March 8, 2016

Paid Sick Leave Requirements For Federal Contractors: What To Expect

An estimated 437,000 workers who do not currently receive paid sick leave will become eligible for up to seven days of annual paid sick leave under recently released proposed regulations from the Department of Labor (DOL). Last fall, President Obama issued Executive Order 13706 to require federal contractors to provide paid sick leave to employees who work on covered contracts. If you are or expect to be a federal contractor, here is what you’ll need to know about the proposed rules.

Accrual of Paid Sick Time

For every 30 hours worked on, or in connection with, a covered contract, employees must accrue a minimum of one hour of paid sick leave, with a maximum cap of at least 56 hours. Contractors must calculate each employee’s accrual at the conclusion of each workweek. Alternatively, if a contractor does not want the trouble of calculating accruals, the proposed rules allow a contractor to provide an employee with at least 56 hours of paid sick leave at the beginning of each accrual year.

Contractors must provide written notification to covered employees about the amount of paid sick leave that the employee has accrued but not used. Notifications are required at the following times:

at least monthly
each time the employee requests to use paid sick leave
upon separation of employment
upon reinstatement of paid sick leave, and
whenever the employee asks for this information (but no more than once a week).

Notifications of sick leave benefits that accompany paychecks or are accessible online will generally satisfy this requirement.

Use of Paid Sick Leave

Under the proposed rules, an employee may use paid sick leave for an absence resulting from any of the following:

the employee’s medical condition, illness or injury (physical or mental)
for the employee to obtain diagnosis, care, or preventive care from a health care provider for the above conditions
caring for the employee’s child, parent, spouse, domestic partner, or another individual in a close relationship with the employee (by blood or affinity) who has a medical condition, illness or injury (physical or mental) or the need to obtain diagnosis, care, or preventive care for the same
domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, that results in a medical condition, illness or injury (physical or mental), or causes the need to obtain additional counseling, seek relocation or assistance from a victim services organization, take legal action, or assist an individual in engaging in any of these activities.

Definitions for these terms are included in the proposed regulations. Contractors must permit employees to use their accrued paid sick leave in increments of no greater than one hour.

Leave Requests and Medical Certifications

Employees must be permitted to make a verbal or written request to use paid sick leave. If leave is foreseeable, the request must be made at least seven calendar days in advance. When not foreseeable, the request must be made as soon as practicable. Any denial of leave must be provided in writing to the employee, with an explanation for the denial.

Contractors may only require a medical certification issued by a health care provider (or other documentation related to domestic violence) if the employee is absent for three or more consecutive full workdays.

Carryover and Reinstatement Of Unused Leave

Contractors are permitted to cap the amount of paid sick leave that employees may accrue to 56 hours each year. But, contractors must carry over unused, accrued paid sick leave from one year to the next, with a cap of at least 56 hours of accrued paid sick leave at any one time. In addition, under the proposed regulations, contractors must reinstate an employee’s unused, accrued paid sick leave if the employee is rehired by the same contractor or a successor contractor within 12 months after a job separation. Contractors will not be required to pay out any unused, accrued paid sick time at the termination of employment.

Interaction With FMLA and Existing Company PTO Policies

Paid sick leave under these regulations may run concurrently with Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave but it does not otherwise change a contractor’s obligations to comply with the FMLA. In other words, if an employee is eligible for time off under the FMLA, the contractor must meet FMLA requirements for notices and certifications regardless of whether the employee is eligible to use accrued paid sick leave.

For contractors with an existing paid time off (PTO) policy, the policy will meet the requirements of the proposed regulations if the paid time off policy satisfies all the obligations under the proposed rules. But, if it does not meet all of the requirements under the regulations, such as not permitting an employee to use paid time off for reasons related to domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, then the PTO policy would not suffice. In such cases, the contractor would have to either amend its PTO policy to make it compliant, or separately provide paid sick leave under the proposed regulations in addition to its PTO.

Covered Contracts and Employees

The Executive Order applies to new contracts and replacements for expiring contracts with the federal government that result from solicitations (or awards outside the solicitation process) issued on or after January 1, 2017. It essentially applies to four major categories of contracts:

procurement contracts for construction covered by the Davis-Bacon Act
service contracts covered by the McNamara-O-Hara Service Contract Act
concessions contracts, and
contracts in connection with federal property or lands and relating to offering services for federal employees, their dependents, or the general public.

Employees covered by the Executive Order, and therefore entitled to paid sick leave, include any person performing work on, or in connection with, a covered contract. There is a narrow exclusion for employees who perform work “in connection with” covered contracts but who spend less than 20 percent of their hours in a particular workweek in connection with such contract work.

Next Steps

Interested parties and the general public may submit comments on the proposed regulations on or before March 28, 2016. The DOL then will review the comments and decide whether to make any revisions before issuing a final rule sometime before the end of this year.

As you can see, many of the requirements of these proposed regulations differ from what we typically see in an employer’s sick leave or PTO policy. Consequently, employers who expect to seek or renew federal contracts after January 1, 2017 should review their existing sick leave and/or PTO policies to determine what changes may be required in order to comply with the proposed regulations. The devil is in the details on this one so don’t wait until the last minute to get your policies and procedures in place.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

February 23, 2016

EEOC Providing Employer Position Statements To Charging Parties

By Mark Wiletsky

No reciprocity exists in the new nationwide procedure announced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) late last week. The EEOC now will provide employer position statements and any non-confidential attachments to a charging party during an investigation upon request. It then will permit the charging party to submit a response within 20 days. However, the EEOC will not afford employers the right to receive a copy of the charging party’s response.

As you may know, after an employee or other aggrieved individual files a charge with the EEOC, the agency begins an investigation of the allegations. As part of the investigation, the EEOC will request that the employer (the respondent) submit a position statement, responding to the allegations and providing supporting documentation of its employment decisions that allegedly affected the charging party.

Some EEOC regional offices already release employer position statements to the charging party and allow the charging party to file a response. For employers in those EEOC districts, there is little change in procedure. According to the EEOC, however, this new nationwide procedure is intended to provide a consistent approach in all of its offices.

Take note – these procedures apply to position statements you already may be drafting, or have recently submitted, as they apply to all EEOC requests for position statements made to respondents on or after January 1, 2016.

EEOC Providing Only The First Formal Document From Each Side

In justifying its policy to provide the employer’s position statement to the charging party, but not providing the charging party’s response to the employer, the EEOC states that it is releasing the first formal document received from each party. The respondent receives the Charge and the charging party may receive the respondent’s position statement. The EEOC does not intend to release other documents during the investigation process.

Does this amount to a one-sided discovery request? In other words, by requesting copies of what the respondent submitted to the EEOC, does the charging party get the unreciprocated right to learn the identification of witnesses, decision-makers, applicable company policies, internal documentation of the employment decision, and other important information? The EEOC states this new process is intended to help accelerate the investigation and allow it to better tailor its requests for additional information. But, employer respondents will likely see the procedure as requiring it to lay its cards on the table while permitting the charging party to keep its cards largely hidden.

Use Care With Confidential Information

Respondents who rely on confidential information in their position statements should use care in segregating that information in separate attachments that are labeled “Confidential” or some similar designation. Examples of “confidential” information include birth dates, confidential commercial or financial information, trade secrets, non-relevant personally identifiable information of witnesses, comparators or third parties, references to charges filed against the respondent by other charging parties, and sensitive medical information of others (not the charging party). The EEOC states, however, that it will not accept blanket or unsupported assertions of confidentiality, so be prepared to justify why particular information must be protected.

Be careful, too, when submitting position statements and attachments through the EEOC’s online portal. Once you click “Save Upload” to submit your position statement and any attachments, you will not be able to retract them.

Will The New Procedure Change Outcomes?

It’s important to ask whether the early release of the respondent’s position statement (with supporting documents) to the charging party during the EEOC’s investigation will change the outcome of charges. As with any case, it largely depends on the facts. If you have bad facts or poor documentation on your side, the charge may result in a probable cause finding. Or, the charging party may hold out for more during settlement talks or mediation. However, if you have good policies in place, enforce them uniformly, and document your decisions properly, the release of your defense may help resolve the matter earlier in the process, short of litigation.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

February 11, 2016

Medical Marijuana Need Not Be Accommodated by New Mexico Employers

By Little V. West

New Mexico employers are not required to accommodate an employee’s use of medical marijuana, according to the federal district court in New Mexico. In dismissing an employee’s discrimination lawsuit, the Court recently ruled that an employee terminated for testing positive for marijuana did not have a cause of action against his employer for failure to accommodate his use of medical marijuana to treat his HIV/AIDS. Garcia v. Tractor Supply Co., No. 15-735, (D.N.M. Jan. 7, 2016).

New Employee Terminated For Positive Drug Test

When Rojerio Garcia interviewed for a management position at a New Mexico Tractor Supply store, he was up front about having HIV/AIDS. He also explained that he used medical marijuana under the state’s Medical Cannabis Program as a treatment for his condition upon recommendation of his doctor.

Tractor Supply hired Garcia and sent him for a drug test; Garcia tested positive for cannabis metabolites. He was terminated from employment. Garcia filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Division alleging unlawful discrimination based on Tractor Supply’s failure to accommodate his legal use of marijuana to treat his serious medical condition under New Mexico law.

No Affirmative Accommodation Requirements in New Mexico’s Medical Marijuana Law

Garcia argued that New Mexico’s Compassionate Use Act (CUA), which permits the use of marijuana for medical purposes with a state-issued Patient Identification Card, should be considered in combination with the state Human Rights Act, which, among other things, prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of a serious medical condition. He argued that the CUA makes medical marijuana an accommodation promoted by the public policy of New Mexico. Accordingly, Garcia asserted that employers must accommodate an employee’s use of medical marijuana under the New Mexico Human Rights Act.

The Court disagreed. It stated that, unlike a few other states whose medical marijuana laws impose an affirmative obligation on employers to accommodate medical marijuana use, New Mexico’s law did not. Consequently, Garcia did not have a claim under the CUA.

The Court then rejected Garcia’s arguments that his termination violated the Human Rights Act. The Court found that Garcia was not terminated because of, or on the basis of, his serious medical condition. He was terminated for failing a drug test. The Court stated that his use of marijuana was “not a manifestation” of his HIV/AIDS, so Tractor Supply did not unlawfully discriminate against Garcia when it terminated him for his positive drug test.

Court Rejected Public Policy Arguments

Garcia argued that the public policy behind the state’s legalization of medical marijuana meant that employers should be required to accommodate an employee’s legal use of marijuana. The Court rejected the argument, noting that marijuana use remains illegal for any purpose under federal law. It stated that if it accepted Garcia’s public policy position, Tractor Supply, which has stores in 49 states, would have to tailor its drug-free workplace policy for each state that permits marijuana use in some form.

The Court also relied on the fact that the CUA only provides limited state-law immunity from prosecution for individuals who comply with state medical marijuana law. However, Garcia was not seeking state-law immunity for his marijuana use. Instead, he sought to affirmatively require Tractor Supply to accommodate his marijuana use. The Court stated that to affirmatively require Tractor Supply to accommodate Garcia’s drug use would require the company to permit conduct prohibited under federal law. Therefore, the Court ruled that New Mexico employers are not required to accommodate an employee’s use of medical marijuana.

What This Means For Employers

The Tractor Supply decision is consistent with rulings from courts in other states that have similarly ruled that an employer may lawfully terminate an employee who tests positive for marijuana. Although Garcia may appeal this decision, it is difficult to imagine that an appellate court will overturn it as long as marijuana use remains illegal under federal law, and state law does not require a workplace accommodation.

In light of this decision, take time now to review your drug-free workplace and drug testing policies. Make certain that your policies apply to all controlled substances, whether illegal under state or federal law. Clearly state that a positive drug test may result in termination of employment, regardless of whether the employee uses medical marijuana during working hours or appears to be “under the influence” at work. Communicate your drug-free workplace and testing policies to employees and train your supervisors and managers on enforcing the policies in a consistent and uniform manner.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

February 3, 2016

Utah Bill Seeks To Ban Post-Employment Non-Compete Restrictions

By Bryan Benard

On February 2, 2016, the Post-Employment Restrictions Act, H.B. 251, was introduced in the Utah House of Representatives. Sponsored by Representative Mike Schultz (R), the bill would prohibit most types of agreements and policies that restrict an employee’s actions after termination of employment.

Specifically, the bill would ban post-employment restrictions that restrict the employee from:

providing products, processes, or services that are similar to the employer's products, processes, or services;
working in the same industry as the employer, or
owning, either directly or indirectly, an interest in an entity that provides products, processes, or services that are similar to the employer's products, processes, or services.

In short, this bill would prevent Utah employers from having non-compete agreements with its employees that extend beyond the termination of the employment relationship.

We will continue to monitor this bill, with our government affairs group keeping close tabs on it.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

February 2, 2016

DOL’s New Joint Employer Interpretation Seeks To Hold More Employers Accountable

By Brian Nugent

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a new Administrator’s Interpretation (AI) that emphasizes the agency’s intent to apply joint employer status more broadly under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA). Even though the definition of joint employment under these acts has not changed, the DOL made it clear that it will examine dual employer relationships closely with what appears to be an intent to find joint employer status in more circumstances.

Of course, companies engaged as a “dual employer” generally seek to avoid joint employer status. Being a joint employer in the eyes of the DOL can result in liability for the acts of a client that has the primary responsibility to direct and control employees. This is not a favorable place to be. Temporary staffing agencies and PEOs do not have enough control over workers assigned to a client location to assume such liability. As a result, such companies have worked for years to maintain dual or co-employment relationships that do not constitute joint employment. It appears, however, that the DOL, through the AI, is trying to chip away at such relationships and include more dual employers within the definition of joint employer.

All companies engaged in the business of providing employees to clients or co-employing workers are affected by this AI. As explained in more detail below, it is clear that the DOL intends to scrutinize all “dual employer” relationships more closely and focus on the degree of control over workers as a guide to determine whether a joint employer relationship exists..

The DOL identified the two most likely scenarios where joint employment typically exists. One type of joint employment, referred to as vertical joint employment, is where there is an “intermediary employer”, such as a staffing agency, PEO, or other provider of workers to a client. Where such a relationship exists, the DOL will focus on the economic realities of the relationship to determine whether a worker is economically dependent on two or more employers, and if so, will be inclined to find joint employer status. The second type of joint employment under scrutiny by the DOL is where the employee has two or more separate, but related employers, each benefitting from a person’s work during the same period of time. These scenarios are explained in more detail below.

Vertical Joint Employment

In a vertical employment relationship, it is common for the “intermediary employer” to be the W-2 employer that actually pay the wages and payroll taxes, but does not direct and control the day-to-day activities of the worker. The issue for the DOL as expressed in the AI is whether, based on the economic realities of the employment relationship shared by the intermediary and the client company, joint employment exists between the employee, the intermediary employer and the client at which the employee is assigned to work.

The economic realities test is not new to the FLSA or MSPA. What is new is that in reviewing a relationship for joint employer status, the DOL announced in the AI that it will abandon its prior practice to look only to its joint employer regulations, and focus exclusively on the economic realities factors in vertical employment scenarios. This is not necessarily bad news, but it is significant.

Under the economic realities test, the degree of control exerted by a person or entity over the workers is only one of the primary factors in a joint employer analysis, and is not definitive. Other economic realities factors the DOL will consider “in the mix” include:

Does the other employer direct, control, or supervise (even indirectly) the work?
Does the other employer have the power (even indirectly) to hire or fire the employee, change employment conditions, or determine the rate and method of pay?
Is the relationship between the employee and the other employer permanent or long-standing?
Is the employee’s work integral to the other employer’s business?
Is the work performed on the other employer’s premises?
Does the employer perform functions typically performed by employers, such as handling payroll, providing workers’ compensation insurance, tools, or equipment, or in agriculture, providing housing or transportation?
Does the employee perform repetitive work or work requiring little skill?

The DOL also identified industries where it believes vertical joint employment relationships are common, and as a result, under increased scrutiny. These industries include “agriculture, construction, hotels, warehouse and logistics” as well as other industries that regularly use staffing agencies or subcontracting intermediaries.

Horizontal Joint Employment

According to the DOL, the so-called horizontal joint employment relationship exists where multiple employers who are sufficiently associated with each other both benefit from the individual’s work, such as where two separate restaurants have the same ownership and jointly schedule an employee to work at both establishments. The factors to consider when analyzing this type of joint employment include:

Who owns or operates the possible joint employers?
Do they have any agreements between the employers?
Do the two employers share control over operations?
Do the employers share or have overlapping officers, directors, executives, or managers?
Does one employer supervise the work of the other?
Do the employers share supervisory authority over the employee?
Are their operations co-mingled?
Do they share clients or customers?

The DOL stresses that it is not necessary for all, or even most, of these factors to exist in order to find joint employment status between two or more related employers.

NLRB Focus On Joint Employers

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has also been expanding its use of joint employment status to hold companies liable for violations of the National Labor Relations Act. Although the DOL stated in a recently issued Questions and Answers document that its joint employment analysis is different than that used by the NLRB, reports suggest that the office of the Solicitor of Labor reached out to the NLRB’s General Counsel on the issue of joint employment in advance of issuing the new Administrator’s Interpretation. It is clear that both agencies are focused on a broad application of the joint employer doctrine.

What Does This Mean For Employers

If joint employment is found, both entities may be held responsible for compliance with all applicable laws, including wage and hour and other employment protection laws. This includes making sure non-exempt employees are paid minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. For employers covered by MSPA, both employers are liable for ensuring necessary disclosures of the terms and conditions of employment, and payment of wages are made, as well as maintaining required written payroll records. A joint employer could also find itself named as a co-defendant in a tort liability suit brought against the “primary actor” employer.

Joint employment also applies for determining eligibility and coverage under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). This is critical as smaller employers with less than 50 employees may think they are free of any FMLA obligations, only to find that they meet the coverage threshold if they are deemed to be a joint employer with another entity, such as a staffing agency that provides them with additional workers. Similarly, joint employer status could affect compliance under the Affordable Care Act.

In light of this new guidance and the emphasis by the federal government on broad application of joint employment, staffing agencies, PEOs, and their clients should examine their relationships, including but not limited to, the degree of control, supervision, termination rights, setting of pay rates, and provision of tools, training, and policies exerted by the client company. The higher the degree of control and reservation of rights over the workers, the higher the chance that a joint employment relationship will be found. This also means that clients may ask staffing agencies to provide additional information about their compliance with applicable laws so as to gauge their level of risk. In fact, compliant staffing companies that are violation-free may see that as a marketing point in the future.

In the end, if employers comply with applicable laws, joint employment need not come into play. It is only when compliance takes a back seat and government investigators arrive at the door, that companies need to worry about whether they are a joint employer.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

January 29, 2016

EEOC Proposes To Collect Pay Data From Employers

By Mark Wiletsky

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) plans to collect pay data from employers with more than 100 employees in order to reveal potentially discriminatory pay practices. Through a proposed revision to the Employer Information Report (EEO-1), large employers will report the number of employees by race, gender, and ethnicity that are paid within each of 12 pay bands. The revision is expected to apply to the September 30, 2017 EEO-1 reports.

By gathering this new pay data by race, gender, and ethnicity, the EEOC and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) intends to identify pay disparities across industries and occupational categories. These federal agencies plan to use the pay data “to assess complaints of discrimination, focus agency investigations, and identify existing pay disparities that may warrant further examination.” The agencies also believe the data will assist employers in promoting equal pay in their workplaces.

Employers To Be Covered By Revised EEO-1

Employers with 100 or more employees, including federal contractors, would be required to submit pay data on the revised EEO-1. Federal contractors with 50-99 employees would not be required to report pay data, but still would be required to report sex, race, and ethnicity, as is currently required.

Pay Bands For Proposed EEO-1 Reporting

Under the EEOC’s proposal, employers would use employees' total W-2 earnings for a 12-month period looking back from a pay period between July 1st and September 30th. For each of the EEO-1 job categories, the proposed EEO-1 would have 12 pay bands. Employers would tabulate and report the number of employees whose W-2 earnings for the prior 12 months fell within each pay band.

The proposed pay bands mirror the 12 pay bands used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Occupation Employment Statistics survey:

(1) $19,239 and under;

(2) $19,240 – $24,439;

(3) $24,440 – $30,679;

(4) $30,680 – $38,999;

(5) $39,000 – $49,919;

(6) $49,920 – $62,919;

(7) $62,920 – $80,079;

(8) $80,080 – $101,919;

(9) $101,920 – $128,959;

(10) $128,960 – $163,799;

(11) $163,800 – $207,999; and

(12) $208,000 and over.

The EEOC published a Question & Answer page on its website to help explain how the pay data would be reported.

Comment Period to Follow

The EEOC’s announcement of the pay data collection on the revised EEO-1 coincides with a White House commemoration of the seventh anniversary of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The proposed changes will be officially published in the Federal Register on February 1, 2016. Interested parties and members of the public may submit comments for the 60-day period ending April 1, 2016.

We expect that a significant number of employers, business organizations, and industry associations will submit comments, opposing this additional reporting requirement. Groups also may challenge the changes in court. We will keep you posted as this proposal goes forward.

In the meantime, if your organization has concerns about its pay practices, now is a good time to review those practices and proactively address any troubling issues.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

January 20, 2016

Unaccepted Settlement Offer of Complete Relief Does Not Moot Plaintiff’s Case

By Sarah Wisor

In a 6-to-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a plaintiff who rejects a settlement offer or an offer of judgment of complete relief may continue litigating the case. Relying on principles of contract law, the Court ruled that once a settlement offer is rejected by the plaintiff, it has no continuing effect. Because the plaintiff remains empty-handed, he may continue to pursue all available remedies in court, on both an individual basis and on behalf of a class. Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. ___ (2016).

Resolving Circuit Court Split on Whether Offer Moots Claim

The dilemma is this: if a defendant offers the plaintiff complete monetary and all other relief that he is entitled to recover on his claims, what is left to be decided or awarded? If there is no case or controversy, a federal court must dismiss the case as moot pursuant to Article III of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear this case because the Circuit Courts of Appeals did not agree on this issue. The First, Second, Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals had previously ruled that an unaccepted offer does not render a plaintiff’s claim moot. However, the Third, Fourth, and Sixth Circuits had ruled oppositely, holding that an unaccepted offer of complete relief can moot a plaintiff’s claim.

Justice Ginsburg, writing for the majority, pointed to Justice Kagan’s words from her dissent in an earlier case: “When a plaintiff rejects such an offer – however good the terms – [the plaintiff’s] interest in the lawsuit remains just what it was before. And so too does the court’s ability to grant her relief.” Therefore, the Court reasoned, a case is not rendered moot by an unaccepted offer to satisfy the plaintiff’s individual claim.

Chief Justice Roberts Dissents

Chief Justice Roberts dissented, joined by Justices Scalia and Alito. (Justice Thomas concurred with the majority in its holding, but not its reasoning, writing a separate concurrence.) The dissenting justices stated that the “federal courts exist to resolve real disputes, not to rule on a plaintiff’s entitlement to relief already there for the taking.” The dissent would have rendered the case moot on the basis that there is no case or controversy after a defendant agrees to fully redress the injury alleged by a plaintiff.

Can Defendants Still “Pick Off” Named Plaintiffs?

Settling a named plaintiff’s individual claim prior to class certification is appealing to defendants who want to avoid the greater liability and cost of a class action. While this “picking off” strategy may have been undermined, in part, by the Supreme Court’s decision, the Court did not decide whether payment of complete relief would render the case moot.

This case arose when Jose Gomez sued a marketing firm, Campbell-Ewald, for sending him text messages without his permission. Gomez filed a nationwide class action, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), which permits consumers to recover treble damages of $1,500 per call/text message, plus litigation costs. Gomez sought the maximum statutory damages, costs, attorney’s fees, and an injunction against Campbell-Ewald barring further unsolicited messaging.

Before Gomez could file a motion for class certification, Campbell-Ewald offered to settle Gomez’s individual claim and filed an offer of judgment under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Campbell-Ewald offered to pay Gomez $1,503 per unsolicited message and his court costs, but not attorney’s fees, which Campbell-Ewald argued were not available under the TCPA. Campbell-Ewald also offered to stipulate to an injunction that would bar it from sending text messages in violation of the TCPA. Gomez rejected the settlement offer and allowed the Rule 68 offer of judgment to lapse. Campbell-Ewald then sought dismissal of Gomez’s case, arguing that its offer of complete relief rendered his claim moot. The Supreme Court disagreed.

However, the Court did not decide whether the result would be different if a defendant actually deposits the full amount resolving the plaintiff’s individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, with the court then entering judgment in that amount. As Chief Justice Roberts stated in his dissent, the good news is that this case is limited to its facts, and that issue has been left for a future case.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

January 19, 2016

An Uncomfortable, But Not Hostile, Work Environment

By Brad Cave

Certain workplace behavior may be unusual, uncomfortable or downright weird, but may not be unlawful. Do you want to take the chance of knowing what crosses that line?

Imagine receiving this complaint from an employee: “My supervisor frequently compliments my appearance, clothing and cologne. He touched my back and buttocks, claiming he was showing me where he was experiencing back pain. He instructed me to participate in two body-fat contests requiring me to wear a speedo where he again complimented my appearance and tried to touch my buttocks. He repeatedly asked me to join him for drinks during a company event.”

Do these allegations suggest a hostile work environment? Would your company be liable for sex discrimination?

Real Case Offers Guidance

These facts arose in an actual lawsuit filed by Bryan McElroy, a former district sales manager for American Family Insurance (AFI). McElroy was fired by his supervisor, Tony Grilz, after failing to meet sales goals and engaging in insubordinate behavior. After his termination, McElroy filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and later filed suit in federal court, alleging, among other things, that he was subjected to a hostile work environment based on the above-recited behavior by Grilz.

Uncomfortable Work Behavior

The federal court acknowledged that “some of Grilz’s conduct could make many people uncomfortable.” But the district judge ruled that the conduct did not rise to the level of being so objectively offensive that it created a hostile or abusive work environment. The district court rejected McElroy’s hostile work environment claim and granted summary judgment to AFI.

On appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (whose decisions apply to employers in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Kansas, and New Mexico), McElroy argued that if the conduct could make many people uncomfortable, a jury could find it sufficiently offensive to support his hostile work environment claim. The Tenth Circuit disagreed. It failed to see how behavior that was capable of causing “mere discomfort” would necessarily alter the conditions of employment so as to create a hostile work environment.

The court stated that to succeed on a hostile work environment claim, an employee must establish that the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment. The court reiterated that “even incidents that would objectively give rise to bruised or wounded feelings will not on that account satisfy the severe or pervasive standard” necessary for an actionable claim under Title VII. The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of AFI and against McElroy on his hostile work environment claim. McElroy v. Am. Family Ins., No. 14-4134 (10th Cir. Oct. 30, 2015).

Handling Questionable Complaints

What would you do if you received a complaint based on conduct such as what McElroy reported? Act on it? Ignore it? Here are some tips for handling complaints that may, or may not, rise to the level of severe or pervasive conduct.

Tip #1: Treat Each Complaint Seriously

It may be tempting to dismiss complaints of workplace harassment that may seem minor or inoffensive to you. Don’t do it. You never know if the complainant is telling you the full story or if other, more serious allegations are waiting to be told. In addition, failing to look into a report of workplace harassment will negate certain defenses if the complainant decides to file a lawsuit.

Tip #2: Conduct an Investigation

All reports of workplace harassment should be investigated. Hopefully, your investigation will show that no additional inappropriate behavior is occurring and that the reported conduct was an isolated, non-severe incident. You may, however, find that the conduct is more widespread. Perhaps other employees reporting to the same supervisor have experienced similar conduct, or the conduct has been escalating to involve more physical contact. You need to dig deeper to get the full picture of what the employee and his/her co-workers may be experiencing.

Tip #3: Take Action To Stop Inappropriate Behavior

Whether the behavior rises to the level of creating a hostile work environment or not, take action to stop it. Talk to the person acting inappropriately and explain that conduct such as touching and making comments about other employees’ looks leads to an uncomfortable work environment and must cease. Follow up with the complainant to make sure that he or she is not experiencing further inappropriate behavior or retaliation. Nip such conduct in the bud so that mere uncomfortable behavior does not escalate to unlawful harassment.

Tip #4: Train Supervisors and Employees Annually

Conduct annual training on sexual harassment and other inappropriate workplace behavior in order to educate your workforce on your harassment policies and complaint-reporting mechanisms. Use training sessions to reinforce your commitment to keeping your company free of discrimination and retaliation. Make sure managers and supervisors are trained on recognizing and responding to complaints of workplace harassment.

Conclusion

Unlawful workplace harassment is tricky to define with any certainty. Conduct that one judge or appellate court finds as causing “mere discomfort” may be deemed sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to create a hostile work environment by another judge or court. Your best practice is to keep inappropriate behavior out of your workplace, follow the tips above and stay out of court in the first place.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

January 12, 2016

Anticipating Revisions To The “Persuader Rules” – What You Need To Know

By Brian Mumaugh

As early as March, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) plans to issue its final rules that will significantly narrow the type of union-avoidance activities that employers and their labor attorneys and relations consultants may engage in without having to report those activities to the government. The tightening of the so-call “persuader rules” will mean that employers who utilize labor relations consultants, including lawyers, to help with union-avoidance or collective bargaining activities will need to disclose many more of those activities, and the fees paid for them.

Evolution of the “Persuader Rules”

In the late 1950’s, because of perceived questionable conduct by both unions and employers involved in union organizing and collective bargaining campaigns, Congress enacted the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA). The LMRDA seeks to make labor-management relations more transparent by imposing reporting and disclosure requirements on labor organizations and their officials, employers, and labor relations consultants.

Under the LMRDA, the reporting requirements for employers and their labor consultants are triggered when they undertake activities intended to directly or indirectly persuade employees to exercise (or not to exercise) the employees’ right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. Employers must file a Form LM-10 (Employer Report) that discloses all payments made to unions and union officials, persuader payments made to employees and employee committees, persuader agreements/arrangements made with labor relations consultants, including lawyers, which includes the amount and dates of payments made to such consultants, and any expenditures made to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees, or otherwise obtain information concerning employees or a labor organization. Labor relations consultants must file a Form LM-20 specifying, among other things, information about the consultant and the nature of the “persuader activities” to be performed. Under the LMRDA, the DOL must make all such forms available for public inspection.

The “Advice” Exemption

The LMRDA contains an exemption from the reporting requirements for persuader activities for services that give “advice” to the employer. Except for brief periods when the LMRDA was first enacted and again in 2001, the DOL has interpreted this “advice” exemption to apply to activities where a consultant or lawyer prepares a speech or documents for use by the employer, or revises materials initially drafted by the employer. In other words, as long as the consultant or lawyer did not directly deliver or disseminate speeches or materials to employees for the purpose of persuading them with respect to their organizational or bargaining rights, behind-the-scenes activities where the consultant/lawyer drafts materials for use by the employer would not trigger a reporting obligation. Under the proposed rules, that is about to change.

Expanded Proposed Interpretation of “Advice” Exemption

Believing its long-standing interpretation of the “advice” exemption to be overly broad, the DOL proposed a narrower interpretation that would require reporting in any case in which the agreement or arrangement with a labor consultant/lawyer in any way calls for the consultant to engage in persuader activities, regardless of whether or not advice is also given. The revised interpretation would define reportable “persuader activity” to include activities where a lawyer or consultant provides material or communications to, or engages in other actions, conduct, or communications on behalf of an employer that at least in part, has the objective of persuading employees concerning their rights to organize or bargain collectively. Exempt “advice” would be limited to recommendations, verbal or written, regarding an employer’s decision or course of conduct.

Stated examples of covered persuader activities that would require disclosure include:

drafting, revising, or providing written materials for presentation, dissemination, or distribution to employees
drafting, revising, or providing a speech, video, or multi-media presentation to be presented, shown or distributed to employees
drafting, revising, or providing website content for employees
planning or conducting individual or group employee meetings, and training supervisors or employer representatives to do the same
coordinating or directing the activities of supervisors or employer representatives
establishing or facilitating employee committees
developing personnel policies or practices
deciding which employees to target for persuader activity or disciplinary action
conducting a seminar for supervisors or employer representatives

The DOL justifies this expansion of the reporting circumstances, in part, because the role of outside consultants and law firms in managing employers’ anti-union efforts has grown substantially over the years, citing reports that somewhere between 71% and 87% of employers facing organizing drives hire third-party consultants to assist in their counter-organizing efforts. The DOL also states that underreporting of persuader activities is a problem as “employees are not receiving the information that Congress intended they receive.” Regardless of its reasoning, the DOL’s proposed change of its 50-year old interpretation will result in significant burdens on both employers and their consultants.

March 2016 Is New Target Date for Final Rule

Almost five years has passed since the DOL published its proposed rule changing the “persuader rules.” After numerous delays in publishing its final rules, the DOL’s regulatory agenda indicates that it expects to issue the final “persuader rules” this March. We will let you know when the final rules are published, or if the timeline changes. In the meantime, you might want to take advantage of the next few months before the new rules kick in to obtain union-avoidance materials and training from your consultants now. At a minimum, talk to your labor relations consultant/labor lawyer about the upcoming changes so that you are aware of how they may impact your labor strategies in the future.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

January 4, 2016

Pregnancy-Related Accommodation Bill To Be Introduced in Colorado Legislature

Following the national trend, a bill to be introduced during Colorado’s next legislative session intends to expand protection for pregnancy-related leave. Specifically, the draft bill would require employers to provide reasonable accommodations to applicants and employees for conditions related to pregnancy and childbirth. If passed, the bill would mean that employers must engage in an interactive process to assess potential reasonable accommodations, provide notice of employee rights, and refrain from retaliating against employees and applicants that request or use a pregnancy-related accommodation.

With the 2016 Colorado legislative session set to convene on January 13th, here are the highlights of the draft bill.

Reasonable Accommodation Requirement

Under the draft bill, an employer would commit an unfair employment practice if it refuses to make a reasonable accommodation for a job applicant or an employee for conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer’s business. Employers would need to engage in a good-faith interactive process with the employee to determine possible, effective reasonable accommodations.

Most employers should be familiar with the interactive process as it should be used when assessing accommodations for qualified individuals with a disability. Possible reasonable accommodations listed in the draft bill include more frequent or longer break periods, temporary transfer to a less strenuous or hazardous position, job restructuring, light duty, time off to recover from childbirth, acquisition or modification of equipment, seating, assistance with manual labor, modified schedules, and break-time and private non-bathroom space for expressing breast milk. Employers would not be required hire new employees, or discharge, transfer, or promote another employee in order to make a reasonable accommodation.

The bill would further prohibit employers from requiring an applicant or employee to accept a reasonable accommodation that the individual chooses not to accept. The bill also would prevent employers from requiring an employee to take leave if there are other reasonable accommodations that may be made. These provisions seem to suggest that the employee has veto power over offered accommodations. This differs significantly from disability law as under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), an employer meets its reasonable accommodation duty if it provides an accommodation that allows the employee to perform the essential functions of his or her job, even if that accommodation is not the one preferred by the employee.

Undue Hardship Analysis

An “undue hardship” is defined in the bill as an action requiring significant difficulty or expense proven by the employer. Factoring into that determination would be:

the nature and cost of the accommodation
the overall financial resources of the employer
the overall size of the employer’s business with respect to the number of employees and the number, type, and location of the available facilities, and
the accommodation’s effect on expenses and resources or its impact on the operations of the employer.

If the employer provides a similar accommodation to other classes of employees, it will be presumed that the accommodation does not impose an undue hardship. Employers would have to rebut that presumption if they fail to offer the same or similar accommodation for pregnancy-related conditions.

Retaliation Prohibited

Employers would be prohibited from taking adverse action against an employee who requests or uses a reasonable accommodation for a pregnancy-related condition. An adverse action is defined in the bill as a retaliatory action, such as the failure to reinstate the employee to her original job or to an equivalent position with equivalent pay and accumulated seniority, retirement, fringe benefits and other applicable service credits.

Notice and Posting Requirement

If this bill were to become law, employers would be required to provide employees with written notice of their rights under this provision. New employees would have to be provided the written notice at the start of their employment. Additionally, employers would have ten days to provide the notice to individual employees who inform their employer of their pregnancy. There is also a provision to notify existing employees within a specified time after the effective date of the new law. Finally, employers would be required to post the written notice in a conspicuous place at their business in an area accessible to employees.

Likelihood of Bill Passage

Remember that at present, this bill is only a draft and after it is introduced in the House, it will be assigned to a committee. There are many opportunities for legislators to amend, add, or delete provisions in the bill throughout the legislative process.

That said, some form of the bill stands a reasonable chance of passage within the Democratically controlled Colorado House. It has less chance of success in the Republican-controlled Senate. We will watch to see if other legislators add their names as co-sponsors, or if an alternative (perhaps less onerous) bill is introduced in the Senate. We will track this bill and keep you informed of any important developments.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.