Category Archives: Labor Law

October 3, 2024

Online Conduct, Offline Impact: Unpacking the Legal Implications of Social Media Harassment in the Workplace

JT Washington

by JT Washington

Today, technology and social media are integral parts of our daily lives. Social media has transformed how we communicate and express ourselves. However, this transformation has brought new challenges, particularly in the workplace, where online behavior can have significant repercussions. Recent legal cases have demonstrated what happens on social media does not always stay online and can contribute to a hostile work environment or harassment if it impacts an employee’s working conditions. This encompasses behavior that may not occur in the physical workplace but still affects the overall work environment. Employers are required to promptly and effectively address harassment, irrespective of where it takes place, including on social media.

A recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in the case of Okonowsky v. Garland, has emphasized this reality. 109 F.4th 1166. The court held that an employer could be held liable for a hostile work environment claim based on harassing content posted on an employee’s personal social media account, even if the conduct occurred outside the physical workplace. This decision builds upon earlier guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), which warned that employers might be liable for non-work-related conduct when it affects the workplace environment. The ruling underscores the growing influence of social media in shaping workplace dynamics and the potential legal ramifications for employers who fail to address harassment that originates online but permeates the workplace. Read more >>

September 25, 2024

Demystifying Qualifications for PWFA

Dana Dobbins

By Dana Dobbins

Question: Do employees have to be employed for 12 months or work 1,250 hours to qualify for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), or do they qualify as soon as they begin employment?

Answer: No, employees do not need to be employed for 12 months or work a minimum threshold of hours before they can qualify for protections and accommodations under the federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) or the Colorado PWFA. Employees qualify immediately (provided that the employer is a covered entity). In fact, by its terms, the PWFA applies even to job applicants. This is also true for Colorado’s PWFA.1

Under the PWFA, employers must make reasonable accommodations for the known limitations of an employee or applicant, unless the accommodation would cause an “undue hardship”—i.e., significant difficulty or expense. Read more >>

August 20, 2024

Responding to Employee Requests for Personnel Records

Dana Dobbins

By Dana Dobbins

Question: What are the guidelines for when employees, current or former, request a copy of their personnel file, and what files are required to be provided upon request?

Answer: When it comes to an employee’s or former employee’s request for their own personnel files, employers must be cognizant of applicable state and local law when responding to such requests. Some states, including Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming do not have any state or regulatory provisions that apply to private-sector employment (though there may be specific regulations related to public-sector employers). Employers should be mindful of any company policies or procedures governing access to personnel files, which should comply with any applicable laws,  and must apply those policies and procedures consistently.

Other states have specific rules governing current and former employee access to the employee’s personnel file. For example, under Colorado law, an employer must allow a current employee to inspect and obtain a copy of his or her personnel file at least annually, upon the employee’s request. However, the employer can require that the review occur at the employer’s office at a time that is convenient for both the current employee and the employer. Read more >>

April 30, 2024

Residence or Incorporation – A Look at Where Guidelines Matter When Drafting Severance Agreements

Mark Wiletsky

Mark Wiletsky

by Mark Wiletsky

Question: When crafting a severance agreement, should you follow the guidelines of the state the employee resides/works in or the state where the company is incorporated? 

Answer: The answer depends on a number of factors.  Often, companies are incorporated in a state in which they have no presence or operations, e.g., Delaware.  Although courts will sometimes allow parties to select a law to govern agreements, including severance agreements, the employee may be able to challenge the agreement if it does not comply with the state in which he or she lives or works.  In fact, some states, such as California and Colorado, have certain laws that apply to workers within their state, regardless of what the agreement says. If the agreement is drafted to comply with the laws of the state of incorporation, but not the state in which the employee worked, the release might not be effective or enforceable.  Indeed, in the event of a dispute, it can be difficult to justify why the law in Delaware, for example, should apply to a worker in Colorado if the company has no operations in Delaware and the employee did not live or work there.  Therefore, the best practice is to review the laws of the states in which the employee lives or works, and where the company is headquartered, to ensure the agreement complies with the laws of both states.  If the laws conflict, consider drafting the agreement to comply with the more restrictive laws to ensure the agreement will be enforceable.

January 16, 2024

Does Your Business Properly Classify Independent Contractors? DOL Publishes Final Rule on Worker Classification

Kody Condos

by Kody Condos and Greg Saylin

On January 9, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) published its final rule defining the term “independent contractor” and setting forth the new test for determining independent contractor / employee status (the “Rule”). The DOL estimates that “there are 6.5 million small establishments or governments” relying on independent contractors that “could be affected by “ the new Rule.[1]

Greg Saylin

The Rule, effective March 11, 2024, differentiates an independent contractor from an employee if the worker is “as a matter of economic reality, in business for themselves,” meaning, the worker cannot be economically dependent on the potential employer for work.[2]  The “economic reality” does not focus on the amount of income earned by the worker, or whether the worker has other sources of income. Rather, the Rule applies the following six factors to determine economic independence:

  1. “The worker’s opportunity for profit or loss;”
  2. “Investments by the worker and the potential employer;”
  3. “The degree of permanence of the relationship;”
  4. “The nature and degree of the potential employer’s control over the work;”
  5. “The extent to which the work is “integral” to the potential employer’s business;” and
  6. “The worker’s skill or initiative.”

The DOL and courts are to utilize a “totality of the circumstances” approach in applying the test. And, while the DOL articulates only six factors, the Rule provides that other (unnamed) factors may also be relevant in any given case.[3]

The Factors, Explained

While some of the factors are reminiscent of prior guidance and other tests, the Rule deviates from precedent and provides important clarification on the factors to be applied.[4] It also deviates from its predecessor in some very important ways. Read more >>

December 1, 2023

A Reminder for Employers: Review Your Separation Agreements

Mark Wiletsky

Mark Wiletsky

by Mark Wiletsky

Companies routinely use separation agreements with departing employees. Through those agreements, the employee receives some type of separation benefit (typically a payment or severance) in exchange for waiving and releasing any potential claims against the company.

The goal is to avoid an existing or potential dispute, claim, or lawsuit. But if companies don’t routinely review and update those agreements, they risk the agreement being challenged or invalidated. Even worse, companies are sometimes investigated and forced to pay fines or penalties for provisions in the agreements. A recent settlement announced by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) provides a strong reminder to employers to regularly review and update agreements used with employees.

Facts

On September 19, 2023, the SEC announced a settlement with a real estate services firm. According to the announcement, the company violated the SEC’s whistleblower protection rule with separation agreements it used between 2011 and 2022. The agreements contained a common provision: Employees had to affirm they hadn’t filed a complaint about the company with any state or federal court or local, state, or federal agency. These types of representations are typically included in separation or settlement agreements to ensure that any pending complaint or charge is resolved in conjunction with the separation or settlement agreement. Read more >>

September 12, 2023

How to Address Damage to Company or Customer Property

Laurie Rogers

by Laurie Rogers

Question: Can we legally require employees to reimburse the company for damage to customer or company property (i.e., the full amount of damages or insurance deductible)?

Answer: Many employers have policies requiring employees to reimburse them for damage to company property, usually through payroll or final paycheck deductions. Before implementing such a policy, you must consider state and federal laws that may restrict or prohibit your ability to make such payroll deductions. Read more >>

June 26, 2023

Religious Accommodation: SCOTUS Approaching Decision on Title VII ‘Undue Hardship’ Standard

Steven Gutierrez

by Steven Gutierrez

On April 18, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case involving a former U.S. Postal Service (USPS) worker who was denied a religious accommodation to observe his sabbath. The broad implications of a decision that favors the former worker could change the analysis for employers when assessing employee requests for religious accommodations.

Background

Gerald E. Groff is an evangelical Christian who began working at the USPS in 2012. In 2013, the USPS contracted with Amazon to deliver packages on Sundays. Read more >>

February 14, 2019

U.S. DOL Eases Restriction on Tipped Employees

Katarina Harris

By Katarina Harris

Employers in the hospitality industry have long struggled to follow U.S. DOL guidance limiting circumstances under which they may take a “tip credit” toward their employees’ federal minimum wage. New U.S. DOL guidance eases that restriction.

DOL Opinion Letter Retracts “80/20 Rule”

In a new opinion letter released November 8, 2018, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) decided to eliminate the “80/20 Rule” which had previously limited employers’ ability to take a “tip credit” toward their employees’ federal minimum wage. This retraction comes as a relief to many employers in the hospitality industry, as the previous rule effectively required employers to track and account for the time their employees spent on non-tipped tasks, such as rolling silverware, filling salt-shakers, and other types of daily “side work.” Under the 80/20 Rule, an employer could not take a tip credit for non-tip-generating duties performed by a tipped employee if the amount of time spent on such duties exceeded twenty percent of the employee’s overall work. Tracking and monitoring this time was a tedious and difficult task for employers, resulting in higher risk from wage and hour lawsuits.

“Dual Job” and “Dual Task” Rules Sowed Confusion

Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers must currently pay employees a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. State wage and hour laws may impose different and higher minimum wage requirements. However, if an employee qualifies as a “tipped” employee under federal regulations, his or her employer may pay the employee just $2.13 per hour in cash wages and take a “tip credit” arising from the employee’s actual tips to cover the remainder of the federal minimum wage. This credit may total $5.12 per hour.

However, the FLSA distinguishes between tipped employees who perform non-tip-generating duties and those considered to have “dual jobs.” For employers, this distinction is critical to avoiding wage and hour lawsuits. If an employee is employed in both a tipped occupation (e.g., as a server), and in a non-tipped occupation (e.g., as a janitor), for the same employer, the employer may only take the tip credit for that employee’s work in the tipped occupation. For all work performed in the non-tipped occupation, the employer must pay the employee his or her federal minimum wage in cash wages.

The old 80/20 Rule took this functional distinction even further. It effectively distinguished between “dual jobs” and those involving “dual tasks.” Even if a tipped employee was not engaged in a “dual job”—for instance, if he or she worked solely as a server—the employer could still not take a tip credit for any work the employee performed which was related to, but not directed toward, producing tips—at least if the employee spent more than 20% of his or her time on such duties. This was the old 80/20 Rule.

Employers Found “80/20 Rule” Unworkable

Many employers found the old 80/20 Rule burdensome, if not completely unworkable. It effectively required employers to track tipped employees’ time spent on non-tip-generating duties. It also opened the door to wage lawsuits requiring detailed fact-finding in order to reconstruct exactly how much time, minute-by-minute, a tipped employee spent on particular tasks. Even worse, the rule did not specify which tasks were considered “related” to tip-generating occupations, as opposed to constituting distinct, non-tipped work. If a customer dropped silverware on the floor and asked a server for a new set, was the time spent rolling a new set of silverware related to tip-generating work? Would the answer be different if the server rolled extra sets of silverware at the beginning of his or her shift before the first customers arrived? Issues like these created a fertile field for litigation.

New DOL Opinion Letter Revives Old Guidance

In January 2009, the DOL issued an opinion letter which briefly rescinded the 80/20 Rule. However, the DOL retracted this rescission just two months later after a new administration came into office. The 80/20 Rule remained in force at all times thereafter.

In its November 2018 opinion letter, the DOL has now reissued its previous January 2009 guidance rescinding the 80/20 Rule. In this new letter, the DOL acknowledges that its previous guidance created some “confusion and inconsistent application” of the tip credit. The letter also quotes a federal circuit court’s observation that, under the old 80/20 Rule, “nearly every person employed in a tipped occupation could claim a cause of action against his employer if the employer did not keep perpetual surveillance or require them to maintain precise time logs accounting for every minute of their shifts.”

Given the practical difficulties caused by the 80/20 Rule, the DOL announced in its new opinion letter that the agency no longer “intend[s] to place a limitation on the amount of duties related to a tip-producing occupation that may be performed” by a tipped employee, at least if such non-tipped duties are performed “contemporaneously with the duties involving direct service to customers.” The related, but non-tip-producing, duties may also be performed “for a reasonable time immediately before or after” a tipped employee performs his or her direct-service duties without imperiling the credit. For employers, this means no more logging, tracking, and monitoring tipped employees’ daily activities.

The DOL’s new letter also acknowledges the need to provide front-end guidance to employers on which duties are entirely unrelated to tip-producing occupations, and thus not subject to the tip credit. To this end, the letter references a list of “core” and “supplemental” duties for certain tip-producing occupations provided by the Occupational Information Network (O*NET). Employers may consult this list to determinine whether certain tasks are related to tip-producing occupations, in which case they are subject to the tip credit. Conversely, employers may not take the tip credit in relation to any duties which do not appear on this list, unless they are very minimal in duration (i.e., “de minimis”)

Greater Clarity for Hospitality Employers

Although additional uncertainties regarding the tip credit may persist into future—e.g., what is a “reasonable time” immediately before or after a tip-producing activity for purposes of related duties?—the DOL’s new opinion letter provides much-needed guidance to employers in the hospitality industry. Employers need no longer track time spent on tip-producing versus “related” tasks in order to claim the tip credit. Nonetheless, hospitality employers should remain vigilant in distinguishing between “dual jobs,” and those with “dual tasks,” because any time spent in non-tipped occupations remains ineligible for the tip credit. When in doubt, employers should consult experienced employment law counsel for additional guidance.

August 30, 2018

Mark Gaston Pearce Nominated for Another NLRB Term

Steven Gutierrez

By Steve Gutierrez 

Late on August 28, 2018, President Trump nominated Mark Gaston Pearce to serve another term on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board). Pearce was appointed to the Board in 2010 by then-President Barack Obama for a partial term. He then served a full five-year term from 2013 until this week. Due to the expiration of Pearce’s term on August 27, 2018, the Board currently sits at four members, rather than the full five-member contingent.

As with all Board nominations, the Senate must vote to approve Pearce’s nomination before he may begin to serve a new five-year term. As a former union attorney, Pearce may face some opposition from management groups that see him as too pro-union. But the make-up of the five-member Board is traditionally comprised of three members who align with the president’s political party, in the current case, Republican, with the remaining two members aligning with the minority party. Currently, the three Republican members are Chairman John Ring, William Emanuel, and Marvin Kaplan. The lone Democrat, at least until Pearce or another person is confirmed, is Lauren McFerran whose term expires on December 16, 2019.

With the Board revisiting many hot button issues, such as joint-employer status and the use of an employer’s e-mail system for union activities, the Board members wield significant influence on workplace policies and potential employer liability for both union and non-union employers alike. We will keep you informed on Pearce’s confirmation as well as any other Board developments.