Many employers have implemented workplace safety incentive programs in an effort to reduce time lost to injuries or illness. The programs generally reward workers for reporting near-misses or hazards and/or reward employees with a prize or bonus at the end of an injury-free period. The programs also may evaluate managers based on their work unit’s lack of injuries. Similarly, employers have implemented drug testing protocols with the same goals.
In May 2016, concerned that employers were not using incentive programs and drug testing policies to encourage safe practices but, instead, to punish employees who reported workplace safety issues, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) published a final rule prohibiting employers from retaliating against employees for reporting work-related injuries or illnesses. The final rule also suggested that it might constitute retaliation for an employer to limit post-incident and post-accident drug testing to the employee who reported an injury as a result of a workplace incident/accident and not to test all of the employees involved in the incident. Continue reading “Workplace Safety Incentive Programs and Post-Incident Drug Testing—Still Okay under OSHA but Don’t Discourage Accident Reporting”
In an earlier post, we provided a preview of the New Jersey Paid Sick Leave Act. The Act goes into effect on October 29, 2018. Last week, the Department of Labor and Workplace Development, the state agency responsible for interpreting the Act, published a “Notice of Employee Rights” under the Act and a copy of that Notice/Poster is available here. The Notice must be posted by employers in conspicuous locations in every worksite in New Jersey and must be distributed to all New Jersey employees by November 29 and at the time of hiring for all new employees hired after October 29.
The Act imposes significant obligations on employers in New Jersey. You can contact a member of Blank Rome’s labor & employment practice group if you have any questions about what needs to be in your policies.
Natalie Alameddine and Caroline Powell Donelan
Last week, in a significant blow to claims that gig economy workers are entitled to pursue disputes on a class or collective basis, and possibly whether those workers will be able to establish that they are employees and not independent contractors, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously decertified a class of 240,000 Uber drivers. The decision in O’Conner v. Uber is a victory for the ride-share company, which will now be able to defend claims that it misclassified employees as independent contractors on an individual basis—one arbitration at a time.
For the past five years, there has been an ongoing and contentious dispute over whether Uber drivers (and similarly, Lyft and other ride-share drivers) are independent contractors or employees. If the workers are deemed to be employees, Uber could face hundreds of millions of dollars in alleged California labor code violations and business expense claims. To combat the possibility of having to litigate this issue on a class-wide basis, Uber entered into arbitration agreements with each driver, requiring that any driver’s claims be arbitrated and that each case had to be arbitrated individually (rather than as a class action). Continue reading “Goodbye Uber Class Action, Hello Individual Arbitration”
As we have advised you in previous blog posts, New York State has passed legislation mandating that employers adopt an anti-harassment policy and conduct harassment training for all employees. The law requires that, by October 9, 2018, employers distribute to employees in New York State a written policy that meets certain prescribed legal standards.
Earlier this week, New York State issued a final set of employer guidance materials on sexual harassment prevention, including model training materials and Minimum Standards for Sexual Harassment Prevention Policies, a Model Sexual Harassment Prevention Policy, and a Model Complaint Form. Employers are permitted to implement the Model Policy or may develop policies on their own as long as they meet minimum legal requirements.
Most importantly, although the New York law had originally required that employers conduct harassment training for all employees by January 1, 2019, the guidance issued this week extends the deadline to October 9, 2019. Please use this additional time effectively!
Merle M. DeLancey Jr.
In February, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) sent Corporate Scheduling Announcement Letters (“CSALs”) to 1,000 contractor establishments. Shortly thereafter, in March, OFCCP mailed follow-up compliance review scheduling letters (“Scheduling letters”). On September 7, 2018, OFCCP sent a second round of CSALs to an additional 750 contractor establishments.
Further, on September 19, 2018, OFCCP issued Directive 2018-08: Transparency in OFCCP Compliance Activities. The purpose of the Directive is to “ensure transparency in all stages of OFCCP compliance activities to help contractors comply with their obligations and know what to expect during a compliance evaluation, and to protect workers from discrimination through the consistent enforcement of OFCCP legal authorities.” The Directive identifies the “Roles and Responsibilities” of OFCCP and contractors during a compliance review and the “Policies and Procedures” that will be followed. Continue reading “OFCCP Is Staying Busy—So Should Government Contractors”
Scott F. Cooper
A decision this week from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has further fueled the debate over whether obesity is a protected impairment under federal and state law.
In Casey Taylor et al. v. Burlington Northern Railroad Holdings Inc. et al., Case No. 16-35205 (9th Cir. Sept. 17, 2018), Burlington rejected Taylor’s application to become an electronic technician because his Body Mass Index (“BMI”) placed him in the “severely” or “morbidly” obese category. Complicating this case is that the company’s chief medical officer otherwise found Taylor qualified for the position. The company also was willing to reconsider the application if Taylor undertook additional pre-hire medical screening at his own expense. The Ninth Circuit earlier this year held that shifting pre-hire medical examination costs to an applicant is unlawful.
The Ninth Circuit certified the issue and sent it to the Supreme Court of Washington to determine its application under Washington state law. Pending that ruling, the Ninth Circuit will then resolve the issue under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). How these decisions come out could have sweeping implications for employers who have acted against obese job applicants and employees. Continue reading “Too Fat to Work Here?—Not So Fast”
As discussed in our prior blog post, New York State passed anti-sexual harassment legislation earlier this year, which, in part, requires that New York employers adopt a sexual harassment policy and conduct training. On August 23, 2018, the Office of Governor Andrew M. Cuomo released the following draft documents relating to these requirements: Continue reading “Update on the New York State Anti-Harassment Law—Guidance Issued, but It’s Not Final”