Category Archives: Nevada

October 12, 2017

Top Five Ongoing Challenges For Collective Bargaining and Organizing

Most expect that the White House and federal agencies will take a more business-friendly approach than in recent years. Employers hope that will mean they can now look forward to a potential rollback of regulations and enforcement efforts that have stymied their business objectives. Yet when it comes to responding to union organizing campaigns and negotiating collective bargaining agreements, employers still face wide-ranging challenges. Here is my list of the top five ongoing challenges.

1. Affordable Care Act (ACA) Cadillac Tax

Many unions, such as the Teamsters, prioritize and bargain extensively over top quality, employer-paid health insurance. They often use it as a selling point to their members. Yet, the ACA’s 40 percent excise tax on workers with comprehensive insurance plans (the so-called “Cadillac tax”), set to be implemented in 2020, is seen by the unions as an affront to their hard-fought bargaining to obtain high quality health care for their membership.

In fact, reports show that unions, including the Teamsters, have actively lobbied members of Congress for a repeal of the Cadillac tax. Because health care reform has not yet passed, it may be unlikely that relief from the Cadillac tax is forthcoming anytime soon.

This opens the door for alternate bargaining tactics over health care plans and benefits. Economics can be based on the ultimate cost to the employees/members, when factoring in the tax. This issue remains a challenge for both employers and the union and can change the overall approach to structuring the economic package during contract negotiations.

2. Micro-units

In 2011, the NLRB issued its Specialty Healthcare decision permitting unions to establish bargaining units that include only a small fraction of a workforce. For example, in 2014, the Board certified a micro-unit of cosmetic and fragrance salespersons working at a Macy’s department store rather than requiring all employees at the store (or even all salespersons at the store) to make up the bargaining unit. The Board authorized the micro-unit by finding that the cosmetics and fragrances salespersons were a readily identifiable group and shared a community of interest. The Board also found that other Macy’s employees did not share an overwhelming community of interest with the cosmetics and fragrances employees, and prior NLRB cases involving the retail industry did not require a wall-to-wall unit.

These micro-units can make union organizing easier as they do not require a majority of the historical “wall-to-wall” bargaining units to vote in favor of the union. For example, a unit of only nine employees needs just five to vote “yes” and the union has its foot in the door with that employer. And organizing on that micro level can more easily go unnoticed by employers. Micro-units can also result in an employer having to negotiate with multiple unions affecting small segments of its workforce, and the headaches involved with administering varying contracts.

Numerous efforts are underway in the current administration to do away with micro-units. Current NLRB Chairman Phillip Miscimarra disagrees with the Specialty Healthcare standard for determining an appropriate bargaining unit, raising chances that the Board will abandon the approval of micro-bargaining units. However, Miscimarra has announced that he will leave the Board when his term expires in December 2017. Despite his impending departure, it is possible that a majority-Republican Board will reverse course on micro-units.

In addition, this past Spring, Senate Republicans introduced (again) the Representation Fairness Restoration Act (S. 801) which would do away with micro-units. That bill has been assigned to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee where it is one of 250 bills currently being considered by the committee.

Until the law or Board precedent is changed, micro-units remain a challenge for employers. But because a more employer-friendly Board might rule against a micro-unit, it becomes vastly important to challenge proposed bargaining units and any potential outlier unit members. Increased pressure on the Board on this issue should be a continued focus.

3. Transparency with Employees/Members

Unions are becoming quite savvy in communicating with their members and potential members. Union leaders are increasingly focusing on being more transparent with their members during the bargaining process. They continue to build strong communications networks centered on social media and other online platforms, with development of mobile apps and company-specific websites, Facebook pages, and Twitter accounts.

To stay ahead of and counter union communications, employers facing a union organizing campaign or in the midst of negotiating a contract should institute and invest in more robust communication strategies with their employees as well. Social media and other online communications boards are essential in getting the company’s message out, especially to millennials and other employee demographics who will seek their information from such sources. But, be aware that in late 2014, the NLRB ruled that employees may presumptively use a company’s email system for statutorily protected communications as long as it takes place during nonworking time and does not interfere with productivity. That Board decision, Purple Communications, is on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals but remains a challenge for employers until such time it is reversed or overturned.

4. New Technology in the Workplace

As more technology comes into the workplace and robots threaten to replace workers, collective bargaining will likely face these issues head on. Just as outsourcing used to be (and in many cases, still is) a sore spot for unions, workplace automation is a similar threat to jobs and future expansion.

One example involves the Teamsters who recognize that autonomous driving vehicles are becoming a reality. The Teamsters are urging lawmakers to prioritize workers and safety when crafting legislation and rules regarding autonomous vehicles. Their concerns likely spill over into their contract negotiations as well.

As workplace technology accelerates, discussions of the use of such technology will likely become key in any bargaining where robots and automation are a possibility. Anticipating that topic, and the potential impact on workers, opens the door for employers to bargain for potential gains and/or trade-offs in their favor when the union opposes or seeks to limit autonomous technology.

5. Favorability of Unions on the Rise

According to a January 2017 Union Favorability Survey by the Pew Research Center (PRC), 60 percent of respondents viewed labor unions favorably while only 35 percent viewed unions unfavorably. This is the highest union favorability rating compiled by the PRC since March of 2001 and only the second rating at or above 60 percent since 1985.

Employers should be aware of this rising trend, especially when communicating with employees during an organizing or bargaining campaign. Opposing and criticizing unions too strongly could backfire so communications and strategies should be formulated to focus on issues, rather than the institution of unions and union membership itself.

Responding to organizing campaigns and preparing for collective bargaining is always a challenge but thinking ahead about these top five issues, and investing in some preventative training and education for managers, can help you manage the process and achieve a favorable outcome.

October 5, 2017

ADA Does Not Mandate Multi-month Leave of Absence As Accommodation, Says Seventh Circuit Court

By Mark Wiletsky

Rarely do we receive definitive guidance on reasonable accommodations. But the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals came very close to providing that when it recently ruled that a multi-month leave of absence is beyond the scope of a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Back Condition Leads to FMLA Leave

In the recent Seventh Circuit case, Raymond Severson had long suffered from back myelopathy, a condition that caused degenerative changes in his back, neck, and spinal cord and impaired his functioning. Although he usually was able to perform his duties at Heartland Woodcraft, Inc., a fabricator of retail display fixtures, at times Severson experienced flare-ups that made it difficult for him to walk, bend, lift, sit, stand, or work.

Over the course of seven years of employment with Heartland Woodcraft, Severson rose from supervisor to shop superintendent and then to operations manager. The company, however, found that he performed poorly in the operations manager position and on June 5, 2013, notified Severson that it had demoted him to a second-shift lead position, which included performing manual labor in the production area.

That same morning, Severson had wrenched his back at home and he was visibly uncomfortable. He left work early and requested leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). He was granted FMLA leave, and his doctor provided certificates indicated that he had multiple herniated and bulging discs in his back which would make him unable to work until further notice.

Unable To Return To Work Following FMLA Leave

While out on FMLA leave, Severson’s doctor treated him with steroid injections, but they did not improve his condition. Severson scheduled disc decompression surgery for August 27, 2013, the same day that his 12 weeks of FMLA leave would expire.

About two weeks before his surgery, Severson requested an extension of his medical leave, explaining that typical recovery time for his surgery would be at least two months. The company contacted him on August 26, the day before his scheduled surgery, and informed him that his employment with Heartland would terminate on August 27 when his FMLA leave expired. He was told he could reapply for employment after he was medically cleared to work.

On August 27, Severson had his scheduled surgery, and on October 17, his doctor gave him a partial clearance to return to work with a 20-pound lifting restriction. On December 5, Severson’s doctor released him to work without restriction.

Leave As A Reasonable Accommodation

Severson sued the company for an ADA violation alleging that it failed to accommodate his physical disability by refusing to provide a three-month leave of absence following expiration of his FMLA leave. The federal court in Wisconsin rejected the claim as a matter of law, entering summary judgment in favor of Heartland Woodcraft, and Severson appealed.

The Seventh Circuit (whose decisions are binding on federal courts in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana) affirmed judgment in favor of the employer. The Court was very clear in ruling that a long-term medical leave is not a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. Judge Sykes, writing for the three-judge panel, stated, “The ADA is an antidiscrimination statute, not a medical-leave entitlement.” The Court stated that a reasonable accommodation is intended to make it possible for the employee to perform his or her job. But a medical leave that lasts multiple months does not allow the employee to work and that inability to work removes the person from the class of “qualified individuals” protected by the ADA.

The Court stated that brief periods of time off may be an appropriate accommodation in some circumstances. For example, the Court noted that intermittent time off or a short leave of absence may be appropriate for someone with arthritis or lupus when brief periods of inflammation make it too painful for the individual to work. But the Court ruled that a multi-month leave of absence “is beyond the scope of a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.” 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 10, 2017

New Nevada Employment Laws – Part 2: Non-competes and Domestic Violence Leave

by Dora Lane

In addition to the pregnancy accommodation law and nursing mothers law we reported on here, the Nevada legislature recently enacted changes to Nevada’s non-compete law and created a new obligation for employers to provide domestic violence leave. Here are the specifics of these new laws that Nevada employers need to know.

Non-Compete Agreements – Changes To Enforceability (AB 276) – effective June 3, 2017

Governor Sandoval recently signed into law AB 276 which enacts some important changes to existing Nevada non-compete law, requiring careful review.

To begin, AB 276 amends NRS Chapter 613 to require that a non-compete covenant: (a) be supported by valuable consideration; (b) not impose any restraint that is greater than necessary for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed; (c) not impose any undue hardship on the employee; and (d) impose restrictions that are appropriate in relation to the valuable consideration supporting the non-compete covenant.

Many questions are raised by the new requirement that the restrictions be in relation to the consideration offered to the employee to support the non-compete agreement. One key question is whether continued employment of an at-will employee will be sufficient consideration to support a non-compete. We will have to see how that language plays out in future enforcement actions.

Restructuring or Reductions In Force. The new amendments state that, if an employee’s termination is the result of a reduction in force, reorganization, or “similar restructuring,” a non-compete covenant is only enforceable during the period in which the employer is paying the employee’s “salary, benefits or equivalent compensation,” such as severance pay. This restriction may vastly reduce the ability of Nevada employers to use non-compete agreements when executives, managers, or other employees are let go due to downsizing or other restructuring.

Restrictions Related to Customers. These new amendments further provide that a non-compete covenant may not restrict a former employee from providing service to a former client or customer of the employer if: (a) the former employee did not solicit the former client or customer; (b) the client or customer voluntarily chose to leave and seek services from the former employee; and (c) the former employee is otherwise complying with the limitations in the covenant as to time, geographical area, and scope of activity to be restricted, other than any limitation on providing services to a former customer or client who seeks the services of the former employee without any contact instigated by the former employee.

Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreements. AB 276 additionally states that it does not prohibit agreements to protect an employer’s confidential and trade secret information if the agreement is supported by valuable consideration and is otherwise reasonable in scope and duration.

Judicial Revision Required. Notably, the new provisions state that if, during a non-compete enforcement action, a court determines that the non-compete covenant is supported by valuable consideration, but otherwise contains limitations that are unreasonable, or impose greater restraint than necessary and create undue hardship on the employee, the court “shall revise the covenant to the extent necessary and enforce the covenant as revised.” Any judicial revisions must be made to cause the limitations contained in the non-compete agreement as to time, geographical area and scope of activity to be restrained to be reasonable and to impose a restraint that is not greater than is necessary for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed.

Domestic Violence Leave (SB 361) – effective January 1, 2018

Beginning in 2018, Nevada employers must provide an employee who has been employed for least 90 days and who is a victim of domestic violence, or whose family or household member is a victim of domestic violence, up to 160 hours of leave in one 12-month period, assuming the employee is not the alleged perpetrator. A “family or household member” means a spouse, domestic partner, minor child, or parent or another adult who is related within the first degree of consanguinity or affinity to the employee, or other adult person who is or was actually residing with the employee at the time the act of domestic violence was committed.

The leave allowed under this new law may be paid or unpaid, and may be used intermittently or in a single block of time. The leave must be used within 12 months after the date when the act of domestic violence occurred. If used for FMLA-qualifying purposes, the domestic violence leave will run concurrently with FMLA leave and both leave balances will be reduced accordingly.

Reasons For Leave. Eligible employees may take domestic violence leave for the following reasons:

For the diagnosis, care, or treatment of a health condition related to an act of domestic violence committed against the employee or the employee’s family or household member;
To obtain counseling or assistance related to an act of domestic violence committed against the employee or the employee’s family or household member;
To participate in court proceedings related to an act of domestic violence committed against the employee or the employee’s family or household member; or
To establish a safety plan, including any action to increase the safety of the employee or the employee’s family or household member from a future act of domestic violence.

Notice Requirements. This new leave law requires an employee who has used any leave allowed under the bill to give his or her employer at least 48 hours notice if the employee needs to use additional leave for any of the purposes outlined above.

Reasonable Accommodations. Employers are obligated to make reasonable accommodations that will not create undue hardship for an employee who is a victim of domestic violence (or whose family or household member is such a victim). These accommodations may include: (a) a transfer or reassignment; (b) a modified schedule; (c) a new telephone number for work; or (d) any other reasonable accommodation which will not create an undue hardship deemed necessary to ensure the safety of the employee, the workplace, the employer, and other employees.

Documentation. Employers may require employees to present documentation substantiating the need for leave, such as a police report, a copy of an application for a protective order, an affidavit from an organization that provides assistance to victims of domestic violence, or documentation from a physician. Any substantiating documentation provided to the employer must be treated confidentially and must be retained in a manner consistent with the FMLA requirements. In addition, employers may require an employee to provide documentation that confirms or supports the need for a reasonable accommodation under this new law.

Recordkeeping. Employers are required to keep a record of the hours taken for domestic violence leave for a 2-year period following the entry of the information in the record and make these records available to inspection by the Nevada Labor Commissioner upon request. When producing records pursuant to an inspection request, employee names must be redacted, unless a request for a record is made for investigation purposes.

Notice. Pursuant to SB 361, the Nevada Labor Commissioner has provided a bulletin setting forth the rights conferred to employees under the domestic violence leave law, available on its website. Employers must post the bulletin in a conspicuous location in the employer’s workplace. The bulletin may be included in the posting already required by NRS 608.013.

Additional Protections. The domestic violence leave law states that an otherwise eligible employee may not be denied unemployment benefits if the employee left employment to protect himself or herself (or a family or household member) from an act of domestic violence, and the person actively engaged in an effort to preserve employment.

The new law also prohibits employers from denying an employee’s right to use domestic violence leave, requiring an employee to find a replacement as a condition to using this leave, or retaliating against an employee for using such leave. It is also unlawful for employers to discharge, discipline, discriminate in any manner or deny employment or promotion to, or threaten to take any such action against an employee because:

The employee sought leave under SB 361;
The employee participated as a witness or interested party in court proceedings related to domestic violence, which triggered the use of leave under SB 361;
The employee requested an accommodation pursuant to SB 361; or
The employee was subjected to an act of domestic violence at the workplace.

Update Your Policies and Practices

Take time now to review and update your employee handbook, supervisor manuals, and other personnel policies to reflect these new Nevada laws. If you use non-compete agreements, be sure to review future agreements for compliance with the amended statute. Also, be sure to train your managers, supervisors, team leads, and human resources personnel on the requirements and restrictions imposed on employers by these laws. As always, if you have questions or need assistance, contact your Nevada employment attorney.

July 5, 2017

New Nevada Employment Laws – Part 1: Pregnancy Accommodations and Nursing Mothers

By Dora Lane

The Nevada Legislature was very busy this year, passing several significant employment-related bills that will affect Nevada employers. Here is my first summary of new Nevada employment laws you’ll need to know about, addressing protections and accommodations for pregnant applicants and employees, and break times and suitable facilities for expressing breast milk.

Nevada Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act

Senate Bill 253 created the Nevada Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act, which applies to employers with 15 or more employees (for at least 20 weeks in the current or preceding year). This new law makes it unlawful for an employer to do any of the following (except when the action taken is based upon a bona fide occupational qualification):

Refuse to provide a reasonable accommodation to a female employee or applicant, if requested, for a condition of the employee or applicant relating to pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical condition, unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the business (as discussed below);
Take an adverse employment action against a female employee because the employee requests or uses a reasonable accommodation for a condition of the employee related to pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical condition, such as failing to promote the employee, requiring the employee to transfer to another position, declining to reinstate the employee to the same or equivalent position after the employee comes back to work, or taking “any other action which affects the terms or conditions of employment in a manner which is not desired by the employee.”
Deny an employment opportunity to a qualified female applicant or employee based on their need for a reasonable accommodation for a condition related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition;
Require a female applicant or employee who is affected by a condition related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition to accept an accommodation that the employee or applicant did not request or chooses not to accept; and
Require a female employee who is affected by a condition related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition to take leave from employment if a reasonable accommodation for any such condition of the employee is available that would allow the employee to continue to work.

The law defines a condition related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition as a physical or mental condition intrinsic to pregnancy or childbirth that includes, without limitation, lactation or the need to express breast milk for a nursing child. “Related medical condition” is further defined as any medically recognized physical or mental condition related to pregnancy, childbirth, or recovery from pregnancy or childbirth, such as mastitis or other lactation-related medical condition, gestational diabetes, pregnancy-induced hypertension, preeclampsia, post-partum depression, loss or end of pregnancy and recovery from loss or end of pregnancy.

Pregnancy Accommodations

In the event an applicant or employee seeks a reasonable accommodation for a pregnancy-related condition, the new law requires the employer and employee to engage in a timely, good-faith interactive process to arrive at an effective, reasonable accommodation for the applicant or employee. Examples of reasonable accommodations include: (1) modifying equipment or providing different seating; (2) revising break schedules (as to frequency or duration); (3) providing a space in an area other than a bathroom that might be used for expressing breast milk; (4) providing assistance with manual labor if the manual labor is incidental to the primary work duties of the employee; (5) authorizing light duty; (6) temporarily transferring the employee to a less strenuous or hazardous position; or (7) restructuring a position or providing a modified work schedule.

An employer is not, however, required to create a new position as an accommodation (unless the employer has created or would create such a position to accommodate other classes of employees). An employer is also not required to fire another employee, transfer any employee with more seniority, or promote any employee who is not qualified to perform the job (unless the employer has taken or would take such an action to accommodate other classes of employees).

An employer seeking to show that a requested accommodation is an undue burden has to demonstrate that the accommodation is significantly difficult to provide or expensive, considering, without limitation: (1) the nature and cost of the accommodation; (2) the overall financial resources of the employer; (3) the overall size of the employer’s business with respect to the number of its employees, and the number, type, and location of available facilities; and (4) the effect the accommodation would have on the employer’s expenses and resources or on the employer’s operations. Evidence that the employer provides or would be required to provide a similar accommodation to a similarly situated applicant or employee creates a rebuttable presumption that the accommodation does not impose an undue hardship on the employer.

Notice Requirements

SB 253 also requires employers to provide a written or electronic notice of the rights conferred by the Nevada Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act to employees, including the right that a female employee is entitled to a reasonable accommodation for a condition related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition. The notice must be provided upon commencement of employment and within 10 days after the employee notifies her supervisor that she is pregnant. The notice must also be posted in a conspicuous place at the employer’s business location, in an area accessible to employees.

No Retaliation

SB 253 provides anti-retaliation protections for employees or applicants who oppose any practice made unlawful by the Nevada Pregnant Workers’ Act, or who have made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing related to the Act.

Licensed Contractors Exempt From Certain Provisions

Employers who are licensed contractors under NRS Chapter 624 are not subject to the requirement to provide suitable breast milk expression facilities (other than a bathroom) if the employee is performing work on a construction site located more than 3 miles from the employer’s regular place of business. Such employers are, instead, encouraged to provide suitable breast milk expression facilities to the extent practicable. In addition, these employers are exempt from the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 above (requiring undesired accommodations or requiring leave) if the employee’s work duties include manual labor.

Considerations For Nursing Mothers

Under AB 113, public and private employers in Nevada are required to provide an employee who is a mother of a child under one year of age with (1) reasonable break time, with or without pay, to express breast milk as needed; and (2) a place (other than a bathroom), which is reasonably free from dirt and pollution, protected from the view of others and free from intrusion by others, where the employee may express breast milk. If break time must be compensated because of an existing collective bargaining agreement, then any break time taken to express milk must also be compensated.

This new law does not apply to private employers who employ fewer than 50 employees if the requirements it imposes would constitute an undue hardship on the employer, considering the size, financial resources, nature, and structure of the employer’s business. If a private employer determines that providing reasonable break time and suitable breast milk expression facilities will cause an undue burden on the employer, the employee and the employer may meet to agree on a reasonable alternative. If the parties cannot reach an agreement, the employer can require the employee to accept the reasonable alternative selected by the employer.

Both public and private employers are prohibited from retaliating or encouraging another to retaliate against an employee for (i) taking the time to express breast milk or using the facilities designated for such expression; or (ii) taking any action to require the employer to comply with the AB 113 requirements, including filing a complaint, testifying, assisting, or participating in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing to enforce the provisions of AB 113.

Contractors licensed under NRS Chapter 624 are not required to comply with AB 113 with regard to employees who perform work at a construction jobsite located at least 3 miles from the employer’s regular place of business.

For purposes of AB 113, “public body” means:

The State of Nevada or any of its agencies, instrumentalities, or corporations;
The Nevada System of Higher Education; or
Any political subdivision of the State of Nevada or any public or quasi-public corporation organized under the laws of the State of Nevada, including counties, cities, unincorporated towns, school districts, charter schools, hospital districts, irrigation districts, and other special districts.

AB 113 does not, however, apply to the Department of Corrections, which is encouraged to comply with the provisions of AB 113 to the extent practicable.

More To Come

Stay tuned for more information about additional significant employment-related laws passed in this year’s legislative session in Nevada. If you have questions about these new laws, please be sure to reach out to your Nevada employment counsel.

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.

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.

April 6, 2017

Seventh Circuit: Title VII Prohibits Sexual-Orientation Discrimination

By Dustin Berger

Sexual orientation discrimination is discrimination on the basis of sex for the purposes of Title VII. So ruled the majority of federal judges for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on April 4, 2017. This groundbreaking ruling is the first time that a federal appellate court has held that Title VII protects workers against discrimination due to their sexual orientation. Hively v. Ivy Tech Cmty. Coll., No. 15-1720 (7th Cir. April 4, 2017).

Title VII Prohibits Discrimination Because of Sex

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate on the basis of a person’s “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin … .” The question before the Seventh Circuit was whether discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of discrimination on the basis of “sex,” and, therefore, prohibited by Title VII.

In 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) began to assert the position that Title VII does indeed prohibit sexual orientation discrimination. But, the EEOC’s position is not binding law. The U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on this question, but all eleven federal courts of appeal, including the Seventh Circuit, had previously ruled that Title VII does not protect employees against sexual orientation discrimination. The full panel of regular judges on the Seventh Circuit, however, agreed to address this issue anew, with the majority concluding that sex discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of a person’s sexual orientation.

Lesbian Professor Claimed Discrimination Based on Her Sexual Orientation

To put a face to the case before the court, we look to Kimberly Hively, a part-time adjunct professor at Ivy Tech Community College in South Bend, Indiana. Hively is openly gay. She began teaching at Ivy Tech in 2000. Between 2009 and 2014, she applied for at least six full-time positions but was not selected for any of them. In late 2013, Hively filed a charge with the EEOC, alleging that she was being discriminated against on the basis of her sexual orientation in violation of Title VII for being denied a full-time position. Then, in July 2014, Ivy Tech did not renew Hively’s part-time contract.

After receiving her right to sue letter, Hively filed her discrimination lawsuit in federal district court. Ivy Tech sought to dismiss the lawsuit on grounds that Title VII did not protect against sexual orientation discrimination. The district court agreed, and dismissed Hively’s lawsuit. On appeal to a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit, the dismissal was upheld, but the panel wrote that it was bound by earlier Seventh Circuit precedent to so rule. That panel, however, criticized the circuit’s precedent as inconsistent and impractical and opined that the “handwriting was on the wall” to recognize that sexual orientation discrimination was a subset of sex discrimination under Title VII.

The full panel of Seventh Circuit judges then agreed to hear Hively’s case en banc. They concluded that Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination also prohibited sexual orientation discrimination for two reasons. First, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is impermissible “sex stereotyping.” Second, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of associational discrimination based on sex.

Ultimate Case of Sex Stereotyping

In its discussion of “sex stereotyping,” the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s 1989 ruling in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, which recognized that discrimination based on an employee’s failure to act in a manner that was stereotypical of his or her sex was prohibited as sex discrimination under Title VII. In that case, Hopkins had alleged that her employer was discriminating only against women who behaved in what her employer viewed as too “masculine” by not wearing makeup, jewelry, and traditional female clothing. The Seventh Circuit stated that Hively “represents the ultimate case of failure to conform to the female stereotype (at least as understood in a place such as modern America, which views heterosexuality as the norm and other forms of sexuality as exceptional): she is not heterosexual.” Finding that Hively was not conforming to a stereotype based on the sex of her partner, the Court ruled that employment discrimination based on Hively’s sexual orientation is actionable under Title VII.

Associational Discrimination

Hively also argued that discrimination based on sexual orientation is sex discrimination under the associational theory. After Supreme Court cases, including the Loving case in which the Court held that laws restricting the freedom to marry based on race were unconstitutional, it is accepted law that a person who is discriminated against because of the protected characteristic of a person with whom he or she associates is being disadvantaged because of her own traits. In Hively’s case, if the sex of her partner (female rather than male) led to her being treated unfavorably in the workplace, then that distinction is “because of sex.” The Seventh Circuit stated: “No matter which category is involved, the essence of the claim is that the plaintiff would not be suffering the adverse action had his or her sex, race, color, national origin, or religion been different.”

What This Ruling Means For Employers

For employers located in Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin, the Seventh Circuit’s decision is binding precedent. Employers with fifteen or more employees (and hence covered by Title VII) in those states should update their policies and practices immediately to ensure that they do not permit discrimination, harassment, or retaliation on the basis of sexual orientation.

For employers located outside of those three states, existing court rulings denying application of Title VII to sexual orientation employment discrimination claims still apply. That said, the tide is turning. Indeed, as Judge Posner explained in his concurrence, as the courts have continued to grapple with the scope of Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination, they have failed “to maintain a plausible, defensible line between sex discrimination and sexual-orientation discrimination” and begun to realize that “homosexuality is nothing worse than failing to fulfill stereotypical gender roles.” Other courts are beginning to reach the same conclusion. The Chief Judge of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in a recent concurrence, noted significant merit to the arguments that sexual-orientation discrimination was a form of impermissible sex discrimination and invited his court to reconsider the issue: “I respectfully think that in the context of an appropriate case our Court should consider reexamining the holding that sexual orientation discrimination claims are not cognizable under Title VII.” Christiansen v. Omnicom Group, No. 16-748 (7th Cir. Mar. 27, 2017).

Beyond the judicial realm, many state and local anti-discrimination laws explicitly cover sexual orientation discrimination and the EEOC continutes to take the position that Title VII prohibits sexual-orientation discrimination. Should the U.S. Supreme Court take up the issue or Congress pass legislation amending Title VII, we may get a uniform nationwide interpretation of “sex discrimination” under Title VII. Until that occurs, employers are on notice that they cannot safely rely on existing case law to conclude that sexual-orientation discrimination is permissible under Title VII.