rights. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from making any laws that abridge the freedom of speech. But it applies only to government actions and does not prohibit private employers from limiting or taking employment actions based on what an employee says or does.

NLRA Concerted Activities Are Protected

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) guarantees employees the right to form and join unions. But it also gives employees the right to engage in other “concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” These rights under Section 7 of the NLRA extend to protecting non-union employees who discuss and/or act together to try to improve the terms and conditions of their employment, such as their pay, benefits, policies, and workplace safety issues. Employers may not threaten, discipline, or fire employees who engage in such protected activities.

When it comes to employee memos and social media posts, content generally will be protected if it relates to or grows out of group action, such as when an individual employee solicits other employees to take action to fix work-related problems or seek improvements in the workplace. But mere griping by an individual employee will not be protected as a protected concerted activity. Additionally, even communications that would be deemed concerted activities can lose NLRA protection if they express egregiously offensive, abusive, or knowingly and malicious false statements.

When Company Policies Clash With Concerted Activities

When a company policy prohibits employees from engaging in certain conduct, such as prohibiting disparagement of the company or its managers, or restricting discussion among co-workers of confidential information, the NLRB may consider whether it restricts or “chills” employees’ Section 7 rights to engage in protected concerted activities. If the NLRB finds that a policy is overly broad and potentially restricts concerted activities, the company can be found to have violated the NLRA.

Before Discipline and Discharge

Anytime your organization seeks to discipline or terminate an employee for writing emails, posting on social media, or otherwise communicating about the company, consider the following:

  • Does the communication discuss with or seek to engage co-workers in relation to the terms and conditions of their employment?
  • Could the communication be seen as an effort to form a union or another form of group action related to the workplace?
  • Is the employee reaching out to a third party, such as the media or union organizers, on behalf of multiple employees?
  • If the basis for the discipline or discharge is a company policy, is the policy narrowly defined or is it too broad so that it interferes with employees’ Section 7 rights?

Employers have a great deal of authority to discipline or get rid of at-will employees based on inappropriate or undesired communications or actions. Just make sure to evaluate whether employees are engaging in protected concerted activities prior to imposing a detrimental employment decision so as not to violate the NLRA.

June 22, 2017

U.S. DOJ Files Brief Supporting Arbitration Agreements That Bar Employee Class Actions

By Emily Hobbs-Wright

Last September, the U.S. Office of the Solicitor General urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that arbitration agreements that prohibit employees from pursuing work-related claims on a class action basis are unlawful because they violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). On June 16, 2017, however, the federal government filed a brief taking the exact opposite position, namely that class-action waivers in arbitration agreements should be enforced. This flip-flop in position is quite extraordinary, even with the change in administrations, making this important case one to watch next term. Here are the issues at stake for employers.

NLRB Appeal of Murphy Oil Case

With its controversial 2012 decision in the D.R. Horton case, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has advocated that arbitration agreements between an employer and its employees that ban employees from pursuing work-related claims as a class or group are unenforceable as they violate employees’ rights to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection under the NLRA. In 2013, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the NLRB’s ruling in D.R. Horton, holding that the use of class action procedures is not a “substantive right” of employees under the NLRA and therefore, arbitration agreements with class-action waivers should be enforced under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

The Fifth Circuit rejected the NLRB’s view on class-action waivers a second time when it ruled that Murphy Oil, which operates more than 1,000 gas stations in 21 states, did not commit an unfair labor practice when enforcing its arbitration agreements that required employees to resolve work-related claims on an individual basis. Two other appellate circuits – the Second and Eighth – have agreed with the Fifth Circuit’s position that class-action waivers are enforceable. Other circuits, however, including the Ninth and Seventh, have ruled in favor of the NLRB on this issue, creating inconsistencies concerning whether such agreements are lawful.

In the closing days of the Obama administration in September 2016, the Office of the Solicitor General (which is tasked with conducting government litigation before the Supreme Court) filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking it to decide the validity of class-action waivers in arbitration agreements through appeal of the Murphy Oil case. The government argued on behalf of the NLRB that such agreements were unlawful. Employers Ernst & Young and Epic Systems also sought Supreme Court review of their adverse decisions from other circuits on this same issue. In January 2017, just days before President Trump’s inauguration, the high court agreed to hear all three consolidated cases in its next term.

The NLRB Left To Go It Alone

When the United States filed its brief with the Supreme Court last week changing positions, it did so as a “friend of the court.” The June 16th brief is signed by lawyers from the Solicitor General’s office but not by any NLRB lawyers – although both offices were signatories to the original petition seeking review.

Under the Court’s briefing schedule, briefs from the NLRB and the employee-petitioners are due on August 9, 2017. According to a short statement on the NLRB’s website, the Solicitor General’s Office “authorized the National Labor Relations Board to represent itself” in the Murphy Oil case before the Supreme Court. This sets up a unique situation for oral arguments this fall when a lawyer from the Solicitor General’s office may argue against a lawyer for another federal agency, the NLRB.

What It Means For Employers

The change in position by the Solicitor General’s Office could lend additional weight to the employers’ arguments in favor of upholding class-action waivers in arbitration agreements. It is a business-friendly position that reins in the extensive reach of the NLRB in recent years. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of employers and against the NLRB, businesses will be able to enforce arbitration agreements containing class action waivers nationwide. We will keep you posted as this case proceeds to a ruling, which could be published about this time next year. Stay tuned!

June 20, 2017

No-Recording Policies: May Employers Ban All Worker Recordings?

By Steve Gutierrez

With a smartphone in almost every pocket, workers have high definition video and audio recording capabilities at their fingertips. It may be easier than ever before for employees to record workplace operations, meetings, disciplinary discussions, picketing, and other conditions and happenings in the workplace.

Some employers see potential worker recordings as detrimental to open and honest workplace dialogue and as well as potentially undermining a company’s protection of its proprietary or confidential information. These concerns may lead employers to adopt a policy to limit or prohibit employees from making recordings at work. After all, it seems inherently reasonable to require that employees get prior management approval before recording anything at work, or to limit what employees may do with video or audio recordings after they are made. So what’s the problem? Broad recording bans may infringe on employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

How Policies May Violate The NLRA

Section 7 of the NLRA guarantees employees the right to “engage in . . . concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” This means that employees, whether unionized or not, have the right to take actions to help protect, enhance, or improve the terms and conditions of employment for themselves and their co-workers. Employers who interfere with or restrain employees’ Section 7 rights may be found to have committed an unfair labor practice (ULP) under the NLRA.

So how does a no-recording policy interfere with such rights? Even when a policy or rule does not expressly restrict protected Section 7 activities, mere maintenance of a policy can constitute a ULP in three scenarios: (1) if employees would reasonably construe the language in the policy to prohibit protected activity; (2) if the policy was implemented in response to union activity; or (3) if the policy has been applied to restrict the exercise of protected rights.

Overly Broad Restrictions May “Chill” Section 7 Rights 

Typically, it is the first scenario that gets employers in trouble. You see, the National Labor Relations Board (Board) has held that in certain circumstances, employee recordings in the workplace can itself be a protected Section 7 activity. Generally, the Board finds that employee photographing, videotaping, and recording is protected by Section 7 when employees are acting in concert for their mutual aid and protection and there is no overriding employer interest. For example, employees recording images of employee picketing, or documenting discussions about unsafe working conditions, inconsistent application of work rules, or other terms of employment could be concerted activities protected under the NLRA.

When employers implement an overly broad policy that prohibits employees from making any workplace recordings, or permits recordings only with advance management approval, the Board takes the position that employees would reasonably construe that language as prohibiting protected Section 7 activities. As such, broad no-recording policies are seen as “chilling” employee rights, and therefore, a violation of the NLRA.

Second Circuit Recently Upheld ULP On Broad No-Recording Policy

In December of 2015, the Board ruled that Whole Foods had violated the NLRA by maintaining an overbroad no-recording policy. The company’s policy prohibited all recording without management approval. Whole Foods stated that its purpose for the policy was to promote employee communication in the workplace. The Board saw it differently, ruling that the policy’s overly broad language could “chill” an employee’s exercise of Section 7 rights because it was not limited to controlling those activities in which employees are not acting in concert.

Whole Foods appealed the Board’s decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals which recently issued its summary order affirming the Board’s 2015 decision. The appellate court wrote that the Board’s determination was supported by substantial evidence and was decided in accordance with law.

In a footnote, however, the Court noted that not every no-recording policy will necessarily infringe on employees’ Section 7 rights. But a lawful policy would have to be drafted narrowly so that it protects the company’s interests without interfering with employees’ protected activities.

Practical Policy Pointers

Employers generally have the right to control what goes on in their workplaces, so long as their policies do not violate specific employee rights. Legitimate business concerns, such as protecting confidential and proprietary information and fostering open and honest communications in the workplace, may justify a policy that limits employees from recording what goes on at work. In order to craft an enforceable policy that would likely avoid NLRB scrutiny, consider implementing the following practical tips:

  • Tailor the policy narrowly – identify those areas, activities, and/or times when employees are prohibited from recording, leaving non-problematic areas, activities, and times open to recording. An outright ban will likely be struck down.
  • Identify the legitimate reasons for the policy – by stating the strong business reasons for not allowing recording at certain times or places, employers help dispel the argument that the policy infringes on employee rights.
  • Be consistent – if your business permits visitors to your plant to take video or audio recordings of your operation, it will be difficult to argue a legitimate business reason for denying employees to make recordings in the same areas. Similarly, if your business has surveillance cameras throughout the workplace, it may be difficult to argue that employee recordings will harm your business interests. Also, be consistent in policy enforcement because allowing some employees to record while denying that ability to other similarly situated employees will lead to trouble.
  • Include a disclaimer – the policy should state that it is not intended to infringe on any employee’s right to engage in protected concerted activity.

Like most employment policies, a no-recording policy should reflect your specific business interests and industry and be narrowly tailored to achieve your end goal. If in doubt about whether you need or should revise a no-recording policy, please consult with your employment attorney.

June 7, 2017

DOL Withdraws Obama-Era Interpretations On Independent Contractors and Joint Employment

By Brad Cave

On June 7, 2017, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced that it was withdrawing two informal guidances, namely a 2015 administrator interpretation on independent contractors and a 2016 administrator interpretation on joint employment, effective immediately. The DOL’s short announcement states that the removal of the administrator interpretations does not change the legal responsibilities of employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA), and that the DOL “will continue to fully and fairly enforce all laws within its jurisdiction.” Here’s an attempt to read between the lines and determine the DOL’s position on these two issues.

Withdrawal of Independent Contractor Interpretation

When we wrote about the July 15, 2015 independent contractor interpretation here, we noted that then-Wage and Hour Division Administrator David Weil stressed that most workers meet the criteria to be deemed employees under the FLSA, and therefore, should not be treated as independent contractors. Although noting that multiple factors are used to determine independent contractor status, former administrator Weil stated that the DOL would focus primarily on whether the worker runs his or her own independent business or if instead, the worker is economically dependent on the employer.

Withdrawal of the 2015 interpretation guidance does not change the fact that to “employ” is broadly defined in the FLSA as “to suffer or permit to work” and consequently, most individuals hired to perform work fall within that definition as an employee. In addition, the long-standing  multi-factor “economic realities” test used by courts to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor will continue to apply.

That said, the withdrawal of the 2015 administrator interpretation may be a signal that the DOL will no longer focus on misclassifications of independent contractors with the same fervor as it previously did. A more business-friendly DOL may choose to rely on certain factors, such as an independent contractor agreement setting forth the business relationship and the comparative degree of control over the work exerted by the two parties, over those factors that were highlighted in former administrator Weil’s interpretation, such as whether the worker runs his or her own independent business. The distinction between employees and independent contractors remains, but query whether this DOL, under the direction of new Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta, will change the balance in determining independent contractor status.

Joint Employment Interpretation Withdrawn 

When the DOL issued its administrator interpretation on joint employer status in February 2016, we wrote here that the DOL made it clear that the agency planned to examine dual employer relationships very closely, with an apparent intent to find joint employer status in more circumstances under both the FLSA and the MSPA. By withdrawing that interpretation, the DOL may be suggesting a contraction of its efforts to find joint employer status. If that is the case, employers who utilize workers employed by a staffing agency or other workers provided by a third-party may face less scrutiny (and potentially, less liability) for wage and hour violations as a potential joint employer. In addition, companies that use the same workers across different subsidiaries or among other legally distinct entities may see a relaxation of the DOL’s emphasis on joint employer status.

The Tea Leaves Say . . .

Employers should stay vigilant about ensuring that workers they treat as independent contractors meet the multi-factor tests for independent contractor status. Similarly, organizations that could be subject to the joint employer analysis should examine their status under the applicable tests and are urged to review their third-party staffing arrangements to ensure compliance with wage and hour (and other DOL-enforced) laws. But, with the withdrawal of some of the more proactive enforcement approaches of the past administration, the DOL may be signaling its more business-friendly stance. Perhaps the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will be next to announce a less aggressive view towards finding joint employer status and a retraction of other arguably expansive positions taken in past years. We’ll keep you informed as new developments arise.

June 5, 2017

Positive Marijuana Drug Tests Up By 11% in Colorado, According To Recent Report

By Mark Wiletsky

Positive results from workforce drug tests are at the highest rate in twelve years, according to the recently released Quest Diagnostics Drug Testing Index. Of particular significance to Colorado employers is the increase in positive marijuana results in urine drug tests in 2016 – the first year of results after Colorado legalized recreational marijuana use.

Marijuana Testing Methods Show Varied Positivity Rates

In creating its annual report, Quest Diagnostics analyzes more than ten million drug test results from tests it conducted on behalf of U.S. employers. Positive results for marijuana for the general U.S. workforce increased significantly over the past few years, with the percentages of positive marijuana results varying by the method of testing, as follows:

  • Oral fluid testing: up nearly 75% from 2013 (5.1%) to 2016 (8.9%)
  • Hair testing: up over 4% from 2015 (7.0%) to 2016 (7.3%)
  • Urine testing: up 4% from 2015 (2.4%) to 2016 (2.5%)

In Colorado, the increase in positive marijuana urine tests was a striking 11% from 2015 (2.61%) to 2016 (2.9%). The positive marijuana urine test results also increased significantly by nine percent from 2015 to 2016 in Washington state, where recreational marijuana also was legalized. Whether these state increases can be explained by the legalization of recreational pot is unclear, but both states reflected increased marijuana positivity higher than the national increase for the same years.

Nationwide Increase In Cocaine and Methamphetamine Positivity

The recent Quest report revealed that the positivity rate for urine testing for cocaine increased twelve percent in 2016 for the general U.S. workforce. While that annual percentage increase is high, the percent of U.S. workers who tested positive for cocaine in a urine test by Quest in 2016 was a relatively low 0.28 percent.

The results for amphetamines, which includes amphetamine and methamphetamine, increased more than eight percent in urine testing from 2015 to 2016 in the general U.S. workforce. Looking at the increase over the last four years, methamphetamine positivity in urine testing rose 64 percent. In oral fluid testing, those numbers are even higher as methamphetamines positivity increased 75 percent between 2013 (0.24%) and 2016 (0.42%).

Here is a look at an infographic from Quest Diagnostic regarding the results from its most recent report:

Workforce Drug Testing Index: As overall substance abuse rises across the United States, drug testing programs continue to play an important role in helping to create safe, drug-free workplaces. (PRNewsfoto/Quest Diagnostics)

Drug Testing Considerations

With positive drug test results on the rise, more employers will likely face the tricky employment decisions associated with positive tests. Here are some legal issues and best practices to consider:

  • Have a written, zero tolerance drug policy prohibiting employees, while on company premises or while engaged on company business, from (a) the use, possession, sale, and distribution of illegal drugs, and (b) being under the influence of illegal drugs. Illegal drugs should be defined as any substance that is illegal under either federal or state law as well as prescription drugs prescribed to another person or that are taken in a dosage or manner that was not prescribed.
  • Consider whether you will require employees to report their use of prescription drugs that may affect their ability to safely perform their work duties, especially for those in safety-sensitive positions. Be careful, however, not to discriminate against employees who use prescription medications to treat a disability. You may need to make a reasonable accommodation when dealing with a disabled individual.
  • If you conduct drug tests, have a written policy outlining the following:
    • when tests are conducted (e.g., pre-employment, reasonable suspicion, random, post-accident, etc.)
    • consequences for failing a drug test, up to and including termination
    • notification that refusing a drug test will result in termination
    • any state-specific testing requirements
  • If an employee uses marijuana for medical purposes, consider whether any employment accommodation obligations exist under applicable law. Colorado’s medical marijuana law does not specify an accommodation requirement and thus far, Colorado courts have not imposed such a requirement. Some other state’s medical marijuana laws, however, do impose workplace accommodation obligations, so when faced with a positive marijuana drug test, be sure to consider any applicable laws.
  • Keep drug test results and any other medical information confidential. This means you should keep separate medical or drug testing files so that this information does not get put in an employee’s regular personnel file. Also limit the individuals who have access to this information.

By planning ahead with appropriate policies and knowledge of your legal requirements, you will help your organization handle positive drug test results properly. When in doubt, consult with a competent employment lawyer.

May 31, 2017

Sexual Harassment Claim May Proceed Despite Lack Of Specificity In EEOC Charge

By Brad Cave

The Tenth Circuit recently reversed the dismissal of a quid pro quo sexual harassment claim and sent it back to the trial court for a trial, rejecting the employer’s argument that the required, pre-lawsuit EEOC charge did not allege quid pro quo harassment.

Labeling Between Two Forms of Harassment Not Required

Most human resource professionals recognize that two forms of sexual harassment are prohibited under Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination. Quid pro quo harassment arises when a supervisor demands sexual favors from a subordinate in exchange for the receipt or withholding of a term or condition of employment. Hostile work environment harassment occurs when sufficiently severe or pervasive offensive conduct creates an intimidating, hostile, or abusive work environment. This distinction has been recognized for decades by the courts as two variations of prohibited sexual harassment.

Despite the widespread acceptance of these two recognized forms of unlawful harassment, neither Title VII nor its regulations use the “quid pro quo” or “hostile work environment” labels. As the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (whose decisions apply to Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Kansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma) recently pointed out, these labels began in academia and then were adopted by the courts. But, according to the Court, despite the ability of the labels to describe the alternate ways that sexual harassment may occur, the labels themselves are not wholly distinct claims. They both raise a claim of sex discrimination in the workplace in violation of Title VII.

Because a claim of sex discrimination encompasses both types of sexual harassment, the majority of the Tenth Circuit three-judge panel concluded that a former employee’s EEOC charge need only allege sufficient facts to alert his former employer of the alleged violation without having to specifically label which form of harassment is being alleged. Jones v. Needham, No. 16-6156 (10th Cir., May 12, 2017).

Male Mechanic Alleged Female Supervisor Made Sexual Advances

The case at issue arose when Bryan “Shane” Jones alleged that he was fired because he refused to have sex with his direct supervisor, Julie Needham. Jones worked as a mechanic for Needham Trucking, of which Ms. Needham was also a shareholder.

To file his claim with the EEOC, Jones completed an intake questionnaire on which he checked the boxes for “Sex” and “Retaliation” as the basis for his charge. He also wrote in sex harassment on the form. Moreover, he identified two witnesses that he claimed would testify that they knew of the sexual harassment and provided that another mechanic was treated better because he had sex with Ms. Needham. He also prepared an attachment to provide more details of his claim, including the statement that “I was terminated because I refused to agree to Ms. Needham’s sexual advances and I rejected all such efforts by her.”

EEOC Issued Right-to-Sue Letter After Preparing An Abbreviated Charge

Unbeknownst to Jones, the EEOC apparently did not receive the separate attachment to his intake questionnaire. Instead, the EEOC prepared a charge form based on the intake questionnaire alone. That charge form stated that during his employment, Jones was subjected to sexual remarks by owner, Julie Needham, that he complained about the sexual harassment to the general manager and other owners and nothing was done, and that Needham terminated his employment. The charge did not specify the additional information that Jones had written in his would-be attachment about Needham’s sexual advances.

After the EEOC issued Jones a right-to-sue letter, he filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging sexual harassment and other state-law claims. Although his complaint initially pursued his sexual harassment claim on both a hostile work environment and quid pro quo basis, he later dropped his argument based on a hostile work environment.

District Court Dismissed Quid Pro Quo Claim For Failure To Exhaust Administrative Remedies

Looking at whether Jones’ EEOC charge form sufficiently alleged sexual harassment, the district court appeared to find it deficient because the form did not include the missing attachment that spelled out the quid pro quo allegations. Relying on precedent that a plaintiff’s claim in federal court “is generally limited by the scope of the administrative investigation that can reasonably be expected to follow the charge of discrimination submitted to the EEOC,” the district court dismissed Jones’s sexual harassment claim, holding that Jones had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for his quid pro quo sexual harassment claim.

Jones appealed to the Tenth Circuit, which revived his claim upon finding that the charge form contained sufficient allegations to trigger an investigation that would look into “what [Needham’s] sexual remarks were, why Mr. Jones was fired, and whether the two events were connected.” As described above, the Tenth Circuit refused to require that the charge be more specific as to the type or form of harassment alleged.

Lesson: Investigate All Possible Harassment Without Regard For Labels

Although Jones’s employer, Needham Trucking, argued that the facts alleged in the EEOC charge failed to provide it with notice that Jones was alleging quid pro quo harassment, the Tenth Circuit didn’t buy that argument. Instead, it expected the employer to investigate and respond to the facts that were in the charge regardless of whether they supported a hostile work environment or quid pro quo claim. Consequently, employers should investigate all facts in an EEOC charge and let their investigations follow where the facts take them.

Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a very viable and useful defense when an employee’s lawsuit alleges claims outside of the allegations found in the EEOC charge. But when it comes to sexual harassment, don’t get too caught up in any labels regarding the theory of harassment being alleged. If the facts allege a claim under either (or both) forms of harassment, the charge may very well be sufficient.

May 17, 2017

Employer’s Dispute Resolution Program Did Not Prevent Employee Termination

By Steve Gutierrez

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld judgment in favor of an employer on a former employee’s retaliation and wrongful discharge claims, ruling that the employer’s internal dispute resolution program did not prevent the employer from terminating the employee. In full disclosure, I represented the employer in this case and with my client’s approval, offer this insight into how we obtained this favorable outcome.

Account Executive Fired For Poor Performance and Missed Meetings

Jill Doran-Slevin (Doran-Slevin) began working for United Parcel Service (UPS) as an account executive in late 2010. Despite being assigned thousands of accounts, Doran-Slevin quickly began falling behind in her sales plan results. She also failed to adequately follow-up and serve her customers. In her 2011 performance review, Doran-Slevin was informed she needed to significantly improve her performance.

In early 2012, Doran-Slevin’s new area manager as well as human resources personnel worked with her to create a goal-setting matrix to help her improve her performance. UPS scheduled multiple meetings to discuss the matrix with Doran-Slevin, but she had a series of excuses for not attending the meetings.

During that time, Doran-Slevin composed two letters in which she alleged that she “was the target of discriminatory practices involving [her] gender [and] age.” She sent the first letter to UPS and the second to the EEOC. She did not, however, notify UPS that she had sent her allegations to the EEOC.

Upon receipt of Doran-Slevin’s letter, the company began investigating her allegations. While the investigation was ongoing, Doran-Slevin met with her managers to discuss a revised goal-setting matrix which she signed. Although UPS thought that the meeting had been positive and productive, Doran-Slevin stopped coming to work. For three days, she failed to show up for work or answer her phone. When Doran-Slevin finally called in and met with UPS managers, she indicated that she was interested in leaving with a severance package. UPS scheduled a follow-up meeting in order to discuss possible severance, but after Doran-Slevin failed to show up or answer her phone at the meeting time, UPS terminated her employment.

Employee Failed To Utilize Employee Dispute Resolution Program

UPS has an Employee Dispute Resolution (EDR) process that outlines a five-step internal grievance procedure. It begins with an informal open door step, followed by more formal dispute reviews, up to and including voluntary arbitration. Importantly, however, nothing in the EDR policy prohibits UPS from imposing discipline, including termination, while the internal dispute process proceeds. 

At the time of her termination, UPS informed Doran-Slevin that she could use the EDR process if she wished. In addition, when it sent her a formal termination letter, UPS enclosed a brochure explaining the EDR process. Doran-Slevin admitted at trial that she did not try to initiate the EDR process with respect to her termination. 

Former Employee Sues On Multiple Claims

Doran-Slevin pursued multiple claims against UPS, including retaliation under federal and state anti-discrimination laws based on her filing an EEOC complaint and wrongful discharge under Montana’s Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act.

The case proceeded to a jury trial in federal court in Montana. After many days of testimony, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law in UPS’s favor on Doran-Slevin’s retaliation and wrongful discharge claims. The court allowed Doran-Slevin’s claim for lack of good cause for termination to go to the jury, which returned a unanimous verdict in UPS’s favor. Doran-Slevin appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on multiple grounds, including the grant of judgment as a matter of law in favor of UPS.

Appellate Court Upholds Judgment In Favor of Employer

After considering the written positions of both sides as well as asking questions during oral argument, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. The Ninth Circuit stated that no reasonable juror could have determined that UPS terminated Doran-Slevin based on her filing of an EEOC claim because it was undisputed that UPS did not learn about the EEOC complaint prior to terminating Doran-Slevin. The Court also rejected Doran-Slevin’s wrongful discharge claims, finding in part that Doran-Slevin had not triggered application of UPS’s EDR program and additionally, the EDR program did not prohibit UPS from terminating Doran-Slevin. The Court upheld judgment in favor of UPS.

Take Aways For Employers

Litigation is rarely a pleasant experience, but achieving a court victory based on sound employment practices can make it worthwhile. Of course this case is unique on its facts and cannot guarantee the outcome of future cases, but some useful best practices regarding terminations may be gleaned from it, including the following:

  • Review employment laws of the state where the employee resides/works prior to making a termination decision. This case arose in Montana which has a unique wrongful discharge statute. An employer who relies on an employee’s at-will status when implementing a termination decision may well be out of luck in a state like Montana, so state-specific differences should be reviewed prior to making employment decisions.
  • Use disclaimers and disavow contractual obligations in your policies. By specifically stating that your handbook or other policies do not constitute a contract between the employee and the company, you may help eliminate claims that you breached your obligation to follow any particular steps prior to terminating employees.
  • If you use an internal dispute resolution process, reserve the company’s right to discipline or terminate employees for legitimate business reasons even while the process is ongoing. Similarly, if you use a progressive discipline policy, make sure that it states that the company may skip steps and escalate to immediate termination should the company deem it necessary.

By taking the time to get your policies and documentation in order and evaluating any risks prior to making a termination decision, you will increase your chances of prevailing should the employee file a claim against your organization.

May 3, 2017

Is Comp Time Coming To The Private Sector?

By Mark Wiletsky

Employees in the private sector may have the option of earning compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week. The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2017, H.B. 1180, which would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to permit employees in the private sector to receive compensatory time off at a rate of not less than one and one-half hours for each hour of overtime worked. The bill now heads to the Senate for consideration.

Eligibility For Comp Time

Under the FLSA, compensatory time in lieu of overtime pay has long been permitted for public sector government employees. But non-government, private sector employees have not had the option of accruing comp time as the FLSA requires that private sector employers compensate overtime only through pay. Under this bill, private sector employees who have worked at least 1,000 hours for their employer during a period of continuous employment with the employer in the previous 12-month period may agree to accrue comp time instead of being paid overtime pay.

Employee Agreement For Comp Time

Under the bill, an employer may provide comp time to employees either (a) in accordance with the provisions of an applicable collective bargaining agreement for union employees, or (b) in accordance with an agreement between a non-union employee and the employer. In the case of non-union employees, the agreement between the employee and the employer must be reached before the overtime work is performed and the agreement must be affirmed by a written or otherwise verifiable record maintained by the employer.

The agreement must specify that the employer has offered and the employee has chosen to receive compensatory time in lieu of monetary overtime compensation. It must also specify that it was entered into knowingly and voluntarily by such employee. Requiring comp time in lieu of overtime pay cannot be a condition of employment.

Limits On And Pay-Out Of Accrued Comp Time

The bill specifies that an employee may not accrue more than 160 hours of comp time. No later than January 31 of each calendar year, the employer must pay out any unused comp time accrued but not used during the previous calendar year (or such other 12-month period as the employer specifies to employees). In addition, at the employer’s option, it may pay out an employee’s unused comp time in excess of 80 hours at any time as long as it provides the employee at least 30-days’ advance notice. An employer may also discontinue offering comp time if it provides employees 30-days’ notice of the discontinuation.

The bill provides that an employee may terminate his or her agreement to accrue comp time instead of receiving overtime pay at any time. In addition, an employee may request in writing that all unused, accrued comp time be paid out to him or her at any time. Upon receipt of the pay-out request, an employer has 30 days to pay out the comp time balance. Upon termination of employment, the employer must pay out any unused comp time to the departing employee. The rate of pay during pay-out shall be the regular rate earned by the employee at the time the comp time was accrued, or the regular rate at the time the employee received payment, whichever is higher.

Employee Use of Comp Time

Under the bill, employers must honor employee requests to use accrued comp time within a reasonable period after the request is made. Employers need not honor a request if the use of comp time would unduly disrupt the operations of the employer. Employers are prohibited from threatening, intimidating, or coercing employees either in their choice in whether to select comp time or overtime pay, or in their use of accrued comp time.

Will It Pass?

The bill passed the House 229-197, largely along party lines with all Democrats and six Republicans voting against it. Reports suggest that although Republicans hold 52 seats in the Senate, they will need at least eight Democrats to vote in favor of the bill to avoid a filibuster. Supporters of the bill urge that it offers workers more flexibility and control over their time off. Those who oppose the bill say it could weaken work protections as it offers a promise of future time off at the expense of working overtime hours for free. This is not the first time that federal comp time legislation has been proposed, so we will have to see if the Senate can line up sufficient votes to pass it this time around. Stay tuned.