July 15, 2015

Independent Contractors: New DOL Interpretation Focuses on Economic Dependence of Workers

If you hire workers as independent contractors, you need to review that status with fresh eyes in light of a new Administrator’s Interpretation issued by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). In his July 15th Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division Administrator David Weil stresses that most workers are employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), not independent contractors. Multiple factors still come into play when determining independent contractor status but the DOL ultimately will look to whether the worker runs his or her own independent business or instead, is economically dependent on the employer.

Broad “Suffer or Permit to Work” Standard

The FLSA defines “employ” as “to suffer or permit to work.” According to Administrator Weil, this broad definition will encompass most workers. He notes that the definition had roots in state child labor laws which sought to ferret out employers who used children as laborers illegally.

He also cites Supreme Court and federal court cases that state that the “suffer or permit to work” standard has broad applicability and extends to the farthest reaches in order to achieve the goals of protecting workers under the FLSA.

Economic Realities Test

Noting that courts have developed a multi-factor “economic realities” test to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, the Administrator’s Interpretation goes through each factor, providing examples and cases that help in the analysis. While the factors haven’t really changed, here are some important distinctions made in this Interpretation:

A contract setting forth an independent contractor relationship “is not relevant” in determining whether the worker is properly classified as an independent contractor; the actual working relationship is what matters, not the label given to it by the parties.
The individual’s opportunity to make a profit or realize a loss on the job must include whether the individual’s managerial skills result in that profit or loss; in other words, a worker’s willingness or ability to work more hours or work more efficiently is not enough to suggest independent contractor status, instead the individual must be making managerial decisions about hiring assistants, purchasing materials, advertising, etc., in order to support independent contractor status.
The worker’s investment in tools, equipment and doing the job must be compared to the employer’s investment; a worker who provides a few essential tools to do the job may not be enough to contribute toward independent contractor status; instead, the worker’s investment must be significant, particularly when compared to the entity’s investment in the job.
Being highly skilled in a particular type of work is not sufficient in suggesting independent contractor status as many employees are highly skilled in the services they provide to their employer; instead, an independent contractor must include “business-like initiative.”
The degree to which the entity controls the work of the individual should not play an oversized role in the analysis; many workers today are not under constant supervision of their employers but that lower degree of monitoring and control does not make them independent contractors.

The Administrator’s Interpretation establishes that no single factor in the economic realities test is determinative and each factor should be analyzed in terms of whether the worker is economically dependent on the employing entity or is truly in business for him- or herself.

Time to Review Your Independent Contractor Classifications

The DOL has made misclassification of employees a high priority for the past few years and with this Administrator’s Interpretation, it is signaling its intent to crack down even further on businesses who classify workers as independent contractors. We suggest that you review the Interpretation, study the examples and then audit your independent contractor relationships to determine whether your classifications will pass DOL scrutiny. In difficult cases, consult with your employment counsel for guidance. Conducting the review yourself and making any necessary changes will go a long way in avoiding headaches and potential liability should the DOL appear at your door for an audit. And, keep in mind that this Interpretation does not carry the force of law. The Administrator’s view will undoubtedly be challenged in court as the DOL ramps up its aggressive posture.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

July 13, 2015

EEOC’s Conciliation Efforts Must Be Real, Not “For Appearances Only,” After Mach Mining Decision

By Mark Wiletsky

An unsupported demand letter cannot constitute an actual attempt by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to engage in the required pre-lawsuit conciliation process, according to a federal judge in Ohio. EEOC v. OhioHealth Corp. (S.D.Ohio June 29, 2015). In one of the first cases to review the sufficiency of EEOC conciliation efforts after that review was authorized by the U.S. Supreme Court in its April Mach Mining decision, it is clear that courts are not willing to rubber stamp the EEOC’s purported conciliation efforts and will delay the lawsuit until actual conciliation takes place.

Insufficient Conciliation Efforts Often Frustrate Employers

If the EEOC finds reasonable cause to believe that employment discrimination occurred, it is required to try to eliminate the alleged discrimination through informal conference and conciliation with the employer. The goal is to get the employer to voluntarily comply with federal discrimination laws and resolve the alleged discrimination privately. In fact, the conciliation process is a necessary precondition to the EEOC filing a discrimination lawsuit against the employer. The EEOC is prohibited from suing the employer until after its conciliation efforts have failed.

At times, employers have been frustrated by a lack of real conciliation efforts, particularly in cases where the EEOC seems to prefer going to court rather than settling with the employer. The Mach Mining decision was a win for employers as it allows an employer to ask a judge to conduct a limited review of the EEOC’s conciliation efforts before a lawsuit goes forward.

EEOC’s Affidavit on Its Conciliation Efforts

The Supreme Court had explained in Mach Mining that a sworn affidavit from the EEOC describing its conciliation efforts would usually suffice to show that it had met its obligations. Many who analyzed that statement feared that an EEOC affidavit would effectively end the employer’s challenge to the sufficiency of the EEOC’s conciliation efforts, resulting in an empty judicial review. But Judge Frost’s decision out of the federal court in the Southern District of Ohio shows that is not the case.

In this case, the EEOC submitted an affidavit that stated that the EEOC had issued a reasonable cause determination letter that invited the parties to join “in reaching a just resolution of this matter” and stating that “conciliation of this matter has now begun.” The affidavit further states that over one month, the EEOC communicated with the employer, OhioHealth, including sending a conciliation proposal which was rejected. The EEOC then sent OhioHealth a final letter stating that conciliation efforts had not been successful.

OhioHealth countered the EEOC’s affidavit by providing its own declaration which stated that the EEOC had made a take-it-or-leave-it demand and failed to provide any information to back up its demand. Even though the EEOC’s determination letter had indicated that a commission representative would prepare a dollar amount that included lost wages and benefits, applicable interest and any appropriate attorney fees and costs, no such calculation was ever provided by the EEOC to OhioHealth. OhioHealth stated that it remained ready and willing to negotiate but that the EEOC instead declared that conciliation efforts had failed.

Judge Frost ruled that the EEOC’s “bookend” letters – first declaring the conciliation process open and then closed — did not constitute an actual attempt at conciliation. He wrote that without the EEOC providing the calculation of the charging party’s damages to OhioHealth, the parties could not shape their positions and the “conciliation process could have been nothing but a sham.” The judge ordered that the EEOC’s lawsuit against OhioHealth be stayed for 60 days while the EEOC engaged in good faith conciliation.

Judge Frost went on to offer a cautionary note to the EEOC. He was disturbed by the EEOC’s statements that it simply would not reach a private resolution of this matter via conciliation and that only a public resolution would be possible. He admonished the EEOC, stating that its position was “ridiculous” and defied the statutory scheme, binding case law, the court and common sense. He wrote that if the EEOC failed to engage in good faith efforts at conciliation as ordered, the court would impose all available consequences, including contempt and dismissal of the lawsuit. Pretty strong words indeed!

Lessons for Employers

Although this is only one court’s review of one conciliation process, employers should be pleased that the Mach Mining decision may have teeth, with courts taking a serious look at the actual conciliation efforts being made. If faced with a reasonable cause determination from the EEOC (and assuming you do not want to go to court), make certain to engage in conciliation by responding to the EEOC’s communications. If the EEOC makes a settlement demand, ask for the calculation of damages that supports the demand. Remain ready and willing to negotiate and document that willingness in writing. And if the EEOC files a lawsuit against you without first making real conciliation efforts, consider seeking a stay of the case by asserting that the EEOC failed to meet a condition precedent to filing the lawsuit.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

June 26, 2015

Same-Sex Marriage Equality: What Employers Need to Know After Obergefell

By Sarah Wisor

Same-sex couples have a Constitutional right to marry and have their marriages recognized nationwide. In a 5-to-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that states are required to license a marriage between two people of the same sex under the Fourteenth Amendment. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015). As a result, same-sex couples may now legally marry in all states. This ruling has massive implications, as rights and benefits extended to opposite-sex spouses will be available to same-sex spouses across the United States.

Marriage Equality Prevails

In an opinion authored by Justice Kennedy, the Court recognized that same-sex couples were not seeking to devalue the institution of marriage, but instead sought for themselves the respect, rights, and responsibilities that accompany a legal marriage. The Court held that under both the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, same-sex couples have the fundamental right to marry.

The Due Process Clause provides that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Court determined that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry under this Clause for four reasons:

the right to make the personal choice of who to marry is inherent in the right of individual autonomy; choices concerning family relationships, whether to have children, and whether to use contraception are protected intimate decisions that extend to all persons, regardless of sexual orientation;
the right of couples to commit themselves to each other and enjoy intimate association extends to same-sex couples just as it does to opposite-sex couples;
protecting same-sex marriage safeguards children and families because without the recognition and stability of marriage, children of same-sex couples suffer harm and humiliation as well as material costs because of the stigma attached to “knowing their families are somehow lesser” than families of opposite-sex couples; and
marriage is a “keystone” of our country’s social order and national community; governmental recognition, rights, benefits and responsibilities depend in many ways on marital status and same-sex couples should not be denied the benefits that accompany marriage.

The Court also ruled that the right of same-sex couples to marry is a liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws. The Court admonished that state laws that ban same-sex marriage deny same-sex couples the benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples, disparage same-sex couples’ choices, and diminish their personhood. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits such “unjustified infringement of the fundamental right to marry.”

Recognition of Marriages Performed in Other States

The Court also ruled that a state may not refuse to recognize the same-sex marriages lawfully performed in another state. The result is that any lawful marriage that has already taken place in the United States, whether same- or opposite-sex, must be recognized in all 50 states.

What This Means for Employers

Multi-state employers that have been dealing with state-specific policies that were dependent on state-law recognition of same-sex marriages may now want to implement a uniform policy that applies to all locations. Here are steps you should consider in light of the legalization of same-sex marriages nationwide:

FMLA leave: Same-sex spouses will be deemed spouses under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) no matter where the marriage took place or where the employee resides. This means that you need to permit eligible employees to take FMLA leave to care for their same-sex spouse with a serious health condition, for qualifying exigency leave if the spouse is being deployed and other qualifying reasons. Update your FMLA policies, forms and practices to permit this leave.
Bereavement and other leaves: If you offer bereavement leave for the death of a spouse or in-laws, you should update your policy to reflect that this leave includes same-sex spouses and relatives of the same-sex spouse. If you offer any other leaves that define immediate family or extend to familial situations, such as non-FMLA medical leave or military leave, update those definitions as well.
Marital status discrimination: If you operate in states that prohibit discrimination based on an employee’s or applicant’s marital status, you will be prohibited from discriminating based on same-sex marriages.
Emergency contacts and beneficiaries: Employees with a same-sex spouse may want to update their emergency contact or beneficiary information listed on group life insurance or retirement plans. Be prepared to administer these changes.
Employee benefits: Group insurance, retirement and other employee benefit plans will need to be reviewed and updated. Be certain to consult your benefits attorney and plan administrators for advice on required changes.
W-4 Forms and tax updates: In light of potential income tax implications for newly recognized same-sex spouses, some employees may want to change their tax withholding information. Be prepared to update W-4 and state withholding amounts upon request.

These and additional policies and procedures impacted by the Court’s ruling may require that you update your employee handbook, policies on your intranet, plan documents, forms, beneficiary designations and other personnel documents. Be sure to notify and train your human resources professionals and supervisors on all changes.

The Court’s landmark decision grants “equal dignity in the eyes of the law” to same-sex couples. Take this opportunity to review your employment policies and practices so your company does the same.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

June 25, 2015

Affordable Care Act Survives Challenge: Tax Credits Available For Federal Exchanges

By Bret Busacker and Gabe Hamilton

To avoid an economic “death spiral” of insurance markets, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that tax credits are available to individuals in states that have a federal exchange under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. ___ (2015). In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court relied on context and policy to resolve an ambiguity in the statute, supporting the ACA’s tax credit in states where the health care exchange is established by the federal government.

An Exchange Established by the State-or the Federal Government

The question before the Court was whether the ACA’s tax credits are available to individuals in states that have a health exchange established by the federal government, or only to those in states where the exchange was established by the state. The ACA provides that individuals are only eligible for premium tax credits under the ACA if the individual obtains insurance through “an Exchange established by the State.” But the Act also provides that if a state fails to set up its own exchange, the federal government will establish “such Exchange.”

The Internal Revenue Service issued a regulation making ACA premium tax credits available regardless of whether the exchange was established and operated by the state or the federal government. The parties challenging that IRS regulation in this case argued that tax credits should not be available in states with a federal exchange as that was not an exchange “established by the State.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, acknowledged that the challengers’ “plain-meaning” arguments were strong, but concluded that the context and structure of the statutory phrase meant that Congress intended the tax credits to apply to eligible individuals purchasing insurance on any exchange created under the ACA. He wrote that the statute is ambiguous and that plain meaning of a statute is but one means the Court uses to resolve an ambiguity. In this instance, context and structure of the statute were more persuasive.

Roberts noted that Congress passed the ACA to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. He cited studies that suggested that if tax credits did not apply to federal exchanges, premiums would increase between 35-47 percent and enrollment would decrease by about 70 percent. He wrote, “It is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate in this manner.”

Tax Credits Are One of The ACA’s Key Reforms

The Court defined the tax credit scheme as one of the ACA’s three key health insurance reforms. The first key reform is the “guaranteed issue” requirement, which prevents insurance companies from denying health care insurance based on a person’s health, and a “community rating” requirement, which prohibits insurers from charging higher premiums to those in bad health.

The second key reform is the individual insurance mandate, requiring individuals to have health insurance coverage or pay a tax penalty. This reform is designed to get more healthy people into the insurance pool, lowering premiums across the board. Individuals are exempt from this requirement if the cost of buying insurance would exceed eight percent of their income.

The third key reform is providing tax credits to certain individuals in order to make insurance more affordable. People with household incomes between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty line are eligible to purchase health insurance on the exchange with tax credits which are provided directly to the insurance provider. The availability of premium tax credits through state and federal exchanges is seen as essential in getting more individuals insured and spreading the risk pool.

Acknowledging that the ACA included many instances of “inartful drafting,” the Court decided that limiting tax credits to state exchanges would gut the second and third key reforms in states with a federal exchange. The combination of no tax credits and an ineffective coverage requirement would result in insurance markets plunging into a “death spiral.” The Court concluded that Congress meant for all of the key reforms to apply in every state, including those with federal exchanges.

Result: No Change for Employers in ACA Requirements

By upholding the tax credit scheme in all states regardless of whether an exchange was set up by the state or the federal government, the Supreme Court supported the overall scheme of the ACA. Although Justice Scalia wrote a scathing dissent that was joined by two other justices, the ACA remains intact. Employers should continue to comply with all applicable ACA requirements.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

June 22, 2015

New FMLA Certification Forms Include GINA Safe Harbor Notice

By Jude Biggs

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) unceremoniously published new FMLA forms with an expiration date of May 2018. The only significant revision is the addition of a notice to employees and health care providers on the medical certification forms informing them not to reveal genetic information in violation of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).

Genetic Information Off-Limits to Employers

GINA, which went into effect in late 2009, applies to employers with 15 or more employees. It not only makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate or retaliate against employees and applicants because of their genetic information, but it also prohibits employers from requesting, requiring, purchasing or disclosing genetic information.

Genetic information is defined to include information about an individual’s genetic tests and the genetic tests of an individual’s family members, genetic services and an individual’s family medical history. Family medical history is included because it often reveals whether someone has an increased risk of getting a disease, disorder or condition in the future.

FMLA and GINA Intersect

Under the FMLA, employers may require that an employee requesting leave for his or her own serious health condition or to care for a family member with a serious health condition provide a medical certification form completed by a health care provider. Through the medical certification form, health care providers provide medical facts about the condition, such as the expected duration, the nature of treatments, and whether the employee is unable to perform his or her job functions as well as information about the amount of leave needed. In some circumstances, responses by health care providers may reveal genetic information that is protected by GINA.

Because of this intersection of the FMLA and GINA, the regulations implementing GINA offer suggested language that covered employers may use to specify that no genetic information should be provided when medical information is offered to support a request for FMLA leave. By utilizing this safe harbor language and advising the employee and the health care provider not to provide genetic information when completing the FMLA medical certification form, the inadvertent receipt of genetic information by the employer will not be deemed a violation of GINA.

In the past, the DOL’s model FMLA certification forms lacked this GINA safe harbor language. Consequently, employers had to offer it separately or utilize their own FMLA forms in order to take advantage of GINA’s safe harbor provision. Now, the DOL has included the following language in its model FMLA certification forms:

Do not provide information about genetic tests, as defined in 29 C.F.R. § 1635.3(f), or genetic services, as defined in 29 C.F.R. § 1635.3(e).

The certification form for an employee’s own serious health condition includes a statement that no information about the manifestation of disease or disorder in the employee’s family members, 29 C.F.R. § 1635.3(b), should be provided.

Use New FMLA Forms Or Update Your Own Forms

The new FMLA model forms, with fillable form fields, are linked here:

Take steps now to update your FMLA practices to use the new DOL forms, or if you use your own FMLA forms, update them to reflect the added recommended language.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

June 15, 2015

Employee Termination For Off-Duty Marijuana Use Legal, Says Colorado Supreme Court

By Emily Hobbs-Wright

In a nationally awaited decision, the Colorado Supreme Court upheld an employer’s termination of an employee who tested positive for marijuana due to his off-duty, off-premises marijuana use. Issued on June 15, 2015, the Court’s narrow decision in Coats v. Dish Network, LLC turned on the fact that marijuana use remains illegal under federal law. Construing the term “lawful” to encompass activities that are permitted by both state and federal law, the Court ruled that Coats’s off-duty marijuana use was not a protected activity within the meaning of Colorado’s lawful activities statute because marijuana use remains unlawful under the federal Controlled Substances Act. The Court refrained, however, from addressing the issue of whether the state’s Medical Marijuana Amendment confers a state Constitutional right to such use.

Although binding only on Colorado, this decision provides employers nationwide guidance in enforcing drug-free workplace policies as more and more states legalize some form of marijuana use.

Coats v. Dish Network: Employee Not Impaired By Marijuana At Work

Dish Network, LLC terminated Brandon Coats, a quadriplegic, for violating its zero tolerance drug policy after he tested positive for marijuana in a random workplace drug screen. Coats claimed he only used marijuana after work at home to treat painful muscle spasms caused by his quadriplegia. He stated that he did not use marijuana on Dish’s premises and was never under the drug’s influence at work.

After his termination, Coats sued Dish claiming his termination violated Colorado’s lawful activities statute, which broadly prohibits discharging employees for engaging in “any lawful activity off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-402.5(1). Coats argued that because his use of marijuana was legal under state law, he engaged in a lawful off-duty activity for which he could not be discharged. He further argued that the phrase “lawful activity” in Colorado’s statute must be defined in reference to state, not federal law.

Dish countered by focusing on the fact that marijuana remains illegal under federal law, and therefore, its use could not be a “lawful activity” under the Colorado statute, making Coats’s termination legal. The trial court agreed with Dish and dismissed the lawsuit finding that marijuana use is not lawful under state law. A divided Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision on separate grounds (i.e., that in order for an activity to be “lawful” it cannot contravene state or federal law), which the Colorado Supreme Court has now affirmed.

“Lawful” Means Permitted By Both State and Federal Law

The Colorado lawful activities statute does not define the term “lawful.” Coats argued it should be read as limited to activities that are lawful under state law, which could include legalized marijuana use. The Court disagreed. It looked to the plain language of the statute to conclude that the term “lawful” means permitted by law, or not contrary to, or forbidden by law. The Court refused to impose a state law limitation to the term, ruling that because marijuana use is unlawful under federal law, it is not a “lawful” activity under the Colorado statute.

A successful appeal of the Court’s interpretation of the lawful activities statute to the U.S. Supreme Court is unlikely as the Colorado Supreme Court based its decision on a straightforward common sense construction of a state statute, which is deemed to be within the state’s highest court’s jurisdiction to decide.

Coats’s Impact on Marijuana in the Workplace

The Coats decision is significant to Colorado employers because it confirms that employers are entitled to enforce drug-free workplace policies without fear of violating the state lawful activities statute. Although this case dealt with marijuana use for medical purposes, the Court’s reasoning should apply to recreational marijuana use as well.

Notably, the Court did not decide whether off-duty marijuana use is protected under Colorado’s Medical Marijuana Amendment, which arguably only creates an exemption from criminal prosecution. Any such narrow ruling would almost certainly have spawned additional litigation over the different wording in Colorado’s more recent Recreational Marijuana Amendment, and whether that amendment made off-duty marijuana use “lawful.”

While the Coats decision resolves an important open issue under Colorado law, Colorado employers should continue to exercise caution when dealing with employee marijuana use outside the workplace. Drug testing policies should provide employees with clear notice of consequences for off-duty marijuana use. Further, employers must enforce zero tolerance policies consistently in order to avoid discrimination claims brought under statutes such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. When dealing with an employee who uses marijuana off-duty and off-premises, employers should carefully evaluate the facts of each situation and consider the risks of violating other employment laws before making adverse employment decisions.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

June 10, 2015

Employers Must Raise Defense of Unverified EEOC Charge or It Is Waived

By Steven M. Gutierrez

According to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, verifying an EEOC charge is not a jurisdictional requirement, necessary to give the federal courts the authority to resolve the case; rather, the Court ruled that verifying an EEOC charge is a condition precedent to filing a Title VII lawsuit in federal court, which may be waived if the employer does not challenge it when first responding to the lawsuit. Gad v. Kansas State University, No. 14-3050 (10th Cir. May 27, 2015).

Verification of EEOC Charge

Title VII, the federal statute that prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex or religion, requires that claimants submit a charge to the EEOC prior to filing suit in federal court. That submission must be “in writing under oath or affirmation.” EEOC regulations require that the written charge be signed and verified, which means sworn under penalty of perjury or affirmed before a notary public, an EEOC representative or another person authorized to administer oaths.

So what happens if the individual asserting discrimination does not verify his or her EEOC charge prior to filing suit? Does the employer-defendant have to raise the issue of the unverified charge, or does the lack of compliance with the verification requirement mean that the federal court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case at all?

Verification Not a Jurisdictional Prerequisite to Title VII Lawsuit

Not every defect in the administrative process defeats jurisdiction, rendering federal courts without authority to hear the case, pointed out the Court. After discussing previous U.S. Supreme Court cases that examined Title VII jurisdictional issues, the Tenth Circuit focused on four key points:

Whether a Title VII statutory requirement is jurisdictional or not depends on whether it is written within Title VII’s jurisdictional subsection – here, the verification requirement is contained in a separate provision that does not deal with jurisdiction of the district courts;
Because non-lawyers initiate Title VII processes, courts should not interpret procedural rules in a way that deprives individuals of their rights under the law – here, interpreting the verification requirement as jurisdictional might lead to inadvertent forfeiture of Title VII rights;
Verification is intended to protect employers from the burden of defending against frivolous claims or claims of which they had no notice – here, because verification remains a Title VII requirement, an employer may raise the plaintiff’s failure to satisfy the requirement as a defense, which serves to protect employers; and
Failure to verify a document as required by a federal rule should not render the document fatally defective – here, if a claimant’s failure to verify destroyed subject-matter jurisdiction, it would make the charge fatally defective by destroying a court’s ability to hear the case at all.

Based on its analysis of these four points, the Court concluded that the EEOC verification requirement is not jurisdictional.

Lack of Verification As Defense

Because verification of the EEOC charge remains a Title VII requirement, an employer defending a Title VII discrimination claim may raise a plaintiff’s failure to satisfy the requirement and seek dismissal of the case on that basis. The Court likened the verification requirement to other Title VII requirements that have been deemed non-jurisdictional, waivable defenses. For example, compliance with the statutory time limit for filing EEOC charges is prerequisite to bringing a Title VII suit in federal court that has been ruled to be subject to waiver and estoppel. Similarly, TitleVII’s application to employers with 15 or more employees has been determined to be a non-jurisdictional requirement that is waivable by an employer. Consequently, if an employer fails to raise a known verification defect during the EEOC proceeding, it likely waives the requirement and the case proceeds.

Waiver Left For Further Analysis

Because the district court in Gad had dismissed the plaintiff’s case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, it had not examined the issue of waiver of the defense. The Tenth Circuit noted that Gad had not argued that her employer, Kansas State University (KSU), had waived the verification requirement. (In its answer, KSU stated generally that Gad had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies but did not specifically mention her failure to verify her EEOC charge.) Instead, Gad argued only that the EEOC had waived the verification requirement, due to an EEOC investigator allegedly telling Gad that she did not need to return the signed EEOC form.

In reversing on the jurisdictional issue, the Tenth Circuit sent the case back to the district court to determine whether the verification requirement had been waived. The Court stated that despite the conclusion that an employer may waive the verification defect, it “does not necessarily follow that the EEOC can waive the requirement unilaterally.” But, the Court noted that there may be extreme circumstances where non-compliance with the verification requirement might be excused, such as negligent EEOC conduct that would mislead a reasonable layperson into thinking that he need not verify the charge. The Court refused to define the scope or parameters of a waiver rule, as that specific issue was not before the Court.

What This Case Means to You

When faced with a Title VII lawsuit, get a copy of the EEOC file at the earliest possible moment and check whether the claimant’s EEOC charge was verified. If not verified, you should seek dismissal of the proceeding on the basis that the claimant failed to verify his or her EEOC. If you choose to respond to the merits of the lawsuit ,without asserting lack of verification as a defense, you have likely waived that requirement.

It does not, however, appear that you should always raise the issue of lack of verification prior to your first response to the federal lawsuit. That is because an EEOC regulation permits “an otherwise timely filer to verify a charge after the time for filing has expired” and to cure technical defects or omissions, including failure to verify the charge. Consequently, if you point out the defect at any time prior to the claimant filing the lawsuit, the claimant will likely be able to amend their charge to correct the verification defect. But you should always raise the defense before responding to the merits of the charge of discrimination to ensure that you do not waive the defense.

Less clear, however, is the issue of an EEOC waiver of the verification requirement. Because the Court did not define the circumstances, if any, under which a claimant may argue that the EEOC did not ask for or require verification, we must wait for further guidance before knowing whether a claimant may proceed with a Title VII lawsuit even after you’ve raised the unverified charge defense.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

June 1, 2015

Religious Accommodation: Employer Need Not Have Actual Knowledge of Accommodation Need, Says High Court

By A. Dean Bennett

An employer’s motives, not its actual knowledge, determine whether it has discriminated against an applicant or employee in violation of Title VII, ruled the U.S. Supreme Court today. In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court ruled that an employer that refuses to hire an applicant in order to avoid accommodating a religious practice may be liable for discrimination even though the applicant did not inform the employer of the need for an accommodation. As long the applicant can show that her need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision to refuse to hire her, the employer can be liable for disparate treatment under Title VII. The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit’s opinion which held that liability for failure-to-accommodate a religious practice applies only when the applicant directly informs the employer about the need for an accommodation. EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S. ___ (2015).

Head Scarf Versus “Look Policy”

This case arose when Samantha Elauf, a seventeen-year old applicant, went to an interview for an in-store sales position at an Abercrombie & Fitch store wearing a headscarf. Although the topic of religion did not come up at the interview, the interviewer, assistant store manager Heather Cooke, assumed that Elauf was Muslim and that she wore the headscarf due to her Muslim religion.

Cooke rated Elauf as qualified to be hired but was concerned that the headscarf would conflict with Abercrombie’s strict “Look Policy” which forbids wearing of “caps.” Cooke consulted with her district manager who told Cooke not to hire Elauf because wearing the headscarf would violate the Look Policy, as would all other headwear, religious or otherwise.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Abercrombie on Elauf’s behalf. The District Court granted summary judgment to the EEOC, finding Abercrombie liable for failing to accommodate a religious practice in violation of Title VII, with a jury awarding $20,000 in damages. Abercrombie appealed and the Tenth Circuit reversed, concluding that Abercrombie could not be liable for failing to accommodate a religious practice where Elauf never provided Abercrombie with actual knowledge of her need for an accommodation. The EEOC appealed to the Supreme Court.

No Knowledge Requirement in Title VII

“An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions,” stated the Court in an opinion written by Justice Scalia. Intentional discrimination under Title VII looks only to the employer’s motives in making its employment decisions, not its actual knowledge. Consequently, if an employer thinks that a job applicant might need an accommodation, such as time off to attend religious observances, and denies the applicant a job in order to avoid that prospective accommodation, the employer violates Title VII, regardless of whether the employer actually knows of the applicant’s religious practices or need for accommodation.

ADA Has Knowledge Requirement

The Court recognized the difference in the reasonable accommodation duty under Title VII versus under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Discrimination under the ADA is defined to include an employer’s failure to make reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an applicant. However, Title VII does not include the knowledge requirement. Therefore, failure to accommodate a religious practice will be deemed discrimination under Title VII as long as the employer’s desire to avoid the accommodation was a motivating factor in its employment decision.

Neutral Policies Still Require Religious Accommodation

Abercrombie argued that its Look Policy was neutral and that it did not treat religious practices less favorably than similar secular practices so it could not be liable for intentional discrimination. The Court disagreed, stating that Title VII gives religious practices favored treatment. The Court acknowledged that an employer is entitled to have a neutral dress policy, such as a no headwear policy, but when an applicant or employee requires an accommodation as an aspect of a religious practice, Title VII requires that the employer accommodate that practice, in the absence of an undue hardship.

Lessons on Religious Accommodations

The practical implication of this decision is that you may not make employment decisions based on suspected religious accommodations. In other words, if you think that an applicant has certain religious beliefs which might lead to the need for an accommodation once hired, you cannot reject them – even if you never discussed or confirmed their religious practices. If the applicant’s potential need for an accommodation is a factor in your decision not to hire them, you may be found liable for discrimination under Title VII.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

May 18, 2015

Plan Fiduciaries Beware: Your Ongoing Duty to Monitor Investments Allows Beneficiaries To Claim Breach Within Six-Year Statute of Limitations

By Mike Beaver

In a ruling that will likely raise the anxiety level of plan fiduciaries, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled today that beneficiaries of a 401(k) plan could pursue their claim against the plan’s fiduciaries related to mutual funds that were added to the plan eight years before the complaint was filed, despite the six-year statute of limitations normally applying to ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claims. The Court concluded that because fiduciaries have a continuing duty to monitor investments and remove those that are imprudent, a claim for breach of that duty is timely so long as the alleged failure to monitor occurred within six years of the filing of the complaint. Tibble v. Edison Int’l, 575 U.S. ___ (2015).

Higher Administrative Fees Prompted Lawsuit

In 2007, several beneficiaries of the Edison International 401(k) Savings Plan (Plan) filed a class action lawsuit against the Plan fiduciaries to recover alleged losses incurred as a result of excessive mutual fund fees. According to the beneficiaries, in selecting the investment choices available to Plan participants, the Plan fiduciaries had chosen six “retail-class” mutual funds, instead of identical “institutional class” funds. The retail-class funds carried higher administrative and management fees than the institutional-class offerings. Three of the funds were chosen in 1999, and the others in 2002.

As to the funds selected in 2002, the lower courts found that the Plan fiduciaries offered “no credible explanation” for selecting the higher-cost retail funds. However, as to the 1999 funds, the Plan fiduciaries argued that the ERISA statute of limitations applicable to fiduciary breaches would bar the beneficiaries’ claims involving the 1999 funds, because they were selected more than six years before the lawsuit was commenced. The statute, 29 U.S.C. § 1113, bars a fiduciary breach claim brought more than six years “after the date of the last action which constituted part of the breach or violation,” or “in the case of an omission the latest date on which the fiduciary could have cured the breach or violation” (emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the fiduciaries, and dismissed all claims relating to the 1999 funds.

A unanimous Supreme Court, however, reinstated the beneficiaries’ claims pertaining to the 1999 funds. The Court found that, although the funds may have been chosen previous to the fiduciaries’ action in selecting the 1999 funds, the statute did not bar claims relating to the fiduciaries’ alleged omissions since that time. Specifically, the Court held that ERISA fiduciaries have a “continuing duty to monitor trust investments and remove imprudent ones.” This duty imposes a “continuing responsibility for oversight of the suitability of the investments already made.” Since such continuing reviews by the Plan fiduciaries might have been required within the six-year limitation period, a claim that the fiduciaries breached their oversight and review responsibilities could not be summarily dismissed.

No Guidance on Oversight Duty

Having held that Plan fiduciaries have a duty to oversee and monitor investment decisions previously made, the Court provided little guidance as to what that duty entails. The Court articulated the fiduciaries’ oversight and monitoring responsibilities only in a broad, theoretical way, holding that “a fiduciary normally has a continuing duty of some kind to monitor investments, and that “the nature and timing of the review [are] contingent on the circumstances.” Because these circumstances had not been fully developed by the lower courts, the Supreme Court remanded the case for further consideration, noting that it did not necessarily find that the Plan fiduciaries had violated any of their duties.

Lesson for Fiduciaries

The Supreme Court has made clear that benefit plan fiduciaries have a continuing responsibility to monitor the suitability and prudence of a plan’s investment choices, and that the six-year statute of limitations runs from the alleged breach of this ongoing responsibility, not from the date a particular investment was initially selected. However, the Court provided essentially no guidance concerning how fiduciaries can fulfill this ongoing responsibility. The parameters of a fiduciaries’ ongoing responsibility to monitor and evaluate investment choices will, in all likelihood, be developed only by extensive future litigation.

Because the Court provided little specific guidance concerning the ongoing duty to monitor investment choices, plan fiduciaries will need to increase their focus on what little regulatory guidance is provided by the U.S. Department of Labor, and many fiduciaries will likely increase their reliance on objective, professional investment advisors. Of course, the choice of an investment advisor is, itself, a fiduciary act, and under the guidance of the Tibble decision, it is likely the fiduciaries’ ongoing responsibility to monitor the suitability and performance of advisors as well. In short, the Tibble decision expands the potential for fiduciary liability without providing much guidance on how that liability might be minimized.

May 11, 2015

Recruiting Employees By Making False Promises Can Cost You

By Mark Wiletsky

You desperately want to hire a competitor’s top sales person, so to lure her away, you promise that she can expand the scope of her sales while continuing to serve her existing customers nationwide. What’s the harm if after she joins your team, you limit her territory and the type of products she can sell? For one computer company, it cost over $370,000 in damages and interest to the disgruntled, former employee. Add in the time and expense of defending the lawsuit and those seemingly innocuous recruiting statements can really come back to bite you.

Misleading Statements Meant to Entice

Hiring experienced executives, managers and sales persons can be tricky because the best performers are in high demand. In order to entice a quality person away from his or her existing company, you likely have to sweeten the compensation package, offer a promotion or growth potential, provide a better cultural fit, or some combination of these conditions of employment. You wine and dine your candidate and make assurances that things will be better if they leave their current, lucrative job and join your company.

But what if your promises don’t come to pass? What if your regional sales structure does not allow the sales executive to continue to service their national clients? What if the growth you promised isn’t in the cards? You could face a lawsuit alleging negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, promissory estoppel or other claims.

The federal court in Colorado recently handled such a case in which a successful computer sales person with national accounts left her lucrative position to join another computer company who had promised that she could keep her current accounts and expand the scope of her sales beyond mainframe computer systems. After her new employer assigned many of her lucrative accounts to other sales representatives and told her that she would not be able to sell outside of the mainframe area, she sued. Although her new employer claimed that its recruiting statements were nothing more than predictions or statements of future intent, a jury found in favor of the sales person on her claim of negligent misrepresentation. The jury awarded her damages in the amount of $231,665 and, after an appeal, an additional $139,625 in prejudgment interest. David v. Sirius Computer Solutions, Inc., 779 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2015).

Don’t Make Promises You Can’t Keep

Tempting as it may be, refrain from making guarantees or promises to job candidates that you can’t fulfill. Executives and high-level sales persons typically have a lot at stake when switching companies, which consequently leads to significant damages should they sue.

In addition, be careful when putting any terms, such as pay, bonuses, commissions and benefits, in writing. If the terms can be changed or will be reviewed periodically, be sure to include that in the written document. If the employment relationship is “at-will,” be sure to specify that so there is no misrepresentation about a guaranteed period of employment. In short, when seeking to induce high performers to leave their current positions, talk up the attributes of your organization but be careful about making promises that you may not be able to keep.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.