Category Archives: Colorado

March 12, 2015

EEOC Strategic Enforcement Priorities: More Insight from Denver’s Director (Part Two)

As we wrote last week, John Lowrie, the new director of the EEOC’s Denver Field Office, recently offered insight into the agency’s national Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP) and how his office will approach those enforcement goals. Here is the second article in the series exploring the third and fourth priorities in the EEOC’s SEP.

Priority #3 – Developing Issues

Field Director Lowrie explained the EEOC and its individual field offices are working to advance a number of developing issues. These include:

Reasonable ADA accommodations – one example is telecommuting, where an employee’s physical presence at the company is not an essential job function. The EEOC has successfully pursued this in a case against the Ford Motor Company but the case is being reexamined by the full Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals so may not stand.
Pregnancy discrimination – Mr. Lowrie discussed the lengthy Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) enforcement guidance issued last July. The guidance document contains many hypothetical situations that the agency deems would violate the PDA as well as a section on employer best practices.
Title VII accommodations – Mr. Lowrie pointed to the Abercrombie & Fitch religious accommodation case which is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court as an example of how the agency looks to ensure employers make reasonable accommodations for characteristics protected by Title VII. At issue in the Abercrombie case is whether a Muslim job applicant who wore a headscarf to her job interview and was denied employment was required to request a reasonable accommodation on religious grounds in light of the company’s “look policy” which would not have permitted wearing the headscarf at work.

Priority #4 – Equal Pay Act

The fourth priority in the EEOC’s SEP is enforcement of the Equal Pay Act (EPA). Mr. Lowrie noted that Jenny Yang, who was appointed as the EEOC’s new chairperson last September, had made a recent visit to the Denver field office during which she specifically mentioned EPA issues to the Denver investigators and staff. Because equal pay issues are high on the Chair’s agenda, charges involving allegations of unequal pay based on gender will receive additional attention by EEOC investigators and attorneys.

Mr. Lowrie also noted that Wyoming is the worst state in the nation for pay disparity issues. Because the Denver field office has jurisdiction over Wyoming (as well as Colorado), the Denver field office may look to change Wyoming’s poor ranking through vigilant enforcement of equal pay charges that come into its office.

Steps to Avoid Additional Scrutiny

Because the EEOC is giving priority status to these types of charges, you need to take time to review your compliance efforts related to these issues. First, take a look at your reasonable accommodation process. Have you trained your managers and supervisors to recognize when an accommodation is being requested? Do you engage in an interactive process with the applicants and employees who make accommodation requests? Be certain to document your interactive process and all accommodations decisions you make. Second, review your policies as they relate to pregnant employees. Make sure that you do not treat pregnancy less favorably than other medical conditions and consider possible ADA accommodations if circumstances so warrant. Third, audit your pay grades and compensation structure to make sure that you are paying workers doing the same work equally, regardless of gender.

Next Installment Will Focus on Final Two EEOC Priorities

In the next and final article in this series, we will offer insight into the last two of the EEOC’s strategic priorities. Both are areas in which the EEOC has vigorously sued employers whose policies and practices it deems are discriminatory, so stay tuned.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

March 9, 2015

DOL May Issue Interpretations of FLSA Exemptions Without Notice-and-Comment Process

By Mark Wiletsky

Today the Supreme Court sided with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), holding that a federal agency’s interpretive rules are exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures. Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n, 575 U.S. ___ (2015). The Court’s decision means that the DOL (and other federal agencies) may issue initial and amended interpretive rules without advance notice and without considering input from interested parties.

DOL “Flip-Flopped” on Interpretive FLSA Rule

In this case, the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) challenged the DOL’s most recent interpretation on whether loan officers fell within the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) administrative exemption following a series of “flip-flops” in the DOL’s interpretation. In 1999 and 2001, the DOL issued opinion letters stating that mortgage-loan officers do not qualify for the administrative exemption to overtime pay requirements. After new regulations regarding the exemption were issued in 2004, the MBA requested a new interpretation under the revised regulations. In 2006, the DOL issued an opinion letter in which it changed its position, deciding that mortgage-loan officers do qualify for the administrative exemption. In 2010, however, the DOL changed its interpretation again when it withdrew the 2006 opinion letter and issued an Administrator’s Interpretation without notice or comment stating that loan officers once again do not fall within the administrative exemption.

The MBA sued the DOL, claiming that the DOL needed to use the notice-and-comment process established by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when it planned to issue a new interpretation of a regulation that differs significantly from its prior interpretation.

Distinction Between Legislative Rules and Interpretive Rules

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the text of the APA specifically excludes interpretive rules from the notice-and-comment process, so the DOL was free to change its interpretation on loan officers qualifying for the administrative exemption without providing advance notice or seeking public comment first. The Court pointed to the difference between “legislative rules” that have the force and effect of law, which must go through the notice-and-comment period, and “interpretive rules” that do not have the force and effect of law and, therefore, are not subject to the notice-and-comment obligation.

Finding that the clear text of the APA exempted interpretive rules from the notice-and-comment process, the Court overruled prior precedent in a line of cases that has come to be known as the Paralyzed Veterans doctrine. Under that doctrine, if an agency had given its regulation a definitive interpretation, the agency needed to use the APA’s notice-and-comment process before issuing a significantly revised interpretation. The Court’s ruling today specifies that no notice or comment process is needed for interpretive rules, whether it is an initial interpretation or a subsequently revised one.

Implications of Court’s Decision

Today’s ruling means that the DOL’s interpretation excluding mortgage-loan officers from the administrative exemption stands. More broadly, it means that federal agencies, such as the DOL, are permitted to issue and amend interpretations of their regulations that will take effect immediately without any advance notice to the regulated parties. Accordingly, employers should stay on top of new developments so as not to miss any new regulatory interpretations that may impact their employment practices.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

March 2, 2015

EEOC Strategic Enforcement Priorities: Insight from Denver’s Director (Part One)

By Jude Biggs

Knowing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) top priorities can help you direct your risk management efforts and avoid enhanced scrutiny. John Lowrie, the new director of the EEOC’s Denver Field Office, recently spoke to the Labor and Employment Section of the Colorado Bar Association about the agency’s national Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP) and how his office will approach those enforcement goals. This article is the first in a series that will share Mr. Lowrie’s insight into how EEOC investigators and attorneys in the Denver Field Office work toward fulfilling the national enforcement priorities.

Certain EEOC Charges Get Immediate Attention

The Denver field office currently has 12.5 investigators, 7 attorneys, 3 mediators and 1 administrative law judge. With the volume of charges received by the Denver office remaining steady at between 1,800 to 2,000 charges each year, charges alleging certain types of claims get enhanced attention which can include immediate review by the legal staff, up to and including the director himself.

Which charges receive this immediate attention? Any charge that touches on one of the EEOC’s six national strategic enforcement priorities. Here we discuss the first two priorities in the national SEP, including Mr. Lowrie’s perspective from the Denver Field Office.

Priority #1 – Remove Barriers to Employment

According to Field Director Lowrie, there are two main components to the EEOC’s first enforcement priority of removing barriers to employment: (1) arrest and conviction records, and (2) medical screening questions and procedures. If a charge alleges discriminatory use of criminal background checks in hiring or the inappropriate timing or use of medical questions or exams, the EEOC will escalate that charge for immediate review.

The EEOC has brought several high-profile lawsuits in the past few years alleging that blanket “no hire” policies that prohibit hiring an applicant with a criminal record have a discriminatory impact on African Americans and other protected classes in violation of Title VII. In the Peoplemark case, however, the EEOC was ordered to pay the prevailing employer over $750,000 in attorneys’ and expert witness fees when the court ruled that no company-wide criminal background check policy existed, an allegation that was essential to the EEOC’s case. Similarly, in the Freeman case, a federal appeals court recently upheld the dismissal of the EEOC’s case, calling its expert’s analysis “utterly unreliable.” Despite its losses, the EEOC is pursuing claims based on criminal background checks, with lawsuits against BMW, Dollar General and other companies still ongoing.

Priority #2 – Vulnerable Workers

The second strategic enforcement priority is the protection of vulnerable workers. Field Director Lowrie explained that this includes agricultural workers, immigrant and migrant workers and mentally disabled workers.

When discussing immigrant and migrant workers, Mr. Lowrie noted the EEOC does not look at whether the workers are authorized to work in the U.S. or if they are in the country illegally, commenting that the EEOC is not ICE or Homeland Security. Instead, the EEOC looks to enforce the anti-discrimination laws under its jurisdiction so that employers do not escape enforcement just because they use unauthorized workers.

As for protecting mentally disabled workers, Mr. Lowrie specifically mentioned the EEOC’s win in a case against a turkey farm in the Midwest in which over thirty men with intellectual disabilities were housed in substandard facilities, denied medical care and harassed both verbally and physically for years.

Stay Tuned for Insight into Other Top EEOC Priorities

In the next few weeks, we will explore the EEOC’s remaining strategic priorities. In the meantime, review your background check policy to ensure you do not have a blanket “no hire” criminal record exclusion. Check that your employment application does not state that applicants will be automatically excluded if they have a criminal record. Make sure that you do not ask for medical information, such as family medical history, or send applicants for a medical exam until after a conditional job offer has been made. Be careful with wellness programs, ensuring they are voluntary. And if you employ vulnerable workers, make certain that your policies and practices do not single them out for disparate treatment in pay, job assignments or other conditions of employment.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

February 23, 2015

Exempt Employee Salary Deductions for a Reduced Schedule

By Brad Cave

Classifying an employee as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) comes with a trade-off. Most employers know that exempt employees are not entitled to overtime. But, in exchange for that benefit, the FLSA limits employers’ ability to reduce the exempt employee’s salary, even when they are not coming to work. However, exempt employees are not immune from needing time off of work to recover from a medical condition, to settle an aging parent into an assisting living arrangement or to handle a long-term behavioral issue with a child. If an employee seeks some time off each week to take care of such matters, you may agree to allow the employee to work a reduced work schedule for a period of time. But when payday rolls around, must you pay the employee his or her full weekly salary or can you deduct pay to reflect the reduced work schedule? Missing this answer can have significant ramifications for the employee’s exempt status.

FLSA Salary Basis

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, exempt employees’ pay must meet the salary basis test, which means that the employee must receive a predetermined amount of salary for each workweek, without reductions because of variations in the quality or quantity of work during the week. Thus, deductions from salary for reduced working hours is generally not permitted under the salary basis test. Deducting pay for the missed time could result in the loss of the employee’s exempt status. However, two exceptions may apply to your employee.

FMLA Leave Can Result in Pay Deduction

If the employee’s reduced schedule constitutes unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the FLSA regulations permit employers to “pay a proportionate part of the full salary for time actually worked” without risk to the exempt status. This means that if your employee is missing work for an FMLA-qualifying reason, you may deduct pay from their weekly salary to reflect the unpaid FMLA leave time.

PTO, Sick Leave or Other Paid Leaves

If the employee has accrued PTO, sick leave or another type of company-provided paid leave, you can require that the employee use such paid leave to cover the partial day absences, as long as the employee continues to receive the full amount of their weekly salary. And, once the employee uses up all of their accrued paid leave, you can make salary deductions for full-day, but not partial-day, absences.

Saved Wages Vs. Loss of Exempt Status

Deductions from an exempt employee’s salary should be made only after careful consideration of the potential consequences. After all, the salary you save now for missed time may seem trivial if you lose the exempt status of this and all similarly-situated employees and owe them overtime for the past two years.

February 16, 2015

Lessons From a $15M Discrimination Verdict

By Mark Wiletsky

A Colorado federal jury reportedly awarded $15 million last week to 11 workers who claimed they had been subject to workplace harassment, discrimination and retaliation because of their race and national origin. Ten of the 11 current and former workers who sued their employer, a trucking and mail-sorting company at Denver International Airport, were black men. Three had been born in the United States and the remaining seven were from Mali, Guinea and Brazil. Their allegations included that racist comments pervaded the workplace, that they were discriminated in work assignments, layoffs and pay and were segregated into certain unfavorable job categories and shifts, and that they faced retaliation after complaining about the harassment and discrimination.

Although we do not know exactly which facts or claims persuaded the jury to award this large sum, the fact that the jury awarded $13 million dollars for punitive damages suggests that it believed the company’s actions (or inactions) were particularly bad.

What can you learn from this significant discrimination verdict? Even if the verdict is later reversed or reduced, you can learn what not to do when managing a racially and ethnically diverse workforce.

Ignoring Complaints and Promoting the Harassers

The workers in this case alleged that they complained internally about racist comments and slurs made by supervisors, leads and co-workers and that nothing was done. Examples of some supposed comments directed toward the workers were “lazy, stupid Africans,” “go back to your f***ing country,” “they need to fire all the n***ers here” as well as regular use of the N-word. Instead of stopping the comments, management supposedly turned a deaf ear and even promoted some of those who made the slurs.

Don’t ignore inappropriate comments when you hear them. It is up to you to stop racial and ethnic slurs immediately and take action to ensure they are not pervasive in your workplace. If an employee complains about discriminatory name-calling and threats, you need to investigate the report and take appropriate action. Be sure to confirm—in writing—that you met with the accuser(s) to discuss the results of your investigation, and ensure there is no retaliation. Then follow-up again to ensure things have improved. Doing so will demonstrate your commitment to a workplace free from discrimination and harassment – so long as you are prepared to take action against those who violate your policies.

Failing to Enforce EEO and Harassment Policies

You likely have an Equal Employment Opportunity and a Harassment policy in your employee handbook, but they do no good if you fail to enforce them. Review your policies, train your supervisors on them and enforce them uniformly and consistently.

Retaliating Against Those Who Complain or Their Supporters

The eleventh worker who sued the trucking company in this case was a white man who offered support for the African workers and provided evidence supporting their allegations. After being terminated from his job, he alleged his firing was in retaliation for his support.

Retaliation is within company control and in many cases, is preventable. Train your supervisors not to treat an employee who has complained of discrimination or harassment, or who has participated in a charge or lawsuit, differently than other employees are treated. Carefully analyze any adverse decision that would affect such an employee and make sure your decision is based on legitimate business reasons and is well-documented, in case you have to defend a retaliation complaint.

Fifteen Million Reasons To Do It Right

You don’t want to end up in front of a jury defending your employment practices, but if you find yourself in that position, you want to be able to show a jury you did everything you could to prevent discrimination and harassment in your workplace. If you don’t take those actions, a jury may very well punish you for it.

December 1, 2014

Colorado’s 2015 Minimum Wage Hike

By Jude Biggs

Amid legislative efforts to raise the federal minimum wage, the Colorado minimum wage is set to go up by 23 cents to $8.23 per hour automatically on January 1, 2015. The state minimum wage is adjusted annually for inflation, as required by Article XVIII, Section 15, of the Colorado Constitution. The minimum wage for tipped employees will be $5.21 per hour.

Employees Subject to the Colorado Minimum Wage

Colorado employees are entitled to the state minimum wage in two situations, namely if covered by (1) Colorado Minimum Wage Order Number 31 (Minimum Wage Order); or (2) the minimum wage provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Minimum Wage Order applies to certain employers/employees for work performed within the state of Colorado in the following four industries:

Retail and Service
Commercial Support Service
Food and Beverage
Health and Medical

Each industry is defined within the Minimum Wage Order. Employers covered by the Minimum Wage Order must comply with not only the minimum pay requirements, but also obligations related to meal and rest periods, overtime pay, uniforms, recordkeeping and other labor standards.

Employees subject to the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA (and therefore, also entitled to the Colorado minimum wage) include those non-exempt workers performing work involved in interstate commerce and those working for a business or organization that has two or more employees and has an annual dollar volume of business of at least $500,000 or a hospital, school, government agency or residential medical or nursing facility, regardless of annual sales.

If an employee is subject to both the state and federal minimum wage laws, they are entitled to be paid the higher of the two hourly minimum rates of pay. At present rates, the $8.23 Colorado minimum wage trumps the federal $7.25 minimum hourly rate so employers must pay their non-exempt employees working in Colorado at the higher Colorado rate.

Inflation Adjustment Based on Consumer Price Index

The Constitutionally required annual adjustment in the Colorado minimum wage is measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Colorado. According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, the CPI for the Denver-Boulder-Greeley metropolitan area of Colorado increased 2.9 percent from the first half of 2013 to the first half of 2014. The overall increase was driven by a nearly 5.0 percent increase in costs for housing as well as a 3.9 percent increase in energy costs and a 2.0 percent increase in food prices. The 2.9 percent raise in the CPI for Colorado was then applied to the 2014 state minimum wage of $8.00 per hour, resulting in a 23 cent per hour increase in the minimum wage for 2015.

Plan Now for the January 1st Wage Increase

Businesses and organizations with employees who are subject to Colorado’s minimum wage should take steps now to update their payroll systems and practices in order to implement the new minimum wage on January 1, 2015. Employers that use an outside payroll vendor should confirm that the payroll provider has programmed the new Colorado minimum wage in their systems to take effect on January 1. Note, too, that employers subject to the Colorado Minimum Wage Order must post a copy of the new Minimum Wage Order in their workplace in an area frequented by employees where it may be easily read during the workday. The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Labor, provides a copy of Minimum Wage Order Number 31 at https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Proposed%20Wage%20Order%2031%20Rules%209-30-14.pdf.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

November 17, 2014

When Key Employees Go To A Competitor

By Mark Wiletsky

Your executives and top salespeople have access to your most valuable business strategies, sales contacts, growth plans and innovations. What do you do when one (or more) of your key employees leaves to work for a competitor? Without the correct agreements in place to protect your proprietary information, you may have little recourse.

Don’t Rely on a Court to Protect Your Business Information

When a key employee leaves to go to a competitor, the former employer often scrambles to seek a court injunction to prevent the employee from working for the competitor and to stop the employee from disclosing or using trade secrets and confidential information. But courts are not always willing to prevent an employee from moving on, especially if the company does not have a reasonable and otherwise enforceable non-compete agreement in place.

In a recent case in Colorado, a high level executive used his company-issued laptop to send an email containing his business contacts to his personal email address as he began negotiating to work for a competitor. He also downloaded some business information onto a personal external hard drive and thumb drive and kept physical copies of certain business documents in a box in his car. About three weeks later, the competitor hired the executive.

There was no evidence that the competitor requested or obtained from the executive any confidential information, the executive had signed only a nondisclosure agreement with his former employer, and the executive agreed to an injunction preventing him from using his former employers confidential information or trade secrets. Nevertheless, the former employer asked the federal court in Colorado to prevent the executive from working as the competitor’s President for one year, arguing that he had threatened or would inevitably disclose its trade secrets in his new job. Despite the executive’s decision to transfer information to his personal devices just before leaving the company, the court denied the company’s request, citing a lack of evidence that the executive had or would use his former company’s trade secrets to its competitive disadvantage. Cargill Inc. v. Kuan, No. 14-cv-2325 (D.Colo. Oct. 20, 2014). The judge noted that enjoining the executive from working for the competitor would, in effect, afford his former employer something it could have obtained or bargained for: a covenant not-to-compete.

Employment-Related Agreements to Consider

Keeping proprietary information confidential can be key to the future prosperity and competitiveness of your business. You can help protect that information from walking out the door by having key employees sign one or more of the following agreements:

Non-compete agreement: the restriction on working for a competitor must be reasonable in time and geographic scope, and comply with other applicable state law requirements;
Confidentiality agreement: requires employees to keep secret your company’s trade secrets and other proprietary information;
Non-solicitation agreement: restricts an employee from soliciting customers (who must be defined in the agreement) or from soliciting other employees to go to work elsewhere; and
Assignment of inventions: any products, inventions, innovations and other developments created during the worker’s employment are assigned to and owned by the company.

Depending on the circumstances, you may want to incorporate some or all of these provisions into a single agreement, and you may need to address varying state law requirements (or choice of law and venue issues) depending on where your employees are located. However, be careful to tailor your agreements to each type of key employee. For example, the non-compete for your CEO or general manager may need different restrictions than a similar agreement for your Regional Sales Manager. And be sure not to use a non-compete with all employees—including lower level ones who have no need for such post-employment restrictions—because it will diminish your justification for asking a higher-level employee to sign the same or similar agreement.

The bottom line is that you need to be proactive in protecting your vital assets, including your confidential information and your key employees. Taking steps now to implement proper agreements will go a long way in protecting your business down the road when key employees decide to depart.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

November 10, 2014

NLRB Unwilling to Give Up on Workers’ Right to Class Actions

By Brian Mumaugh

Reaffirming its controversial D.R. Horton decision, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) recently ruled that an employer who required its employees to agree to resolve all employment-related claims through individual arbitration, waiving their right to pursue class actions, violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Though two members of the Board dissented, the three member majority pointed to the core objective of the NLRA, namely the protection of workers acting in concert, to find that mandatory arbitration agreements waiving an employee’s right to file a class or collective action is unlawful. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 72 (Oct. 28, 2014).

Employees Filed FLSA Collective Action

Four employees of Murphy Oil USA, Inc., which operates over 1,000 retail fueling stations across 21 states, filed a lawsuit in federal court in Alabama alleging that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay overtime and requiring employees to perform work-related activities off-the-clock. They brought the case as a collective action under the FLSA which allows them to sue on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated Murphy Oil employees. The company asked the court to dismiss the collective action, seeking to enforce arbitration agreements signed by the employees that require that all claims be arbitrated on an individual basis. One of the plaintiff-employees then filed an unfair labor charge with the NLRB alleging that the company was violating Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by using and enforcing mandatory arbitration agreements that prohibited employees from engaging in protected, concerted activities.

Board Asserts D.R. Horton Was Correctly Decided

In deciding this NLRA violation issue, the Board believes the rationale articulated in its 2012 D.R. Horton case is correct, asserting that “[m]andatory arbitration agreements that bar employees from bringing joint, class, or collective workplace claims in any forum restrict the exercise of the substantive right to act concertedly for mutual aid or protection that is central to the National Labor Relations Act.” The Board states that the basic premise of federal labor law – protecting the right of workers to engage in collective action – makes the NLRA different from other labor and employment statutes. The Board points to earlier Supreme Court decisions that made clear that the NLRA protects employees “when they seek to improve working conditions through resort to administrative and judicial forums . . .” Other court decisions cited by the Board held that individual agreements between employees and an employer (as opposed to collective bargaining agreements) cannot restrict employees’ Section 7 rights. Relying on these cases and the majority’s interpretation of the core objective of federal labor law, the Board adheres to its position that protecting workers’ right to pursue collective actions to improve working conditions is a substantive right under the NLRA that cannot be waived by employees through a mandatory arbitration agreement.

Fifth Circuit Got D.R. Horton Decision Wrong, According to the Majority Opinion of Board

In December 2013, a divided Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the NLRA did not override the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), thereby allowing an employer’s arbitration agreement to be enforced according to its terms, including the agreement’s waiver of class claims. D.R. Horton, Inc. v. NLRB, ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 6231617 (5th Cir. Dec. 3, 2013). Rather than settling the issue for the NLRB and employers nationwide, the Fifth Circuit’s decision did little to quell the NLRB’s belief that class action waivers violate the NLRA. In the Murphy Oil case, the Board attempts to explain why it believes the Fifth Circuit got it wrong.

First, the Board asserts that the Fifth Circuit simply followed other FAA cases that did not involve a substantive right under Section 7 of the NLRA. The Board argues that both the NLRA and the FAA must be accommodated and the Fifth Circuit’s decision gave too little weight to the NLRA and its underlying labor policy. Second, the Board states that the Fifth Circuit’s decision forces workers into more costly and disruptive forms of concerted activity than bringing a collective action in court. The Board believes that there is no basis for carving out concerted legal activity as entitled to less protection than other concerted activities, such as picketing, strikes and boycotts. Third, the Board notes that the Supreme Court, while favoring arbitration, prohibits a prospective waiver of a party’s right to pursue statutory remedies and an arbitration agreement that precludes employees from filing joint, class or collective claims regarding working conditions in any forum amounts to a prospective waiver of a right guaranteed by the NLRA.

Analysis By Other Circuits Rejected by Board

The Board pays little attention to and dismisses decisions by three other circuit courts of appeal that rejected the Board’s D.R. Horton rationale. In essence, the Board states that the Second and Eighth Circuits purportedly did not conduct a thorough analysis of the legal issues and the Ninth Circuit amended its decision to refrain from deciding the issue. Consequently, the Board found those decisions to be unpersuasive.

Two Board Members Dissent

Two of the five board members dissented, rejecting the majority’s D.R. Horton rationale. Member Miscimarra stated that the NLRA “cannot reasonably be interpreted as giving employees a broad-based right to “class” treatment under other Federal, State, and local laws.” Member Johnson stated that the Board’s “interpretation of the FAA – which otherwise requires an agreement to be enforced exactly according to its terms – would allow Section 7 to swallow up the FAA itself.” The dissenters also noted that the majority essentially ignored numerous clear decisions of the Supreme Court. In citing the Supreme Court’s 2011 AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion case, member Johnson stated “Notably, the Court forbade [the majority’s] interpretation [of the FAA] when it decided that the FAA’s savings clause could not be construed to include a right that would be “absolutely inconsistent” with the FAA’s provisions.” He went on to write:

The governing law could not be plainer. Provisions in arbitration agreements precluding class actions may not be condemned simply because they restrict an employee’s ability to use litigation procedures established under other statutes in litigating those employment-related claims. This is especially so where the governing statutes clearly describe the litigation procedures as procedural rights.

The dissenting members believe that employees and employers may enter into agreements that waive class procedures in litigation or arbitration.

What’s Next For Arbitration Agreements That Waive Class Actions?

The current majority of the Board appears unpersuaded by federal court decisions—not to mention the Supreme Court of the United States–holding that its position in D.R. Horton is simply wrong. It appears that, absent a further Supreme Court decision on the issue, the NLRB General Counsel likely will continue to issue complaints against employers who require employees to sign arbitration agreements that include a waiver of joint, class and collective actions. If and when the makeup of the Board changes, the dissenting opinion may become the majority opinion for future cases. In the meantime, employers who mandate such agreements should continue to enforce them. In other words, if faced with a class or collective action by an employee or employees who signed an agreement waiving class claims, the employer should ask the court to compel individual arbitration, dismissing the class/collective action. Despite the Board’s current position, a court is likely to grant that request. Employers should review their arbitration agreements, however, to ensure that any disputes arising under the NLRA are not subject to the mandatory arbitration provision and that employees are not prohibited from participating in proceedings before the Board.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

October 28, 2014

Defeating Micro-Units: Employer Strategies to Challenge Smaller Bargaining Units

By Brian Mumaugh

Unions are organizing smaller segments of an entire workforce in order to get their foot in the door and keep organizing efforts alive. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) has approved so-called micro-units, setting employers up for difficult battles over appropriate bargaining units in the future. Employers should think about the possibility of seeing a micro-unit proposed in their workforce—and how to avoid them.

Unions Can More Easily Win Representation For Smaller Groups

As unions press to increase their membership in the United States, unions are looking for new ways to organize workers and remain relevant. Organizing large workforces requires unions to expend significant resources – money, personnel and time – to collect signatures from at least 30% of the proposed bargaining unit to trigger an election (some unions want to see upwards of 70% signing authorization cards before petitioning for an election). Then additional resources are needed to get out the vote to ensure a majority of votes cast are in favor of the union. Large organizing campaigns also give the company time to mount an anti-union campaign.

Organizing micro-units, however, can be done relatively quickly, cheaply and often without much response from the company. Think about it – organizing a unit of 30 workers in a single department may need only one or two union organizers to persuade the 15 to 20 employees needed to win the organizing campaign. Before you know it, you’ve got a segment of your workforce represented by a third party with whom you must collectively bargain. This can lead to multiple micro-units at your company represented by different unions and the headaches multiply.

Parameters For Micro-Units Are Evolving

The NLRB has discretion in representation cases to determine the appropriate bargaining unit, whether an employer unit, craft unit, plant unit or subdivision thereof, pursuant to section 9(b) of the NLRA. Although decided on a case-by-case basis, the main, long-standing factor for determining an appropriate unit was the “community of interest” of the employees involved. In 2011, however, the Board significantly changed that analysis in a case called Specialty Healthcare, allowing the unit petitioned-for by the union to govern except in those situations where the employer can establish by “overwhelming evidence” that the requested unit is inappropriate. This new approach places a high burden on employers who wish to challenge the make-up of the unit proposed by the union.

In recent months, the Board has decided a couple of micro-unit cases that offer some guidance on what it takes to challenge a micro-unit. In a case involving a Macy’s Department store in Massachusetts, the Board deemed appropriate a micro-unit made up of only cosmetics and fragrances employees at the store. Macy’s Inc., 361 NLRB No. 4 (July 22, 2014). The store argued that the unit was too narrow and that the appropriate unit in a retail store context is a “wall-to-wall unit” or, alternatively, all selling employees at the store. The Board did not agree. It concluded that the cosmetics and fragrances employees were a readily identifiable group that shared a community of interest not shared by other store employees. Factors weighing in favor of the micro-unit included the fact that the cosmetics and fragrances employees were in the same department and were supervised by the same managers. In addition, there was little regular contact between the cosmetics and fragrances employees and other store employees. The NLRB found that Macy’s had not met the high burden of showing that other employees should be included in the unit because they did not share an “overwhelming community of interest.”

Coming to the opposite conclusion, however, the Board rejected a micro-unit of sales associates who sold shoes at the Manhattan Bergdorf Goodman store. The union had petitioned for the unit to be made up of 35 women’s shoes sales associates in the Salon shoes department (high end designer shoes) and 11 women’s Contemporary shoes sales associates in the Contemporary Sportswear department (modestly priced shoes). The Board concluded the proposed unit was inappropriate because the two shoe departments were located on separate floors, did not share the same supervisors and managers, did not have any cross-over or interchange between employees and did not have much contact with employees in other departments storewide. The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. d/b/a Bergdorf Goodman, 361 NLRB No. 11 (July 28, 2014).

Strategies for Attacking Micro-Units

The Macy’s and Bergdorf Goodman cases offer some guidance to help employers avoid union organizing of micro-units. Strategies to consider now, before a union organizing campaign begins, include:

Combining departments or job classifications that share skills or tasks
Cross-training and cross-utilizing workers across departments, classifications or locations
Allowing for promotional and transfer opportunities across department and organizational lines
Revising supervisory and managerial structures so that more employees report to the same managers
Maintaining pay and bonus structures common to all employees or for all in a larger unit.

Micro-units can be a game-changer when it comes to union organizing so employers have to change their own tactics to combat such bargaining units. Taking time now to change organizational and reporting structures can go a long way in overcoming a proposed micro-unit in the future.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

October 21, 2014

EEOC’s Failure to Engage in Conciliation Dooms Its Separation Agreement Lawsuit Against CVS Pharmacy

By Mark Wiletsky

Chalk up a loss for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in its lawsuit against CVS Pharmacy’s separation agreements. As we reported earlier, the EEOC sued CVS alleging that CVS’s separation agreements deterred employees from filing charges and communicating with the EEOC about discrimination and retaliation. Dismissing the case, a federal judge recently ruled that the EEOC failed to engage in the required procedural steps, including conciliation, before filing its lawsuit.

EEOC Dismissed Employee’s Charge, Then Went After Employer

This lawsuit is an example of the aggressive, proactive nature of the EEOC in extending the protections of Title VII to new and novel claims. The case arose after CVS terminated Tonia Ramos, a pharmacy manager. Ms. Ramos signed CVS’s standard separation agreement, which included a release of claims and a covenant not to sue. She then proceeded to file a charge with the EEOC claiming that her discharge was based on sex and race in violation of Title VII. Almost two years later, the EEOC dismissed Ms. Ramos’s charge.

The EEOC then contacted CVS asserting that based on the separation agreement, CVS was engaging in a pattern or practice of resistance to their employees’ full enjoyment of rights under Title VII. In other words, the EEOC concluded that even though the individual employee did not have a valid discrimination claim against CVS, it would bring a pattern or practice case against CVS based on the language in its standard separation agreement used with potentially hundreds of former employees.

No Conciliation, No Lawsuit

Under Title VII enforcement procedures, the EEOC has the authority to investigate and act on a charge of a pattern or practice of discrimination, whether filed on behalf of an allegedly harmed employee or by the EEOC itself. The procedures require that the EEOC try to resolve any alleged unlawful employment practices through informal means before filing a lawsuit. Such means include conferences, conciliation and persuasion. Although the EEOC and CVS discussed potential settlement by telephone twice before the EEOC filed suit, the EEOC failed to engage in conciliation, which proved fatal to its case. Because an attempt at reaching a conciliation agreement is a prerequisite to the EEOC filing suit and it was undisputed that the EEOC did not engage in any conciliation process, the federal court dismissed the EEOC’s case against CVS.

Judge’s Guidance is in the Footnotes

The case was dismissed on procedural grounds, but the judge took the opportunity to offer his view on the merits of the EEOC’s arguments in several footnotes in the opinion. First, the EEOC argued that the term “resistance” as used in Title VII should be interpreted broadly to extend to the language in CVS’s separation agreement even if that language did not amount to discrimination or retaliation under the Act. The judge rejected that argument, stating that the term “resistance” requires some retaliatory or discriminatory act.

Second, the judge discussed the “covenant not to sue” provision in CVS’s separation agreement. Even though the provision stated that an employee could not “initiate or file . . . a complaint or proceeding asserting any of the Released Claims,” the release of claims (in another paragraph of the separation agreement) stated that it did not limit “any rights that the Employee cannot lawfully waive.” In addition, the agreement contained two carve out provisions specifying an employee’s “right to participate in a proceeding with any appropriate federal, state or local government agency enforcing discrimination laws” and that the agreement did not prohibit the employee from cooperating with any such agency in its investigation. The judge wrote that these provisions would allow an employee to file an EEOC charge. He went on to write that even if the separation agreement explicitly banned filing charges, those provisions would be unenforceable and could not constitute “resistance” under Title VII.

One Case Down; One Still Pending

The dismissal of the CVS lawsuit is good news for employers who use separation agreements, especially in light of the judge’s comments signaling that the EEOC’s arguments were without merit. However, a similar case filed by the EEOC against College America is still proceeding through the federal court in the District of Colorado. (We wrote about the College America case here.) Like CVS, College America has asked the court to dismiss the EEOC’s case. We will let you know when the court rules on that motion. In the meantime, employers should review their separation agreements to ensure they include a provision that the agreement does not prohibit employees from filing a charge, participating in an investigation or otherwise cooperating with an appropriate federal, state or local government agency that enforces discrimination laws.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.