Employment & Labor Insider

Employment & Labor Insider

Legalese is not spoken here

Queen for a day: If I ran the world, would I scrap our employment laws?

Posted in Americans with Disabilities Act, Discrimination, Employment at Will, Family and Medical Leave Act, HR, Labor Relations, Telecommuting, Wage-Hour

Walter Olson of the great Overlawyered.com sent a challenge over Twitter earlier this week:

Screen Shot 2017-02-23 at 2.45.02 PM

For those of you who don’t know Mr. Olson, he’s a libertarian.  :-)

I have to admit, I needed time to process this! I complain about these laws all the time, but would I really want to get rid of all protections for employees who want to organize, be paid a fair wage, avoid being thrown out on the street without a nickel when they are 59 years old, or need some unpaid time off so they can get their chemotherapy? No, I would not. So I would not scrap the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, or the Family and Medical Leave Act, even if I were queen – or dictator – for a day. (I don’t deal with Davis-Bacon enough to want to express an opinion on that one.)

But that’s not to say I’d be averse to changing some of these laws. If I were queen for a day and could do whatever I wanted, here’s what I might do: Continue Reading

Weekly catch-up

Posted in ConstangyTV, eLaw, Wage-Hour

ATTENTION, employers in New York! In January, Anjie Cabrera and Stephen Stecker did a comprehensive report on a number of new laws that had recently taken effect or would soon be taking effect in New York State and New York City. Among those was a New York State regulation that was Hot Dog Man.flickrCC.JeleneMorrisdue to take effect March 7, which imposed restrictions on payment of wages by direct deposit or payroll debit card. That regulation has now been revoked. Stephen has the follow-up here.

Have I mentioned lately that the February edition of ConstangyTV’s Close-Up on Workplace Law is now available? Our hostess with the mostess Leigh Tyson interviews Susan Bassford Wilson, co-chair of our e-Law Practice Group, about “Bring Your Own Device” policies, the risks associated with the policies, and what employers can do. To save you the trouble of scrolling down or following a link, I’ll give it to you here:

Hot dog image from flickr, Creative Commons license, by Jelene Morris.

Trumpdate: Tons of employment-related stuff!

Posted in Discrimination, Elections, Immigration, Politics, Wage-Hour

The employment law week in Trumpland started out a little slow, but now we’re back in business.

Acosta looking good for confirmation as Secretary of Labor. In contrast to nominee Andrew Puzder, the outlook appears good for his successor nominee Alexander Acosta. Mr. Acosta seems to have bipartisan support in the Senate, and has even been endorsed by the International Union of Operating Engineers and spoken well of by Wilma Liebman, a Democrat who served with him on the National Labor Relations Board.

Screen Shot 2017-02-23 at 12.53.01 PM

Your Trump Tweet for the week.

NLRB “short list” identified. In January, President Trump named “lone dissenter” Republican Philip Miscimarra to be Acting Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, but there are still two vacant spots on the Board (the other two Board members are Democrats Mark Gaston Pearce and Lauren McFerran). President Trump can fill the two vacancies with Republicans, creating a 3-2 Continue Reading

“BYOD” policies – are there risks? You betcha!

Posted in ConstangyTV, Data Privacy, eLaw, Social media

The February edition of ConstangyTV’s Close-Up on Workplace Law is now available.

Host Leigh Tyson interviews Susan Bassford Wilson, co-chair of our e-Law Practice Groups about the risks associated with “Bring Your Own Device” policies and what employers can do to minimize those risks.

You can watch it on our YouTube channel. Silly me – what was I thinking? It’s right here, too:

If you haven’t already subscribed to our video series, please do so.

OFCCP issues updated “pay transparency” notices

Posted in Affirmative Action

Although the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs has not announced a requirement that contractors update their Pay Transparency Nondiscrimination Provision,Alyssa Peters the agency has updated its required posters and language.  Links to the new versions can be found here (formatted) and here (unformatted).

The new versions do not contain substantive changes; they merely add the regulatory citation to the end of the notice (41 C.F.R. 60-1.35(c)). But because the regulations require federal contractors to use the posting and language provided by the OFCCP, contractors should update all of their existing postings and handbook policies.

For those who may be new to the federal contracting world (or those who may have just overlooked this requirement), an explanation may be in order. The pay transparency rule prohibits contractors covered by Executive Order 11246 from discriminating or retaliating against employees for discussing, disclosing, or inquiring about their compensation.  This is not a new prohibition for employers; the National Labor Relations Act generally prohibits the same conduct in many circumstances. For contractors, however, there is the additional requirement to actually post and disseminate the prohibition—hence, the Pay Transparency Nondiscrimination Provision. Contractors must post the provision electronically or in a conspicuous place that is accessible to all employees and applicants. Contractors must also include the provision in their employee handbooks.

Again, even though there has not been a formal announcement from the OFCCP mandating the new versions, we recommend that contractors replace the old poster and handbook policy as soon as practical.

That smarts! Porn “sting” operation gets employer “stung” for retaliation

Posted in Retaliation

This should have been an open-and-shut case. For the employer, that is, not the employee.

Lufkin Industries, Inc., had an employee, William Fisher, who was a 55-year-old African-American. One day, Mr. Fisher got into a verbal tiff with his 31-year-old white supervisor, and the supervisor called him “Boy.” Mr. Fisher was offended and complained to the company’s vice president of Human Resources. After an investigation, the company determined that the supervisor did not mean “Boy” in that way, and everybody lived happily ever after.

For about a month.

Then, a white co-worker of Mr. Fisher went to the boss of the supervisor who had called Mr. Fisher “Boy” and complained to the boss about the fact that Mr. Fisher had complained about the supervisor a month earlier. Do you follow me?

Groucho Marx.flickrCC.AKRockefeller

“Well, stop following me, or I’ll have you arrested.”

In the course of the discussion between the co-worker and the boss, it came to light that Mr. Fisher allegedly sold pornographic DVDs out of his lunch box. The boss suggested that the co-worker purchase DVDs from Mr. Fisher in a type of “sting” operation. The co-worker said he wasn’t comfortable doing this, but the boss allegedly told him, “You scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours.”

Continue Reading

Weekly catch-up

Posted in ConstangyTV, Discrimination, Elections, ERISA, Labor Relations, Politics, Protected Concerted Activity, Safety

Yikes. I hope I haven’t missed anybody. Wild week!

We hope that the immigrant strikes are about over by now, but they may continue into today, and a women’s strike is reportedly set for March 8. Do Hot Dog Man.flickrCC.JeleneMorrisemployers have any recourse when their employees go out on strike? It depends. If the strike is “protected concerted activity” (and it may be), then employers will need to tread carefully and consult with their labor counsel. Mark Flora of our Austin Office has a great concise summary of the issues, and Leigh Tyson of our Atlanta Office (star of ConstangyTV’s Close-Up on Workplace Law) has a handy Q and A for employers that goes into more depth.

Appellate Spotlight is back with the first in a two-part series on discrimination cases. Kim Seten of our Kansas City Office discusses the “cat’s paw” decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Vasquez v. Empress Ambulance. (Beware: the facts of the case are NSFW!)

And the Winter 2017 edition of Preventive Medicine is out, featuring some ways that healthcare employers can take their own pulse on HR and employment law issues. By – who else? – the prolific Susan Bassford Wilson. We also have the latest charge-filing statistics from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and links to other items of interest to healthcare employers.

If you’re a workplace safety buff, you may remember that in 2013, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration decided that employees in non-union workplaces could designate outside “representatives” to accompany OSHA inspectors on “walkarounds.” Well, earlier this month, a federal judge gave employers a partial victory, saying that OSHA had the right to make that rule but didn’t have the right to do it without following the notice-and-comment procedures in the Administrative Procedure Act. Although National Federation of Independent Business v. Dorothy Dougherty is scheduled to go to trial on the APA issue, the Trump Administration is likely to kill off the interpretation for good by returning to the previous interpretation, which was more protective of employer rights. Our OSHA Practice Group has the details in this OSHA Update.

Where do things stand on President Obama’s “fiduciary rule”? Week before last, President Trump signed an Executive Order, followed by a Presidential Memorandum directing the Secretary of Labor to review the Obama Administration fiduciary rule to determine whether it might adversely affect access to financial advice and to information regarding retirement. Dana Thrasher, chair of our Employee Benefits Practice Group, has an update while we wait for the Department of Labor to (in all likelihood) delay implementation of the rule.

Image Credit: From flickr, Creative Commons license, by Jelene Morris.

Presenting the new nominee for Secretary of Labor: Alexander Acosta

Posted in Elections, Politics

President Trump’s new nominee for Secretary of Labor is R. Alexander Acosta, dean of the law school of Florida International University in Miami. Before he became a law school dean, Mr. Acosta’s experience included heading the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice under President George W. Bush. He was also a member of the National Labor Relations Board for about eight months in 2002-03, and clerked for Samuel Alito when Justice Alito was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Here is President’s announcement, from earlier today:

The New York Times has a good summary of Mr. Acosta’s background. Let’s hope this confirmation goes more smoothly than the last one did.

BREAKING: Puzder expected to withdraw! (UPDATED: He did.)

Posted in Elections, Politics

Bloomberg BNA reports this afternoon that Andrew Puzder, President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Labor, IS going to withdraw from consideration. Please stay tuned! UPDATE (4:12 p.m. EST): It’s now official.

Stove fire.flickrCC.StateFarmIns

(PS – I nominate Victoria Lipnic to take his place.)

Is the new EEO-1 form here to stay? Maybe yes, and maybe no . . .

Posted in Affirmative Action, Equal Pay

As we have previously reported, the new EEO-1 Form is set to be used as of March 31, 2018, for the October-December “snapshot” period in 2017. The new form will require federal contractors and employers with 100 or more employees to provide summary compensation data to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in eachAngelique Lyons EEO-1 category, divided into 12 “pay bands,” and classified by race, sex, and ethnicity. This new requirement has not been well-received by the employer community for many reasons, including that the manner of reporting does not achieve the goal of identifying pay disparities due to discrimination.

Last week, the Acting Chair of the EEOC, Victoria Lipnic — who voted against the compensation reporting when she was a Commissioner — hinted that there may be some relief in sight. Ms. Lipnic noted that the new requirement is the type of federal agency action that President Trump has indicated he might put on hold and re-evaluate. Ms. Lipnic has said that she believes the new requirement should be re-evaluated, and that the EEOC cannot attempt to use “30-year-old solutions” to “modern-day” workplace problems.

Although this is good news and signals a positive change, it is important to note that the new requirement cannot simply be stopped by Ms. Lipnic. In order to change the new pay data collection plan, the entire Commission would need to vote, and a majority would have to favor revision or revocation. Currently, the Commission has four members, including Ms. Lipnic, and the other three are Democrats who voted in favor of the requirement just last year. President Trump will have the opportunity to appoint two new Commissioners, but these positions will require Senate confirmation and therefore will take time. So although things may change before March 31, 2018, for now, the new EEO-1 Form is still a “go.”

It is important to note that even though Ms. Lipnic has questioned the costs and benefits of the new compensation data collection plan, she has specifically indicated that equal pay remains a priority at the EEOC. For employers, including federal contractors, any new direction that may be taken by the Trump Administration does not lessen the obligation to continue to assess compensation to ensure pay equity for all employees.