Category: Wage and hour advice and litigation

Coronavirus Update: House Passes Bill for Paid Leave and Other Emergency Relief

Jason E. Reisman and Andrew I. Herman

On March 14, 2020, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation in response to the increasing disruption that coronavirus (“COVID-19”) is having on businesses and daily life. The Emergency Families First Coronavirus Response Act (H.R. 6201) includes several measures to address the significant impact of COVID-19 on employment for American workers and their families, including provisions for emergency paid leave and sick time, as well as funds and support for state unemployment compensation programs. To protect against the creation of “permanent” paid leave benefits and limit it to addressing the COVID-19 impact, this bill sunsets at the end of 2020.

On March 16, 2020, the House passed a “technical corrections” bill by unanimous consent, which included changes intended to address concerns that the legislation’s provisions for emergency paid leave and sick time would be devastating to small and midsize businesses.  

THE EMERGENCY FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT

The bill amends the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) to provide employees of employers with fewer than 500 employees with the ability to take up to 12 weeks of job-protected leave on a partially paid basis under the FMLA if the employee is unable to work (or telework) due to a need to care for a child due to the closure of a school or place of care, or a childcare provider is unavailable, because of COVID-19 public health emergency.

Who is eligible for COVID-19 leave?

Any employee who has been employed for at least 30 calendar days by an employer with fewer than 500 employees. There is no minimum hours threshold like the normal FMLA eligibility requirement that an employee have worked at least 1,250 hours over the preceding 12 months.

How much must an employee be paid for COVID-19 leave?

The first 10 days of COVID-19 leave is unpaid. An employee can choose to use vacation or other paid time off during this period. A provision restricting employers from requiring employees to do so was removed in the bill’s “technical corrections.”

Employers must pay two-thirds of an employee’s regular rate of pay after the first 10 days of COVID-19 leave, but such pay is not to exceed $200 per day or $10,000 in the aggregate.

Please click here for the full client alert. 

Colorado Goes “Wage & Hour” Crazy—Enhances Employee Protections a la California

Jason E. Reisman and Alix L. Udelson

For all of those employers with employees based in Colorado, we wanted to update you on some sweeping changes to Colorado wage and hour laws that went into effect on March 16, 2020. As you know, employers generally must comply with both state and federal wage and hour laws—essentially meeting the requirements that are most protective of employees. To date in Colorado, the state law’s applicability has been limited—but that’s not going to be the case any longer.

The new law, known as the Colorado Overtime & Minimum Pay Standards (“COMPS”) Order #36, replaces all prior Colorado Minimum Wage Orders. The most significant changes include: (1) extending Colorado’s wage and hour laws to even more employers than before; (2) adjusting the salary thresholds required for eligibility under the federal overtime exemptions for executive, administrative, and professional employees; (3) changing employee rest period requirements and requiring meal periods; (4) clarifying the definition of “time worked” for purposes of being considered “compensable time”; (5) imposing new posting and distribution requirements that will require changes to employee handbooks; (6) creating new earnings statement requirements that may require payroll to update your earnings statements; and (7) modifying the calculation of overtime so that it is based not only on a weekly basis, but on a daily and consecutive hourly basis too. More details are below, and a copy of the COMPS Order can be found here. Continue reading “Colorado Goes “Wage & Hour” Crazy—Enhances Employee Protections a la California”

Guidance for Employers to Address Coronavirus in the Workplace

Brooke T. Iley, Jason E. Reisman, Susan L. Bickley, Anthony B. Haller, Mara B. Levin, and Taylor C. Morosco

COVID-19 (commonly referred to as the “coronavirus”), a respiratory illness that was first diagnosed in Wuhan, China, in late 2019, has hit the United States. The World Health Organization (“WHO”) has declared the outbreak a public health emergency of international concern and the virus is being classified as an epidemic. With the spread of the virus, employers face a series of constantly evolving questions regarding their competing legal obligations to provide a safe workplace, while protecting the privacy rights of their employees, and without violating anti-discrimination laws.

WHAT LAWS ARE POTENTIALLY IMPLICATED?

Before an employer responds to these challenges, they should be familiar with the laws implicated with an epidemic like the coronavirus:

Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSHA”)

OSHA’s General Duty Clause requires employers to maintain a safe workplace for all workers and to distribute information and training about workplace hazards. It also bars employers from retaliating against employees for exercising their rights to safe workplaces.

The situation is constantly evolving. Employers must monitor the developments about the ongoing outbreak and assess government notifications to formulate appropriate workplace responses and preventative measures.

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”)

The ADA protects employees from discrimination based on their disability, record of a disability, or perceived disability. “Disability” has a broad definition, which could cover the coronavirus. This means that those who have or are suspected of having the coronavirus could be covered by the ADA, depending on its impact on the employee, or, for instance, if an employee is perceived to be disabled. Employers must be sensitive to the risk of discrimination under the ADA. The ADA also requires employers to keep employee medical information and records confidential and in a separate folder from the employee’s personnel file.

Employers must balance these competing legal requirements as they adjust business practices to address coronavirus concerns. Employers should act to protect their workforce, with an eye toward discrimination laws, all the while maintaining tact and sensitivity towards those who have or may be suspected of having contracted the virus. This is not a science and often involves a case-by-case determination.

Please click here for the full client alert. 

California Corner: The Employee v. Contractor Saga Continues as Uber and Postmates Face First Defeat in Attempt to Enjoin AB5

Caroline Powell Donelan and Natalie Alameddine

The hopes of California gig economy companies to retain the flexibility to classify workers as independent contractors were dashed this week when a federal district court judge refused to enjoin Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), which codifies the “ABC” test for most independent contractor classifications.

Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB5 into law last fall, effecting a seismic change on California’s legal landscape. Effective January 1, 2020, the law makes it nearly impossible for companies to lawfully classify most workers as independent contractors (rather than employees). The bill expands on California Supreme Court’s three-prong “ABC” test from its 2018 Dynamex decision for determining how workers can be classified, which you can read about here. With certain limited statutory exceptions, AB5 provides that, to properly classify a worker as an independent contractor in California, an employer must demonstrate that the worker: (A) is free from the company’s control and direction; (B) performs work outside of the company’s usual course of business; and (C) is customarily engaged in independent work of the same nature as the work performed. There is no balancing, as all three factors must be met. Continue reading “California Corner: The Employee v. Contractor Saga Continues as Uber and Postmates Face First Defeat in Attempt to Enjoin AB5”

PA Approves White Collar Salary Threshold Increases—Leaves FLSA in the Dust

Jason E. Reisman

Boom—take that, Pennsylvania employers!

As a result of Governor Wolf’s battle with the Pennsylvania Republican-controlled legislature being at an impasse over a potential state minimum wage increase, the Governor pressed the Commonwealth’s Independent Regulatory Review Commission (“IRRC”) to approve his administration’s previously proposed increase to the salary threshold for the so-called “white collar exemptions” under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”). Last week, the IRRC voted 3-2 to approve the proposed rule—which is the last regulatory step before the increases to the salary threshold would become effective (though it is unclear at this time when the rule will formally be effective, as we believe it first requires review and approval from the Attorney General).

Background

Governor Wolf first introduced the proposed salary threshold increase in the summer of 2018, after facing repeated rejections of his efforts to raise the Commonwealth’s minimum wage from the federal minimum of $7.25 per hour to at least $12 per hour. The proposed rule has had somewhat of a long and winding road to get to today—but, nonetheless, it now appears primed for implementation. Continue reading “PA Approves White Collar Salary Threshold Increases—Leaves FLSA in the Dust”

Breaking: California Grants Preliminarily Injunction of AB-51

Caroline Powell Donelan

UPDATE: Today, a federal court preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of AB-51 (California’s anti-arbitration law discussed here, here, and here) as it relates to arbitration agreements governed by the Federal Arbitration Association (“FAA”). We will get a detailed order from the court soon, but the minute order issued today is below. A great reminder to employers who wish to implement arbitration that the agreement should always expressly state it is governed by the FAA. Continue reading “Breaking: California Grants Preliminarily Injunction of AB-51”

No New York Employee Wage Liens—Yet!

Stephen E. Tisman

In July, we reported that the New York State Legislature had passed a bill that could substantially alter the legal landscape of wage disputes by allowing employees with wage claims to file liens against their employers’ assets in the amount of the claim. The lien could be filed without any court order or determination of probable liability. The bill further permitted attachments of the employer’s property and would have expanded the personal liability of the 10 largest shareholders of non-public companies by making them liable not only for wages, but also for interest, penalties, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

On January 1, 2020, anxious employers got a reprieve—albeit a temporary one—when Governor Cuomo vetoed the legislation. Continue reading “No New York Employee Wage Liens—Yet!”

California’s New Anti-Arbitration Law Temporarily Enjoined by Federal Court

Caroline Powell Donelan

UPDATE: On December 29, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an order temporarily enjoining the enforcement of AB 51 (California’s anti-arbitration law discussed here and here) pending resolution of plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, highlighting the “likelihood of irreparable injury” to California employers, and noting plaintiffs had “raised serious questions regarding whether the challenged statute is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act as construed by the United States Supreme Court.”

The court will hear plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on January 10, 2020.

Stay tuned.

California Employers Fight Back on Governor Newsom’s Attempt to Prevent Mandatory Arbitration Agreements, Seeking to Enjoin AB 51

Natalie Alameddine

As the new year approaches, California employer associations have taken action to prevent Assembly Bill (“AB”) 51 from taking effect. As referenced in this BR Workplace Post, AB 51, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 10, 2019, prohibits mandatory arbitration in cases under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and California Labor Code, and also prohibits employers from retaliating against individuals who do not consent to arbitration agreements. AB 51 is in part motivated by the #MeToo movement, and part reflective of California’s ongoing battle against the U.S. Supreme Court’s unwavering support of arbitration. It is designed to ensure employees maintain the right to bring FEHA and wage-and-hour actions in court, rather than forced arbitration as a condition of employment.

As employers across the state stare down the barrel of AB 51, the California Chamber of Commerce filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in federal court in California last week seeking to prevent AB 51 from going into effect on the grounds that it is invalid and preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). The FAA has a long-established policy favoring arbitration as a means for efficient and individualized alternative dispute resolution. The U.S. Supreme Court has also steadfastly refused to allow employees to circumvent the FAA and file actions in court.

The hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction is set for January 10, 2020, nine days after AB 51’s effective date. Only time will tell how the court will rule. In the meantime, employers should contact legal counsel to determine the best, tailored course of action given their specific operations, workforce, and overall risk tolerance.

Ding, Dong, the Fluctuating Work Week Overtime Method Is Dead … in Pennsylvania!

Jason E. Reisman

Just yesterday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a decision in a case involving the “fluctuating work week” (“FWW”) method of paying overtime that has been percolating in the Commonwealth courts for almost six years. The Pennsylvania high court held that, although the U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed the validity of the FWW method under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), Pennsylvania has not incorporated it into state law; and its use in Pennsylvania is therefore not permitted.

The case is Chevalier v. General Nutrition Centers Inc. In it, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld a $1.7 million judgment against General Nutrition Centers (“GNC”) in favor of a class of former store managers who had alleged they were shorted on overtime pay. GNC had used the FLSA’s FWW method, which allows employers to pay employees whose hours fluctuate from week to week a salary that is intended to compensate them for all of the hours worked each week. If the employees work more than 40 hours in a week, then the designated salary is divided by the total number of hours worked that week to calculate the “regular rate,” which is then divided in half and multiplied by the number of overtime hours to compensate the employees for the additional overtime pay due.

Okay, enough math for this blog—basically, the FWW method allows employers to pay overtime at a “half-time” rate because the underlying salary pays for all straight time due for the hours worked. (Note for math geeks: the FWW method causes employees to see a lower effective hourly rate and overtime rate as they work more hours.) This “half-time” method of paying overtime pay conflicts with the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act’s requirement that overtime compensation be 1.5 times the regular rate of pay—at least that’s what the state supreme court found.

So, as a side note for Pennsylvania employers, there’s no need to concern yourselves with the brand-new proposed rule on the FWW method issued earlier this month by the U.S. Department of Labor.

Our “simple” advice moving forward: Don’t use the FWW method for employees in Pennsylvania.