Employers are probably aware that OSHA’s new drug testing and anti-retaliation rule is now in effect. (See our post here discussing the rule.) However, as we blogged previously, many states have their own reporting requirements, which are not required to track OSHA’s rules precisely, but which must be “at least as effective” as OSHA’s
Breaking News: DOL Salary Rule Blocked By Federal Judge
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
Labor & Employment Law Under President-Elect Trump
In the wake of the election results, the question on everyone’s mind now is: What impact will President-Elect Trump have on employers? Trump has thus far given few details on his thoughts on labor and employment. But with Republicans maintaining control of Congress, employers could see a lot of changes in the next couple of years. Our experts weighed in with their thoughts on how different areas of labor and employment law may be affected.
Continue Reading Labor & Employment Law Under President-Elect Trump
Are You Ready for the December 1 Deadline for New Salary Requirements?
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
Class Action Waivers in Employment Agreements Are No Longer Enforceable in the Ninth Circuit
If your company uses a class action waiver in your employment agreements and you are located in Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, the Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, or Washington, you are out of luck. Thanks to a recent decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which has jurisdiction over the aforementioned areas), that waiver is no longer enforceable.
Recently, the Court ruled in Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, No. 13-16599, 2016 WL 4433080 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2016), that an employment agreement that requires employees to pursue legal claims against their employer in “separate proceedings” and in arbitration violates federal law. In that case, two employees sued Ernst & Young alleging they were misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and were owed overtime pay. The trial court compelled individual arbitration, pursuant to the “separate proceedings” in arbitration demanded by the employment agreement the two employees signed upon hire. The Ninth Circuit reversed.
Employees are guaranteed the right to “engage in . . . concerted activities for the purpose of . . . mutual aid or protection” by the National Labor Relations Act. The Court held that protection for “concerted activities” means that employers cannot require employees to waive their right to pursue legal claims as a class action.
Continue Reading Class Action Waivers in Employment Agreements Are No Longer Enforceable in the Ninth Circuit
NLRB Reverses Course Again: Organizing Temporary Workers Just Got Easier
The NLRB recently reversed course again to allow temporary employees provided by a staffing agency to join regular employees in a single bargaining unit without the consent of the employer or the staffing agency. Miller & Anderson, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 39 (2016).
The Board Flip Flops
Historically, unions seeking to organize employees directly employed by an employer (called a “user employer” by the Board) alongside temporary employees provided by a staffing agency (“provided employees”) in a single bargaining unit were required to obtain consent of both the user employer and the staffing agency.
In 2000, however, the Clinton Board overturned that rule to eliminate the consent requirement, allowing employees to form one bargaining unit as long as they shared a community of interest and the employer and the staffing agency were considered “joint employers.” M. B. Sturgis, Inc., 331 NLRB 1298 (2000). Four years later, the Bush II Board decided Oakwood Care Center, 343 NLRB 659 (2004), and overturned the Board’s decision in Sturgis to again require consent.
Continue Reading NLRB Reverses Course Again: Organizing Temporary Workers Just Got Easier
OSHA Promotes Workplace Safety by . . . Limiting Drug and Alcohol Testing?
Employers that promote workplace safety by ensuring workers are not under the influence of drugs or alcohol after they suffer a workplace injury will soon face greater scrutiny from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”). A new OSHA rule that goes into effect August 10, 2016 casts serious doubt on whether employers can lawfully maintain mandatory post-incident drug and alcohol testing.
OSHA Thinks Mandatory Testing Deters Reporting
The new OSHA rule becomes effective August 10, 2016, though compliance deadlines may vary from state to state (check with your employment counsel to confirm). When the rule becomes effective, employers must have a reporting procedure for workplace injuries that is “reasonable and [will] not deter or discourage employees from reporting” workplace injuries. To which you say, “My business already has that.” Perhaps you do, but if that procedure includes mandatory post-incident drug or alcohol testing, OSHA may no longer consider it to be reasonable. Though OSHA claims that “the [new] rule does not prohibit drug testing of employees,” the Agency also states that “mandating automatic post-injury drug testing [is] a form of adverse action that can discourage reporting.” In other words, OSHA has determined that mandatory post-incident drug and alcohol testing may be unlawful because it may deter someone from reporting an injury.
Continue Reading OSHA Promotes Workplace Safety by . . . Limiting Drug and Alcohol Testing?
DOL Imposes New Exempt Salary Requirement on Employers
We knew it was coming, and – while business groups fought hard against it – the much-anticipated Department of Labor Final Rule regarding “white collar” exemptions from minimum wage and overtime requirements is now a reality. The rule, announced by the White House on Twitter last evening, imposes a major increase in the salary threshold
It’s a Trap! Students Receiving Credit Need Not Be Paid?
As colleges and universities begin new terms, not all students are returning to the classroom. Some students are headed into the “real world,” to work alongside corporate titans, small-business owners, or moms and pops in their shops, while receiving academic credit—and not wages—for their efforts. These students are applying the lessons learned in their prior studies to real-world scenarios to gain valuable experience, build their skills, and make connections to help them succeed upon graduating. Or at least they should be. If they are instead used merely as a source of labor, they must be paid. But many employers mistakenly assume that because these students are getting school credit, they need not be paid. That is a trap into which employers reading this blog will not fall.
The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and state laws require employers to pay all employees for work performed. If students who participate in unpaid internships with private employers do not qualify as “employees,” they need not be paid. Whether those students qualify as “employees” depends on several factors, but the general rule is that these programs are lawful as long as the student, not the employer, is the primary beneficiary of the internship program.Continue Reading It’s a Trap! Students Receiving Credit Need Not Be Paid?
EEOC Promotes Gender Equality by Imposing Another Burden on Employers
Employers with 100 or more employees take note: a major new reporting requirement may be coming your way next year.
On January 29, 2016, President Obama announced that beginning in September 2017, employers with 100 or more employees must report the earnings and hours worked for all of their employees. That’s right. Employers must disclose compensation information for all employees, including executives – which many employers consider to be highly confidential – to the EEOC.
Employers will be required to disclose this compensation data as a new category on the EEO-1 report, which employers already provide to the federal government and which contains workforce data sorted by race, ethnicity, gender, and job category. Specifically, the “revised EEO-1 will collect aggregate W-2 data in 12 pay bands for the 10 EEO-1 job categories” already used. The EEOC noted that it does not intend to require employers to track hours worked by salaried employees, but that it is seeking input on the issue.Continue Reading EEOC Promotes Gender Equality by Imposing Another Burden on Employers