Category Archives: Idaho

April 12, 2018

Salary History Cannot Justify Unequal Pay Between Men and Women, According to Ninth Circuit

Dora Lane

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that an employer cannot justify a pay difference between male and female employees performing equal work based on prior salary. Rizo v. Yovino. This is a significant decision that could increase potential liability for Equal Pay Act (EPA) claims for employers with workers in states covered by the Ninth Circuit, namely California, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii.

Equal Pay Act Requirements

The EPA was enacted in 1963, amending the Fair Labor Standards Act, to prohibit wage disparities based on sex. In short, it requires that men and women be paid equal pay for equal work regardless of sex. Specifically, the law provides that no employer shall discriminate on the basis of sex in paying wages for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. Exceptions are permitted when wages are made pursuant to a seniority system, a merit system, a system measuring earnings by quantity or quality of production, or a differential based on any other factor other than sex.

Employer’s Pay Policy Added Five Percent to New Hires’ Prior Salary

In the case before the court, Aileen Rizo was hired as a math consultant by the Fresno County Office of Education. Her salary was set according to the County’s Standard Operating Procedure under which a new hire would be paid five percent over his or her prior salary, and placed on a corresponding step of the County’s ten-step salary schedule. Based on Rizo’s prior salary in Arizona, she was placed at step 1 of level 1 on the County’s hiring schedule.

A few years into her employment, Rizo was having lunch with her colleagues and learned that her male counterparts had been subsequently hired as math consultants at higher salary steps. Rizo filed a pay disparity complaint with the County which replied that her pay was set in accordance with its Standard Operating Procedure. Rizo filed a federal lawsuit alleging a violation of the EPA, sex discrimination under Title VII, and related state law claims.

Prior Pay Not A “Factor Other Than Sex”

The County did not dispute that it paid Rizo less than comparable male employees for the same work. Instead, it argued that considering each employee’s prior salary to set wages was a permissible “factor other than sex,” so any resulting wage differential was not in violation of the EPA.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that an employer was not permitted to consider an employee’s prior salary, either by itself or in combination with other factors, when establishing the employee’s wages. The Court specifically stated that “prior salary alone or in combination with other factors cannot justify a wage differential” because prior salary history does not constitute a “factor other than sex” under the EPA’s statutory “catchall” exception. The Court wrote that prior salary is not a legitimate measure of work experience, ability, performance, or any other job-related quality, and that employers must look directly to those underlying factors rather than prior salary when justifying a wage differential between male and female employees doing equal work. Writing for the majority, Judge Reinhardt stated, “To hold otherwise – to allow employers to capitalize on the persistence of the wage gap and perpetuate that gap ad infinitum – would be contrary to the text and history of the Equal Pay Act, and would vitiate the very purpose for which the Act stands.” Read more >>

April 9, 2018

Idaho Legislature Repeals 2016 Changes to Non-Compete Law

Nicole Snyder

by Nicole Snyder and A. Dean Bennett

When a new business comes to town, when an existing business seeks to expand, or when a startup is making its way off the ground, it may want (or need) to recruit key employees from existing companies. That can be especially true in the technology field where experienced developers, analysts, and executives are hard to come by.

In 2016, the Idaho legislature made it more difficult for key employees and independent contractors across all industries to change jobs when they were covered by a post-employment non-compete agreement. Recently, the Idaho legislature repealed that 2016 provision in a move seen as correcting an imbalance in the playing field between employers and their key employees when it comes to non-compete restrictions.

A. Dean Bennett

2016 Non-Compete Presumption Burdened Key Employees

When enacted in 2016, the recently repealed non-compete law was touted as business-friendly, as it strengthened an employer’s ability to enforce a non-compete agreement with its key employees. The 2016 law provided that if a court found a key employee or key independent contractor breached a non-compete agreement, the employee or independent contractor then had the burden of overcoming a presumption that their breach of the non-compete caused irreparable harm to the employer. Essentially, the employee was forced to prove a negative, namely that he or she could not adversely affect the employer’s legitimate business interests.

However, the perceived effect of the 2016 non-compete law was that it made it tougher for key employees and independent contractors to change jobs, seek more responsibility or pay at another company, or even start up their own business. Idaho’s non-compete laws have received national attention at the same time Idaho is recognized as the fastest growing state with the fastest growing pay rate.

Repeal Restores Pre-2016 Standard of Proof For Non-Competes

Senate Bill 1287 strikes the language added in 2016 that shifted the burden to key employees and independent contractors to prove that they have no ability to adversely affect the employer’s legitimate business interests as a result of their competitive employment. Consequently, when a breach of a non-compete is litigated in court, the burden will be back on the employer to prove its former employee’s competitive actions harmed the employer’s legitimate business interests.

Governor Otter allowed this repeal bill to become law without his signature. He wrote, “There is no consensus within the business community, or even within the community of technology-driven businesses, for this second change within two years to Idaho Code regarding non-compete agreements between employers and key employees or key independent contractors.” The governor further wrote that the issue can vary depending on the nature of each company’s business plan and whether management considers a “dynamic” workforce, with regular turnover, a positive or detrimental aspect of their business. The governor suggested that he saw little risk in removing the 2016 language as it had not yet been tested in Idaho courts. He also urged the Idaho legislature to take up the issue again in 2019, suggesting that perhaps the creation of a different less onerous standard on employees may be a good middle ground.

Effect on Idaho Employers

Whether you think this repeal is a good or bad development may rest largely on whether you seek to retain your key employees and contractors by limiting their mobility through non-compete agreements, or whether you need to expand and recruit talent within your industry without your recruits being subject to post-employment restrictions. Regardless of what side of that debate you are on, the repeal of the 2016 rebuttable presumption means that Idaho employers seeking to enforce a non-compete in court will need to show that the employee or contractor harmed its legitimate business interests when leaving to work for a competitor in violation of a restrictive covenant. Consequently, this is a good time to revisit your non-compete agreements, giving thought to what business assets and interests you are seeking to protect. In addition, be sure to review the geographic, time, and scope limitations of your non-compete restrictions as only reasonable provisions will be enforceable. As always, check with your attorney to resolve any questions.

April 2, 2018

Service Advisors Exempt From Overtime, Says Supreme Court

Brian Mumaugh

by Brian Mumaugh

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that service advisors at car dealerships are exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In an opinion written by Justice Thomas, and joined by Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Alito and Gorsuch, the Court determined that service advisors are salesmen who are primarily engaged in servicing automobiles, putting them within the FLSA exemption language. Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro.

Service Advisors Challenged Exempt Status

In 1961, Congress amended the FLSA to exempt all employees at car dealerships from overtime pay. A few years later in 1966, however, Congress narrowed the car dealership exemption so that it no longer exempted all dealership employees but instead applies only to “any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles, truck, or farm implements, if he is employed by a nonmanufacturing establishment primarily engaged in the business of selling such vehicles or implements to ultimate purchasers” (as currently written). Until 2011, federal courts and the Department of Labor (DOL) interpreted that exemption to apply to service advisors.

In 2011, however, the DOL issued a new rule stating that a service advisor was not a “salesman” under the FLSA exemption. This new interpretation ran contrary to 50-years of precedent and threw auto dealerships a curve ball. In 2012, service advisors at a Mercedes-Benz dealership in Los Angeles sued their employer, alleging that their regular work hours were 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. resulting in a minimum of 55 hours per week for which they were owed overtime pay for all hours over 40 in a work week.

The Mercedes-Benz dealership moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that service advisors were exempt under the FLSA language, despite the new DOL interpretation. The district court agreed and dismissed the lawsuit. The service advisors appealed and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, relying on the DOL’s 2011 rule. The dealership appealed to the Supreme Court who decided that the DOL’s rule could not be given deference as it was procedurally defective. On remand, the Ninth Circuit again ruled in favor of the service advisors, determining that Congress did not intend to exempt service advisors from overtime, in part because FLSA exemptions should be narrowly construed and the legislative history did not specifically mention service advisors. The case went up to the Supreme Court a second time.

Service Advisors Are Salesmen Engaged in Servicing Automobiles

The Supreme Court looked to the plain meaning of “salesman” as someone who sells goods and services. Because service advisors sell customers services for their vehicles, the Court stated that a service advisor “is obviously a ‘salesman.’”

The Court also decided that service advisors are primarily engaged in servicing automobiles because they are “integral to the servicing process.” The Court acknowledged that service advisors do not physically repair cars, but the justices decided that the phrase “primarily engaged in servicing automobiles” necessarily included individuals who do not physically repair automobiles, including service advisors.

In an interesting passage of the opinion, the Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s statement that FLSA exemptions should be narrowly construed. Justice Thomas quoted his friend and former colleague, deceased Justice Antonin Scalia, “Because the FLSA gives no ‘textual indication’ that its exemptions should be construed narrowly, ‘there is no reason to give [them] anything other than a fair (rather than a ‘narrow’) interpretation.’” A fair reading of the FLSA, the majority concluded, focuses not only on the overall objective of the law but also on the stated exemptions. And the Court concluded that a fair reading of the automobile salesmen, partsmen, and servicemen exemption is that it covers service advisors.

Dissent Says Overtime Required, Unless Commission Exemption Applies

Justice Ginsburg wrote a dissent with which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined, stating that because service advisors neither sell nor repair automobiles, they should not be covered by the auto dealership salesman, partsman, and serviceman exemption. The dissent notes that many positions at dealerships are not covered by the exemption, including painters, upholsterers, bookkeepers, cashiers, purchasing agents, janitors, and shipping and receiving clerks. Consequently, the dissent stated that there are no grounds to add service advisors as a fourth category of dealership workers that are exempt, adding to the three positions explicitly enumerated in the FLSA exemption.

The dissent notes that many dealerships, including the Mercedes-Benz dealership in this case, compensate their service advisors on a primarily sales commission basis. According to the dissent, such commission-based positions could fall within the FLSA overtime exemption that applies to retail and service establishments where employees who receive more than half of their pay through commission are exempt from overtime pay, so long as each employee’s regular rate of pay is more than one-and-one-half times the minimum wage. The dissent concludes that even without the auto salesman, partsman, serviceman exemption at issue, many service advisors compensated on a commission basis would remain ineligible for overtime premium pay under the commission exemption.

Dealerships May Treat Service Advisors As Exempt

As a result of the Court’s ruling, car dealerships may continue to treat their service advisors as exempt from overtime under the FLSA. Dealerships should still review applicable state laws to ensure that the exemption applies under state wage law. It is also a good time to review written job descriptions to include service advisor duties that support their exempt status under this decision.

March 20, 2018

Settlements Reached in Joint-Employer Case That Could Have Affected Franchisors Nationwide

Steven Gutierrez

By Steve Gutierrez

Franchisor McDonald’s USA LLC has agreed to settle the high-profile labor disputes over whether it is a joint employer with its franchisees. Although the settlement still needs to be approved by the administrative law judge overseeing the litigation, McDonald’s and its franchisees negotiated settlement agreements with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to settle allegations of unfair labor practice charges without admitting liability or wrongdoing. In doing so, McDonald’s avoids prolonged litigation and a potentially adverse decision that would have had sweeping ramifications for franchisors and their franchisees nationwide.

Protracted Litigation Over Joint-Employer Status

In 2012, multiple McDonald’s employees filed unfair labor practice charges against their employer, seeking to improve their working conditions. In 2014, former NLRB General Counsel, Richard Griffin, approved filing dozens of unfair labor practice complaints against the larger franchisor, McDonald’s USA, under a theory that McDonald’s USA is a joint employer of the employees of McDonald’s franchises. By pursing the franchisor, the 2014 NLRB signaled that it was attempting to hold the larger, nationwide entity responsible for treatment of its franchisees’ employees.

McDonald’s USA, along with many restaurant, industry, and employer groups, vigorously objected, arguing that a franchisor is not a joint employer with its franchisees and therefore, cannot be held liable for any labor law violations made by a franchisee. The joint-employer test at the time was based on whether the putative employer exercises direct control over the employees and McDonald’s USA argued that it did not exercise such control over its franchisees’ employees.

In 2015, the NLRB issued its controversial decision in Browning-Ferris Industries that significantly broadened the joint-employer test so that an entity could be deemed a joint employer if it reserved contractual authority over some essential terms and conditions of employment, allowing it to have indirect control over the employees. (See our post here.) Under that expanded test, McDonald’s USA faced higher scrutiny from the NLRB as to whether it was a joint employer and whether it retained some indirect control over the employees of its franchisees.

Due to changes in the makeup of the NLRB under the Trump Administration, as well as a new NLRB General Counsel, the NLRB has sought to reverse Browning-Ferris Industries and return to the former joint-employer test that required direct and immediate control. In December 2017, the NLRB overturned Browning-Ferris in its Hy-Brand decision, only to have to vacate Hy-Brand in February 2018 because new Board member William Emanuel should not have participated in that decision. As a result, the 2015 Browning-Ferris joint-employer test is still the standard used to determine joint-employer status under the National Labor Relations Act.

Leaving The Status Quo on Joint-Employer Status – For Now

By settling these cases, both McDonald’s USA and the current NLRB avoid having to litigate and have a judge rule on whether franchisors like McDonald’s can be deemed a joint employer under the current Browning-Ferris test. Although the Board (and Congress) continue to seek to overturn Browning-Ferris, the McDonald’s settlement will push the issue down the road to another day.

According to the NLRB’s March 20, 2018 announcement, the settlement will provide a full remedy for the employees who filed charges against McDonald’s, including 100% of backpay for the alleged discriminatees. The settlement also will avoid years of potential additional litigation.

Take Aways

Franchisors, staffing companies, and other entities who have some contractual authority or obligations related to employees of a second entity need to use caution to ensure that the second entity complies with all applicable labor laws. With the broad Browning-Ferris test in place, entities with reserved contractual control or indirect control of another entity’s employees may be found to be a joint employer under the NLRA. This could open the door to liability for labor law violations as well as union organization and collective bargaining obligations related to joint employees. If in doubt about your exposure, consult with an experienced labor attorney.

Photo credit: AP2013/Jon Elswick

January 8, 2018

Confidential Sexual Harassment Settlements No Longer Tax Deductible

Steven Gutierrez

By Steve Gutierrez

The recently enacted tax reform bill contains a short provision that could significantly affect whether and how employers settle sexual harassment claims. Section 13307 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act states that no deduction is allowed for any settlement or payment related to sexual harassment or sexual abuse if the settlement or payment is subject to a nondisclosure agreement. The new provision also prohibits a tax deduction for attorney’s fees related to confidential sexual harassment settlements or payments.

Deductibility Hinges On Confidentiality of Settlement

The new tax provision eliminates a tax deduction for sexual harassment-related settlements only if the settlement or payment is subject to a nondisclosure agreement. In other words, if an employer requires the alleged victim of sexual harassment or abuse to keep the settlement (and presumably the underlying claim) confidential, then the amount of the payment and any attendant attorney’s fees are not tax deductible. Sexual harassment/abuse settlements and related attorney’s fees remain tax deductible if they are not subject to a nondisclosure agreement.

The policy behind this provision appears to be in response to the recent spate of sexual harassment and abuse claims coming to light. The “#MeToo” campaign has raised significant concerns about companies and their high-level employees hiding behind nondisclosure agreements to avoid public scrutiny about unlawful sexual conduct in the workplace. Repeat offenders often keep their jobs when their employers pay off the victims in secret. By eliminating the tax deduction for confidential settlements and related attorney’s fees, companies will be forced to weigh confidentiality against tax deductibility when deciding whether to settle each claim.

What If Sexual Harassment/Abuse Is Only One of Multiple Claims Being Settled?

One of the questions left unanswered in this new tax reform provision is what happens to the tax deduction for payments that settle more than one kind of employment claim. In many cases, the victim of sexual harassment or sexual abuse brings other claims against his or her employer, such as retaliation, gender discrimination, violation of the Equal Pay Act, or defamation. The language of the provision is unclear as to what is meant by any settlement or payment related to sexual harassment or sexual abuse. One could argue that a retaliation claim that arose from an adverse action following a complaint of sexual misconduct would be related to the sexual harassment claim. But what about an Equal Pay Act claim? Is that related to sexual harassment or sexual abuse?

It is unclear whether confidential settlement payments related to these other types of employment claims will remain tax deductible when lumped in with a sexual harassment settlement. This open question will likely lead employers to separate settlement agreements and payments for non-sexual harassment claims in order to keep the settlement of these other types of claims confidential and tax deductible. It also could lead employers (on likely advice from their attorneys) to structure settlements of multiple claims with an allocation of only a small amount, say $100, to the settlement of the sexual harassment claim, with the remainder of any settlement payment attributed to other types of claims alleged by the victim. Absent any clarification on this issue, we expect this will be the subject of much litigation down the road. In the meantime, companies and their attorneys likely will use creative drafting of settlements to try to separate unrelated claims in order to keep the settlement of non-sexual-harassment claims confidential and retain the deductibility of payments and attorney’s fees incurred for non-harassment matters.

Deductibility of Victim’s Attorney’s Fees

Another open question is whether the denial of deductibility applies only to the companies making settlement payments and their own attorney’s fees related to such settlements, or if it applies to the attorney’s fees incurred by the victim as well. The new provision denying deductibility for settlements subject to nondisclosure agreements amends section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) which is the section that allows deductions for ordinary and necessary trade or business expenses paid or incurred during the course of a taxable year. Generally, an individual would not be able to take a business deduction under IRC Section 162. However, the language in the new provision does not make it clear that it applies only to the business’s own attorney’s fees, thus leaving open an interpretation that it also prohibits the victim of sexual harassment or sexual abuse from deducting his or her attorney’s fees related to settlements of such claims. It also could be interpreted to deny the deduction to a business that pays the victim’s attorney’s fees as part of a confidential settlement.

This could hit victims hard as those who sign nondisclosure agreements may have to pay taxes on the entire settlement, including any amounts paid to cover his or her attorney’s fees. Or, it could lead victims to reject any settlement containing a nondisclosure provision in order to avoid paying taxes on the attorney’s fee portion of the settlement payment. It also may make employers less likely to agree to pay the victim’s attorney’s fees as part of a confidential settlement because the total amount of fees paid to attorneys on both sides would not be deductible as a business expense. It is unclear whether Congress meant to hamstring victims in this way, or if it was the result of inarticulate drafting. We will have to see whether a correction or guidance is issued to clarify how the new denial of deductibility provision affects a victim’s ability to deduct attorney’s fees.

Get Advice Before Settling

The denial of deductibility provision affects any amounts paid or incurred after December 22, 2017 (when the tax reform act became effective). This makes one thing about this new tax deduction provision clear – employers should get advice from competent counsel and tax professionals before settling any sexual harassment or sexual abuse claims. Employers will need to evaluate each case individually to decide whether confidentiality trumps deductibility. Then, after the employer decides whether to impose a nondisclosure requirement on the alleged victim of sexual harassment/abuse, the settlement agreement must be drafted carefully in light of this new provision. If the victim asserts multiple claims, employers may be able to keep the settlement of non-harassment claims both confidential and deductible, if the settlement agreement is drafted correctly.

The bottom line is seek advice early and don’t use boilerplate settlement agreements without considering the tax deductibility consequences of nondisclosure provisions.

January 2, 2018

Sexual Harassment – Employers Should Act Now

By Mark Wiletsky

Roger Ailes, Bill O’Reilly, Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, politicians from both sides of the aisle – the list of prominent individuals accused of sexual harassment and assault continues to grow. And as sexual harassment dominates the headlines, workers are coming forward in increasing numbers to describe inappropriate sexual conduct in the workplace.

This heightened awareness by both the public and employees should make every employer pause to consider if it is doing enough to keep employees safe and free from harassment. Here are our recommendations for steps you should take right now to help prevent your organization from appearing in the headlines.

Have a Strong Anti-Harassment Policy

Every employer should have a written policy that prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace. If you do not have one, you should strongly consider implementing one to ensure your employees know that sexual harassment is absolutely prohibited. If you already have one, review it to ensure that it includes the following provisions:

zero tolerance for unlawful harassment and inappropriate sexual conduct in the workplace
examples of unacceptable physical conduct, such as unwelcome touching, hugging, kissing, groping, and gestures, as well as inappropriate verbal or visual conduct, such as sexual jokes, emails, cartoons, pictures, and propositions
requests for sexual favors or demands to engage in intimate relationships will not tolerated
policy applies to inappropriate conduct by managers, co-workers, vendors, customers, and others who come into contact with your employees
every employee is expected to report any harassment that he or she experiences or witnesses
reporting mechanism that offers two or more reporting channels (such as a supervisor and the human resources manager)
commitment to take complaints seriously through timely and thorough investigation
no retaliation or adverse consequences will occur to those who report sexual harassment or cooperate in any investigation or proceeding
employees found to have engaged in sexual harassment or other inappropriate conduct will be subject to discipline, up to and including termination.

Train Both Managers and Employees

A policy does little good if your employees are not aware of it. Take this opportunity to conduct sexual harassment training for your entire workforce. Live in-person presentations may be the best way to train your employees, allowing you to take questions and emphasize your organization’s commitment to preventing and resolving any harassment issues. If live training sessions are impossible, offer video or recorded training. Provide specialized training to your executives, managers, and supervisors so that you can stress their input in creating a culture that is free of harassment, and to help them recognize and learn how to handle harassment scenarios.

Encourage Reporting of Inappropriate Conduct

Employees won’t report harassment to you if they feel their complaint will fall on deaf ears.
They may, instead, talk to the media or an attorney. Consequently, management and human resources professionals need to encourage reporting of workplace improprieties, no matter who it involves or how sensitive the accusation. If you do not welcome complaints, you will not have an opportunity to nip inappropriate conduct in the bud or resolve situations that could prove highly detrimental to your company.

Investigate Every Complaint

You must treat every report of sexual misconduct or harassment seriously and conduct a timely, thorough investigation to determine whether the alleged conduct occurred. If the complaint is against your company president or another high-ranking individual, you still must investigate it in the same vigorous manner you would for any other employee accused of the misconduct. Consider whether you need to hire outside counsel or a third-party investigator to preserve privilege and to avoid allegations that the investigator was biased because he or she reports to the person accused of misconduct. Take time now to make sure you have an investigation process in place so that when a report of harassment comes in, you don’t waste time determining who does what.

Take Prompt, Appropriate Action

As you receive a sexual harassment complaint and begin an investigation, you need to determine what action, if any, should be taken pending the investigation’s outcome. You may need to place the alleged harasser on leave, or you may need to separate workers so that they work on separate shifts or in different locations. Your duty is to stop any harassment from occurring, so take whatever steps may be necessary to do that. Then, when you have sufficient facts about the alleged harassment, determine what action is warranted to resolve it. If you conclude that harassment likely occurred, you need to impose consequences. Depending on the severity, that could mean immediate termination of employment. Remember, zero tolerance means no unlawful harassment goes unpunished.

Preventing and Resolving Sexual Harassment Should Help Keep You Out of the News

Because the topic of sexual harassment is so hot right now, take the time to recommit your organization to preventing and resolving workplace harassment by following the steps above. Your efforts now will go a long way in avoiding surprise allegations in the future.

October 12, 2017

Top Five Ongoing Challenges For Collective Bargaining and Organizing

By Steve Gutierrez

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.

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.