Practical Tips

Subscribe to Practical Tips via RSS

The Department of Labor’s controversial rule that required “white collar” employees to be paid at least $47,476 per year in order to be exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act will NOT go into effect on December 1, 2016 as planned (we wrote about the rule here).  A Texas federal judge on Tuesday agreed with 21 states that a nationwide preliminary injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm to states and employers if the rule went into effect on December 1.

What does this mean for employers now?
Continue Reading Breaking News: DOL Salary Rule Blocked By Federal Judge

The Department of Labor’s new rule that doubles the salary threshold for “white collar” exempt employees goes into effect December 1, 2016.  Under that rule, employees currently exempt under the FLSA as an administrative, executive, or professional employee must make a salary of at least $47,476 and meet the appropriate “duties test” in order to …

Walt Disney had himself cryogenically frozen.  Alligators are alive and well in the NYC sewer system.  You’ll die if you eat a whole bag of Pop Rocks and polish it off with a can of Coke.  2016 was the weirdest primary election season ever . . . oh, wait.  That one’s true.

Human resources has its share of myths.  Here we try to debunk some of the more common ones.

  1. As long as I pay my employee a salary, I don’t have to pay her overtime.

Wrong.  Federal law requires application of both a salary test and a duties test to determine whether an employee is exempt from overtime requirements.  In other words, to be exempt, an employee must be paid a minimum salary and have a certain type of job.  Typically, these are known as the “white collar” exemptions.  Most states have similar requirements.  Employers who misclassify employees are sitting ducks for a class action suit over overtime wages and break and meal periods.

You should also be aware that before President Obama leaves office, the Department of Labor is likely to issue new rules raising the salary requirement for exempt status to over $50,000 per year.  The new rules may also make some changes to the definitions of white collar workers.  Employers should keep an eye out for these new rules because they will present an opportunity to review whether employees are properly classified.
Continue Reading HR Urban Legends

The IRS issued key extensions to looming 2016 information reporting deadlines for applicable large employers. This relief applies only to the deadlines for reporting the coverage that employers offered in 2015:

  • The deadline for providing employee statements is extended to March 31, 2016 (from February 1, 2016).
  • The deadline for filing 1094-Cs and 1095-Cs with

…

Employers probably are aware of the “quickie” election rules implemented earlier this year by the National Labor Relations Board (“the Board”), but they may not have considered all of the rules’ consequences. With as little as 15 to 20 days to respond to an organizing drive, employers must be prepared to educate employees about the risks and consequences of union representation on very short notice. While many employers have prepared as we described here, some still may not be ready to answer questions from workers and explain the consequences of unionizing the workplace. Responding to workers’ questions about a union without being properly prepared can make a mess of things, even if employers speak the truth.

A recent case from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Board decision that provides a good reminder that managers must be extremely careful even when speaking the truth to workers during an organizing campaign.

Be Careful What You Say

When a car dealership in Illinois learned that some employees were stirring up interest in unionizing, the plant’s general manager met with workers to discuss unions and answer their questions. The manager answered their questions honestly, but his answers still violated labor law, according to the Board and the Sixth Circuit.Continue Reading What Employers Can and Cannot Say During a Union Organizing Campaign

It’s been an active legislative session in Oregon this year regarding laws affecting the state’s employers.  Hot on the heels of enacting laws relating to paid sick leave, noncompete agreements, and employee privacy on social media, Governor Kate Brown also recently signed into law House Bill 3025.  That law will make …

As we have previously reported here and here, the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) new rules governing union representation elections go into effect today, April 14, 2015. Congress passed a resolution disapproving the new “quickie” or “ambush” rules, but President Obama vetoed it. While lawsuits have been filed in Texas and the District of Columbia challenging the new rules, at this point no court has halted their implementation. Thus, absent late-breaking developments, employers need to be prepared for this brave new world.

Under the new rules, elections will be expedited. Disputes over the unit selected by the union will be resolved in a hearing normally scheduled for no more than eight days after the filing of the petition. Moreover, the employer must identify all of its concerns with the group of employees targeted by the union in a “statement of position” filed the day before the hearing, or those arguments will be waived. Excelsior lists must be provided more quickly, and elections will be held within 10 to 25 days after the filing of the petition.

The bottom line: by design, employers will not have adequate time to prepare a campaign to educate their employees about the issues that will arise if they vote for union representation. Thus, it is imperative that all employers evaluate their risks of union organizing activity, and do what you can now to prepare ahead of time.
Continue Reading Are You Ready to be Ambushed? NLRB’s New “Quickie Election” Rules Become Effective

pharmacistEmployers like separation agreements.  Separation agreements, of course, are contracts that employees sign when their employment is terminated that allows them to be paid severance and in exchange they usually give up the right to sue their employer.  Separation agreements provide finality to employment terminations by offering employers protection from claims and potential claims.  The agreements many employers use are often standardized and have served them well for years.  But now might be the time to take another look at those documents, lest the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) looks first.

Recently, the EEOC has aggressively asserted its (re)interpretation of the law regarding the enforceability of separation (severance) agreements, suing several companies for using what it perceived to be overly broad agreements.  See, EEOC v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. no. 1:14-cv-00863 (N.D. Ill. 2014); see also, EEOC v. CollegeAmerica Denver, Inc., no. 14-cv-01232-LTB (E.D. Co. 2014).  The EEOC doesn’t like separation agreements that do not make it sufficiently clear (in the EEOC’s opinion) that employees do not waive the right to file charges with the EEOC or participate in agency investigations, even though the employee can waive claims for damages under the statutes the EEOC enforces like Title VII or the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  In the CVS Pharmacy and CollegeAmerica cases, the EEOC alleged the employers’ separation agreement forms constituted a “pattern or practice” of denying employees their statutory rights.  (“Pattern or practice” is significant because such cases can carry much higher penalties than a run-of-the-mill lawsuit; they can also inspire class-action lawyers to start snooping around.)Continue Reading EEOC’s Tough Stance on Employee Separation Agreements

This might be too much. But be prepared.
This might be too much. But be prepared.

The recent outbreak of the Ebola virus in West Africa, with the few isolated cases occurring in the United States, is spurring employers to review their emergency response plans for pandemic preparedness.  In seven steps, this writing sets forth best practices for pandemic preparedness, considerations regarding travel during a pandemic, and addressing employees’ immediate concerns without running afoul of relevant employment laws.

1.        Don’t Panic and Stay Informed

With any emergent threat, accurate and reliable information is critical; with a pandemic threat, not having accurate and reliable information causes panic.  Note that as of this writing, the current Ebola outbreak has not been declared a pandemic (meaning, a global epidemic), but employers should monitor communications from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for up-to-date information.


Continue Reading Seven Steps for Employers to Address the Ebola Threat (Step 1: Don’t Panic!)

Most competent employment lawyers with experience pursuing and/or rebuffing enforcement of noncompetition agreements know that enforcement against low level workers is highly unlikely.  If recent news reports are true, Jimmy John’s apparently never got that memo.

According to reports in The New York Times, The Oregonian and the Huffington Post, the restaurant franchise is requiring all workers, including sandwich makers, to sign broad noncompetition agreements that restrict their employment opportunities for two years after leaving their cushy, highly technical jobs at Jimmy John’s.

Let’s start with the understanding that courts don’t like noncompetition restrictions, which limit a worker’s ability to pursue his career as he sees fit.  Courts use a variety of tools to limit the enforcement of those clauses.  Although courts use different terms to describe it, almost every decision analyzing enforcement of a noncompetition agreement talks about whether the former employer has a “protectible interest.”  In layman terms that means, is there something legitimate that the former employer actually needs to protect by restricting the post-termination employment opportunities of its former employees?  Customer relationships, knowledge of the company’s confidential or trade secret information, or specialized training provided by the former employer are often found to be sufficient “protectible interests” to justify enforcement of a contract clause which limits the worker’s future employment opportunities.  If there is no “protectible interest,” a court won’t enforce the agreement.Continue Reading “Freaky Fast” Oppression? Jimmy John’s Should Reconsider its Approach to Blanket Noncompete Agreements