If an employer does not provide an employee with a compliant meal or rest period, Labor Code section 226.7(c) requires the employer to “pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation.” In Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, the California Supreme Court held that the “additional hour of pay” for meal or rest period violations must encompass all non-discretionary payments, as well as hourly wages. Thus, if an employer pays an employee non-discretionary incentive pay or bonuses, or commissions, those amounts must be included in determining the “hour of pay” the employer owes to the employee for a meal or rest period violation. (Note: The same rule applies to a “recovery” period, which is less common and refers to a cooldown period afforded an employee to prevent heat illness.)
Many employers have initiated practices of monitoring time records for apparent meal period violations and automatically paying an hour of pay accordingly. If the hour of pay was paid at an employee’s base hourly rate that did not include non-discretionary payments, then additional amounts may now be owed to the employee. Also, given the increased cost to an employer of a meal period premium, employers who provide employees flexibility regarding the scheduling of their meal periods may want to reconsider that flexibility and instead insist on strict meal period scheduling and reporting to avoid potential exposure.
New York recently amended its Health and Essential Rights Act (“HERO Act”) and published its “Model Airborne Infectious Disease Exposure Prevention Plan.” While the Model Plan specifies that there is currently no airborne infectious disease outbreak, the HERO Act requires New York employers to take steps now to comply with the statute. “Airborne infectious disease” is defined as any infectious, viral, bacterial, or fungal disease that is transmissible through the air in the form of aerosol particles or droplets and is designated by the Commissioner of Health as a highly communicable disease that presents a serious risk of harm to the public health. While COVID-19 would have been so designated a year ago, it is not so designated at this time. Likewise, unless designated by the Commissioner of Health, the seasonal flu will not qualify. See the New York Department of Labor Airborne Infectious Disease Exposure Prevention Standard here: The Airborne Infectious Disease Exposure Prevention Standard (ny.gov). Nevertheless, employers cannot wait until an outbreak is declared to comply with the statute.
What Employers Need to Know
The Act has broad definitions of “employer,” “employee,” and “work site.” “Employer” includes any person, entity, business, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or association employing, hiring, or paying for the labor of any individual. “Employee” means any person providing labor or services for remuneration within the state and without regard to immigration status. The definition includes independent contractors. A “work site” means any physical space, including vehicles, where work is performed and the employer has the ability to exercise control. A work site includes employer-provided housing and transportation. Thankfully, employees’ own homes and vehicles are not covered.
The Act prohibits employers from retaliating or taking adverse action against any employee who exercises rights under the statute; reports violations of the statute; reports airborne infectious disease exposure; or refuses to work where the employee reasonably believes, in good faith, that such work exposes employees to an airborne infectious disease due to working conditions inconsistent with the law. The law, however, requires the employee to first notify the employer of the problem and then give the employer an opportunity to cure it.
As reported by the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry (see here), the planned significant increases to the salary threshold for exempt executive, administrative, and professional (“EAP”) employees under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”) will not go into place this fall.
As you may recall (see our blog post here), last October, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry (“DOLI”) finalized new regulations that set in motion periodic increases in the EAP exempt salary threshold under the PMWA. The goal was to dramatically expand the range of employees eligible for overtime pay. Those PA increases were designed to surpass the current federal salary threshold under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and looked like this:
$35,568 ($684 per week) effective 10/3/2020 (which matched the FLSA threshold that was effective 1/1/2020—see our prior post here);
$40,560 ($780 per week) to be effective 10/3/2021;
$45,500 ($875 per week) to be effective 10/3/2022; and
On 10/3/2023, and every third year thereafter, the minimum salary will experience automatic adjustments.
However, as part of an overall budget deal reached last week between Governor Wolf and the Republican-controlled legislature, the DOLI regulations will be repealed. This “gift” comes through a one-sentence provision in the budget-related legislation.
As a result, at least for now, the PA salary threshold will not increase in October (or in the foreseeable future) and will continue to match the current threshold under the FLSA … unless/until the Biden administration’s Department of Labor follows through on its latest plan to further increase the federal salary level for the EAP exemptions.
Stay tuned—you just never know what the government might do, especially in the budget process.
On June 10, 2021, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) released its COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) which outlines new requirements for most healthcare settings, along with guidance for non-healthcare employers. This post addresses OSHA’s guidance for non-healthcare employers. While employers were expecting more definitive directives from the federal government’s primary health and safety agency, they will, instead, have to consider whether and to what extent they should adopt the suggested measures to continue to promote a safe workplace.
The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (“COBRA”) requires group health plans to allow qualified beneficiaries who would otherwise lose coverage due to certain events to elect to continue coverage under the plans by paying a monthly premium of up to 102 percent of the plan’s cost of providing the coverage. Qualified beneficiaries include employees and former employees and their spouses and dependents who were covered by the plan at the time of loss of coverage.
COBRA Premium Assistance
The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (“ARPA”) requires employers to subsidize the cost of COBRA continuation coverage, or such costs under state mini-COBRA laws where COBRA does not apply—with an assist from Uncle Sam (as described below). This subsidy must be provided for qualified beneficiaries who become eligible for and elect COBRA (or a state’s mini-COBRA) benefits as a result of an employee’s loss of health plan coverage due to an involuntary termination of employment (other than for gross misconduct) or a reduction of hours. ARPA refers to people who satisfy these requirements as “Assistance Eligible Individuals.”
The COBRA and mini-COBRA premium subsidy is available only from April 1, 2021, through September 30, 2021. However, the subsidy also applies to Assistance Eligible Individuals who became eligible for COBRA or mini-COBRA prior to April 1, 2021, but whose COBRA coverage period would have extended to overlap with the period from April 1 through September 30, 2021. (See below for more insight.)
An Assistance Eligible Individual loses the subsidy if they become eligible for coverage under another group health plan, such as a plan sponsored by a new employer or a spouse’s employer), or becomes eligible for Medicare. Individuals receiving this COBRA subsidy must notify their plans if they become eligible for coverage under another group health plan or become eligible for Medicare. Failing to provide this notice can result in the individual having to pay a tax penalty to the IRS.
Under the newly enacted Section 11 of the Equal Pay Act, any private employer with more than 100 employees in Illinois must obtain an “equal pay registration certificate” from the Illinois Department of Labor. Employers must obtain this certificate within three years of the amendment’s effective date—i.e., by March 23, 2024—and then every two years thereafter.
To apply for this certificate, the employer must submit a $150 filing fee, the employer’s most recent EEO-1 report, and a report of all employees from the past calendar year “separated by gender and the race and ethnicity categories as reported in the business’s most recently filed Employer Information Report EEO-1, and report the total wages . . . paid to each employee during the past calendar year.”
On March 19, 2020, Governor Newsom gave another shot in the arm to California’s COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave law, which (as amended) goes into effect today, March 29, 2021. The new statute, California Labor Code section 248.2, replaces and expands the state’s supplemental sick leave law that expired at the end of last year.
This new law covers all California employers with more than 25 employees, provides more paid sick leave, adds more qualifying reasons for leave, and entitles some employees to retroactive payment.
It is anticipated that all adults in California will be eligible to receive the COVID-19 vaccine by mid-April, shortly after the new leave law takes effect. Employers should therefore anticipate and prepare for a new a flood of leave requests as employees snag available appointments.
A New Dose of Supplemental Paid Sick Leave
Perhaps the most important update is that the new law provides more supplemental paid sick leave, which must be made available for immediate use upon the employee’s oral or written request.
Under the new law, full-time employees are entitled to 80 hours of supplemental paid sick leave.
Do not be surprised if, before the end of 2021, the federal government begins requiring contractors to certify or represent that their employees have received COVID vaccinations. The federal government has long conditioned contract awards on contractor compliance with emerging social policy mandates. This practice dates backs to the 1960s, when collateral social policy clauses began appearing in federal contracts. The National Emergency created by COVID-19 would appear ripe for a similar federal government action in federal contracting.
Several factors are converging in the United States which signal the potential for a COVID vaccine Certification or Representation. First, the supply issue should be mostly resolved by June 30, 2021. The Biden administration has committed to make enough vaccines available for every adult in the country by the end of May 2021. Second, the administration has been extremely active in making procurement law changes to conform to its policy objectives. Crafting an Executive Order on COVID Vaccines for federal contractor employees is clearly within the administration’s wheelhouse and target zone. Third, as reported in the March 8, 2021, Wall Street Journal, the largest employers in the country, across all sectors, are already engaged in large scale efforts to vaccinate their own employees. Fourth, while the law in this area is still evolving, the prevailing view is that, with certain exceptions, private employers are legally permitted to mandate their employees receive COVID vaccinations as a condition of continuing employment, subject to a variety of considerations related to employee legal, medical, and workplace accommodations. Finally, the federal government might find a federal contractor vaccine mandate a helpful leverage point in the evolving conflict with those states choosing to disregard COVID protections. Continue reading “Will Federal Contractors Be Required to Certify Employee COVID Vaccinations?”
A recent decision by the Delaware Chancery Court in the clawback litigation between McDonald’s Corporation and its former CEO highlights the meaning and impact of a common contractual provision: the “integration clause.” Such provisions (sometimes also called “entire agreement” clauses) state that the contract at issue embodies the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings between them. The Delaware court rebuffed an effort by the former CEO to argue that the integration clause in his separation agreement precludes McDonald’s from asserting that the CEO’s false statements made while negotiating that agreement provide a basis for seeking repayment of severance benefits he received. The court’s opinion lays out the requirements that a contract must satisfy in order to prevent a party from using the other party’s deceptive or fraudulent statements made prior to entering the contract to seek repayment of the consideration provided. The case is McDonald’s Corporation v. Stephen J. Easterbrook.
Background of the McDonald’s Litigation
In 2019, McDonald’s Corporation parted company with its then-CEO, Stephen Easterbrook, finding that he had engaged in an inappropriate relationship with an employee. McDonald’s and Mr. Easterbrook negotiated and entered into an agreement that treated his separation as “without cause” and paid him significant severance benefits. Several months after Mr. Easterbrook’s departure, additional improprieties were brought to the attention of McDonald’s Board, resulting in McDonald’s filing a lawsuit to claw back the severance benefits previously paid. McDonald’s argues that it would not have agreed to the terms of the separation agreement if Mr. Easterbrook had not covered up the extent of his indiscretions.
As a reminder, California’s new pay data reporting for employers with 100 or more employees (and at least one employee in California) is due on or by March 31, 2021. You can read more about these new requirements here. California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) has released helpful FAQs to walk employers through the filing requirements and required content. On February 1, 2021, the DFEH also published a 67-page California Pay Data Reporting Portal User Guide. While the portal itself will not be available until February 16, 2021, the user guide contains helpful information on pay data report content, differences and similarities between the California report and the EEO-1 report, and navigating the Pay Data Reporting Portal (once available), as well as sample reports. Please contact us with any questions.