Category: HR compliance and policy design

NY Harassment Training Deadline Extended!

Mark Blondman

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!

OFCCP Is Staying Busy—So Should Government Contractors

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”

Too Fat to Work Here?—Not So Fast

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”

Update on the New York State Anti-Harassment Law—Guidance Issued, but It’s Not Final

Anna Svensson

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”

Poster and Notice Requirements for “Stop Sexual Harassment in NYC Act”

Anna Svensson

Recently, the New York City Commission on Human Rights (the “Commission”) released the Fact Sheet and Notice referenced in the Stop Sexual Harassment in NYC Act (the “Act”).

The Act, which was signed into law on May 9, 2018, requires New York City-based employers with at least 15 employees (whether or not all of the employees work in the City) to implement over the course of the next year significant mandates aimed at addressing sexual harassment in the workplace, including posting and fact sheet distribution requirements. The Commission has now followed through with the officially sanctioned notice and poster. Continue reading “Poster and Notice Requirements for “Stop Sexual Harassment in NYC Act””

“De Minimis” May Be Down, but It’s Not Out—And What Does It Mean for Employer Rounding Policies in California?

Laura Reathaford, Caroline Powell Donelan, and Caitlin I. Sanders

On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Troester v. Starbucks Corp., __ P.3d __ (2018). In the days that have followed, legal headlines have lamented the presumed “death” of the de minimis doctrine. But is Troester really that simple? And what does it mean for employer rounding policies?

The issue in Troester was whether the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s (“FLSA”) de minimis doctrine applies to claims for unpaid wages under certain provisions of the California Labor Code. For the better half of the past century, the de minimis doctrine has been applied in the federal wage and hour context to excuse payment of wages under the FLSA for insubstantial or insignificant periods of time. Continue reading ““De Minimis” May Be Down, but It’s Not Out—And What Does It Mean for Employer Rounding Policies in California?”

PA Raising Salary Threshold for White Collar Exemptions—Déjà Vu All Over Again … or Worse?

Jason E. Reisman

Here we go again, Pennsylvania employers, but this time on the local front, rather than nationally. Following up on Governor Wolf’s announcement in January that Pennsylvania needed to “modernize” its outdated wage and hour regulations—last updated in 1977—governing the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry (“DOLI”) published proposed new regulations at the end of June.

The DOLI’s proposal includes significantly raising the minimum salary threshold required for these “white collar exemptions”—sound familiar? Worse yet, these proposed changes will ultimately increase the new salary minimum above the threshold originally proposed for the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by the U.S. Department of Labor (which, as you undoubtedly recall, was enjoined and then struck as over-reaching by an Obama-appointed federal judge in Texas). Continue reading “PA Raising Salary Threshold for White Collar Exemptions—Déjà Vu All Over Again … or Worse?”

Competitive Hiring Tool—Paying Off Employees’ Student Loans—Gains Traction

Daniel L. Morgan

According to the Pew Research Center, as of June 2017, the total amount of U.S. student debt was $1.3 trillion; and 53 percent of all Americans under the age of 30 with a bachelor’s degree or higher had an outstanding student loan.

Why the Large Uptick in Student Debt Has Caught the Attention of Employers

Many employers are discovering that benefit programs such as 401(k) plans, with employer matching contributions, hold little attraction for recent grads, who are burdened by student loans.

As the unemployment rate continues to drop, and the competition among employers for professional workers has begun to heat up, a trend appears to be developing among accounting firms, financial investment firms, and other businesses that hire recent grads: they offer to provide “student loan repayment benefits.” Continue reading “Competitive Hiring Tool—Paying Off Employees’ Student Loans—Gains Traction”

What #MeToo Means for the Maritime Sector

Susan L. Bickley, Emery Gullickson Richards, and Jeanne M. Grasso

The #MeToo movement has shone new light on issues for employers in the maritime industry seeking to ensure that seafarers and shore-based personnel can participate in a work environment free of sexual harassment and assault, both shipboard and shoreside. Employees at sea, often for months at a time, can face special challenges associated with a work environment that can be thousands of miles away from any home office, and that can lead to feelings of isolation, make communications difficult, involve close proximity between work spaces and living quarters and generally require employees to remain at the workplace during rest periods.

In other sectors of the global maritime industry, companies engaged in international business can find themselves navigating scenarios that arise from expectations regarding workplace interactions between men and women that are as diverse as their workforces. We examine here the unique legal framework that applies to sexual harassment in the maritime context, what to keep in mind for addressing incidents and recent trends regarding steps employers are currently taking in response. Continue reading “What #MeToo Means for the Maritime Sector”

Independent Contractors in California—Misclassification Is Now “Easy as ABC”

Caroline Powell Donelan

California employers are facing a harsh new reality as a result of the state Supreme Court’s recent decision adopting a new test for determining whether a worker can properly be classified as an independent contractor (versus an employee) “for purposes of California wage orders,” which generally impose obligations on employers relating to non-exempt employees’ wages, hours, and working conditions like meal periods and rest breaks.

The underlying claims were brought by two delivery drivers alleging Dynamex, a nationwide same-day courier and delivery service, had improperly classified them and other “similarly situated” drivers as independent contractors. In relevant part, these drivers:

  • were paid a flat fee or percentage of the delivery fee received from the customer;
  • were generally free to set their own schedules;
  • were free to reject or accept jobs assigned by Dynamex;
  • used their own cell phones and vehicles for work;
  • were free to choose their own routes;
  • could perform work for other companies; and
  • were hired for an indefinite period of time.

Under most tests distinguishing independent contractors from employees, these facts would have weighed toward an independent contractor determination. However, in a densely-academic, 82-page opinion, the Court held that the “suffer or permit to work” definition of “employ” contained in the wage orders should replace the more flexible “right of control” test which has been used in California since 1989. Specifically, the Court adopted the “ABC” test as the proper way to distinguish employees from independent contractors. Continue reading “Independent Contractors in California—Misclassification Is Now “Easy as ABC””