Acting General Counsel Seeks Changes in Deferral Policy
Citing concerns about delays in processing grievances through parties’ contractual
grievance-arbitration procedures, NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon has proposed that the Board consider revising the existing policy of deferring charges to arbitration in certain circumstances. To see the press release and additional information, go to http://www.nlrb.gov/news/acting-general-counsel-seeks-changes-deferral-policy.
Very simply, the NRLB non-employee disputes are taking too long to go through the delegated arbitration process and so the Board will be deciding these cases directly to speed up resolution. It will be interesting to see how they will be able to take on this burden with a tight budget. Whether you agree with the approach or not, this is yet one more pro-union move by the Administration.
Show Up Pay Limited for Company Meetings
A California Appellate Court shut down a class action effort which, in a sense, would have provided employees for a minimum of two hours show up pay for attending weekly team meetings which were not concurrently conducted with their work schedules. For example, when employees show up for an all team meeting on a Saturday morning at 10:00. The court ruled that as long the meeting was a) scheduled, and b) the meeting lasted for at least half the time scheduled, and c) the employees were paid for the time they did attend, the law has been satisfied. However, if it’s not a scheduled meeting and say somebody is pulled into the office for only 15 minutes, then you may be required to pay between two and four hours of show up pay depending on their “normal work schedule.” Reporting time pay is defined in the following manner:
“Each workday an employee is required to report to work and does report, but is not put to work or is furnished less than said employee’s usual or scheduled day’s work, the employee shall be paid for half the scheduled or usual day’s work, but in no event for less than two hours no more than four hours, the employee’s regular rate of pay which shall not be than less than minimum wage.”
So, for example, if they normally work an 8-hour day, and they’re sent home, they have to be paid for four hours. If they normally work a 3-hour day and are sent home, they must be paid for at least 2 hours. In this case, the battle was over employees showing up for weekly meetings when they did not go to work immediately thereafter.
Bottom line: Identify how long the meeting will be, spend at least 50% of the scheduled time, and make sure they record their time.
All in a Month
A review of the EEOC’s press release from the 30-day period between December 13 and January 13 reveals the following:
Family Dollar Stores of Virginia to Pay $45,000 to Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment Lawsuit 1/11/12
Matrix L.L.C. Will Pay $450,000 to Settle EEOC Race Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit 1/6/12
DynCorp to Pay $155,000 for Sex-Based Harassment and Retaliation In Iraq 1/6/12
Bank of Albuquerque Discriminated on the Basis of Age and Sex, EEOC Alleges in Lawsuit 1/4/12
Grand Central Partnership Fired Rastafarian for Complaining of Threatened Violence, EEOC Says 1/3/12
RCC Consultants, Inc. Sued for Disability Discrimination 12/29/11
EEOC Sues Midwest ISO for Disability Discrimination 12/23/11
Mesa Systems Sued by EEOC for National Origin Discrimination 12/23/11
American Apparel Agrees to Settle EEOC Disability Bias Suit for $60,000 12/19/11
Jim Robinson Ford-Lincoln-Mercury to Pay $56,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Lawsuit 12/16/11
EEOC Retaliation Case Against Cognis to Proceed, Federal Judge Orders 12/16/11
Wal-Mart to Pay $275,000 to Former Employee Fired after Cancer Surgery 12/16/11
EEOC Launches Small Business Task Force 12/15/11
EEOC Sues Wal-Mart for Disability Discrimination and Retaliation 12/15/11
B&B Pharmacy in Bellflower to Pay $70,000 for Disability Discrimination In EEOC Suit 12/15/11
M. Slavin & Sons to Pay $900,000 to Settle EEOC Discrimination Suit 12/15/11
Vitas Healthcare Sued By EEOC in Disability Discrimination Lawsuit 12/14/11
Dairy Queen Restaurant Sued By EEOC for Sexual Harassment and Retaliation 12/14/11
UPS Unit to Pay $95,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit 12/14/11
King Soopers to Pay $80,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit 12/13/11
Bottom line: The EEOC is cranking it up. Make sure you have your disability, discrimination, and sexual harassment training and tools up to date…or you could be the next press release!
Employer Relies on Hearsay Evidence to Support an the Issuance of a Restraining Order Against an Employee in Order to Prevent Workplace Violence
This case represents one of the scariest scenarios related to workplace safety. Apparently, after being terminated, the former nurse employee and her husband returned to the hospital where she worked to visit some former patients. When told she was not to be in the nurses’ area, her husband made threats to the managing nurses. The court eventually upheld a three-year “stay away” injunction over the plaintiffs’ complaint that the Court relied on hearsay statements to issue the injunction. The statute involved, which is similar to that found in many states, allows an employer to seek a temporary restraining order and an injunction on the behalf of an employee who has already suffered violence or a credible threat of violence carried out in the workplace. The employer may obtain a temporary restraining order if the affected employee files an affidavit that, to the satisfaction of the court, shows reasonable proof that an employee has suffered unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence by the defendant, and that greater irreparable harm would result to an employee.
The question in this case is whether typical rules of evidence (like those related to hearsay) apply to this type of procedure. The court ruled that due to the unique and expedited context pertaining to a workplace violence injunctions that the typical rules of evidence do not apply. Kaiser Foundation Hospital v. Jeff Wilson, 4th Appellate District http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D058491.PDF
Lesson to employers: You have an obligation to seek these types of injunctions should you catch wind of a credible threat. Remember, the last thing you want is to have any regret afterward because you did not make every effort possible to prevent violence, even if based on hearsay statements.
California Supreme Court Clarifies Administrative Exemption
As a farewell to 2011, the California Supreme Court went to great lengths to spell out the parameters of the administrative overtime exemption. This is the exemption from overtime laws that seems to get employers into trouble more than any other. If you are a human resource executive in California you must read this case. Yes, there is a lot of legal mumbo jumbo…but it’s something you must understand or you will unnecessarily expose your company to overtime claims. Perhaps as here on a class action basis.
In Harris v. Liberty Mutual Insurance, the court provided much guidance. Here is some of the instructive language:
[W]ork qualifies as administrative when it is directly related to management policies or general business operations. Work qualifies as directly related if it satisfies two components. First, it must be qualitatively administrative. Second, quantitatively, it must be of substantial importance to the management or operations of the business. Both components must be satisfied before work can be considered directly related‖ to management policies or general business operations in order to meet the test of the exemption. (Fed. Regs. § 541.205(a) (2000).)….
[T]he administrative/production worker dichotomy distinguishes between administrative employees who are primarily engaged in administering the business affairs of the enterprise and production-level employees whose primary duty is producing the commodity or commodities, whether goods or services, that the enterprise exists to produce and market.
The Court understands that:
[B]ecause the dichotomy suggests a distinction between the administration of a business on the one hand, and the production end on the other, courts often strain to fit the operations of modern-day post-industrial service-oriented businesses into the analytical framework formulated in the industrial climate of the late 1940‘s.
Bottom line: The administrative exemption causes the vast majority of mis-classification headaches. According to this decision even the judges and the DIR have a hard time getting it right. Read this case. Make sure your workers are not mis-classified. If they are, take a look at the report on HR That Works So You Have a Wage Claim Exposure–What Do You Do About It?
I Protest, Thus I am Protected
It seems as if the National Labor Relations Board has lost touch with reality. In case after case, it has protected employees hell bent on complaining about everything from work assignments to tucking in their shirt or having to take their hat off. They can complain about poor marketing campaigns, curse out their bosses, wear shirts that defame the company, and do about everything else possible to not do their jobs. Whether you consider the administration to be in the pocket of the unions or not, they’ve taken a very aggressive stance at the NLRB. Consistent with recent DOL practices, the NLRB has shown their litigation muscles and paraded their record enforcement in terms of fines, penalties, and back wages recovered.
Collectively these agencies are particularly aggressive when it comes to union organizing, wage and hour, health and safety, and employee misclassification (whether exempt vs. non-exempt or employee vs. independent contractor). Critics claim that this litigious approach is nothing more than a money-making opportunity, figuring the more auditors and enforcement personnel they hire, the more revenue they can bring in that exceeds the cost of those hires. The aggressive approach of the DOL, NLRB, and OSHA has not missed attention in the press. For example, there was a great deal of media coverage when the NLRB made its effort to prevent Boeing from moving its manufacturing plant out of Washington State.
What’s an employer to do?
1) Stay on top of the law whether you have 15 employees or 1,500. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse that will garner any sympathy.
2) Where possible, purchase employment practices liability and other coverages to mitigate against these risk exposures.
3) Use the proper strategies, tools, and training to make sure you comply with today’s myriad of laws. There is a ton of great tools on HR That Works.
4) Don’t hesitate to rely on expert assistance the second you realize you don’t know what you’re doing. This is a complicated area even for the lawyers!
Obama Signs Veterans Opportunity to Work to Hire Heroes Act; Presents New Employer Risks and Opportunities
President Obama recently signed into law the “VOW to Hire Heroes Act” (H.R.674), a law that provides tax credits for employers who hire unemployed veterans and veterans with service-related disabilities. The new law allows a company to claim a tax credit of up to $2,400 if it hires veterans who have been looking for work for at least one month. The maximum credit is increased to $5,600 for hiring veterans who have been searching for work for at least six months. Additionally, employers may be granted a $9,600 tax credit for hiring out-of-work veterans with service-related disabilities.
The new legislation also amends the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”)—which was enacted to prohibit civilian employers from discriminating against employees engaged in military service—to recognize claims of “hostile work environment” on account of an individual’s military status. The law states that employees who perform military service “shall not be denied initial employment, reemployment, retention in employment, promotion, or any benefit of employment” on the basis of that service. However, courts had previously rejected the notion that the statute creates a cause of action for “hostile work environment” harassment against military service members. By clarifying that “benefit of employment” includes the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” the new legislation brings the USERRA in line with Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act, both of which include the phrase “conditions…of employment.”
EEOC Approves Draft of Rule Amending Age Discrimination Regulations The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has approved a draft final rule amending its Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) regulations in light of U.S. Supreme Court decisions addressing disparate impact claims and the “reasonable factor other than age” (“RFOA”) defense.
The proposed rule is based on the EEOC’s analysis of Smith v. City of Jackson (2005) 544 U.S. 228 (2005) (holding that an employment practice that has a disparate impact on older workers is discriminatory unless the practice is justified by a reasonable factor other than age) and Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab. (2008) 128 S. Ct. 2395 (holding that the employer bears the burden of proving the RFOA defense).
Under the proposed rule, a “reasonable” factor is one that is objectively reasonable when viewed from the position of a reasonable employer under like circumstances. The rule explains that whether a particular employment practice is based on RFOA turns on the facts and circumstances of each particular situation and whether the employer acted prudently in light of those facts. According to the EEOC, this standard is lower than Title VII’s business-necessity test but higher than the Equal Pay Act’s “any other factor” test. The standard is intended to represent a balanced approach that preserves an employer’s right to make reasonable business decisions while protecting older workers from facially neutral employment criteria that arbitrarily limit their employment opportunities.
To assess whether an employment practice is based on RFOA, the proposed rule provides a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered:
- whether the employment practice and the manner of its implementation are common business practices;
- the extent to which the factor is related to the employer’s stated business goals;
- the extent to which the employer took steps to define the factor accurately and to apply the factor fairly and accurately (e.g., training, guidance, instruction of managers);
- the extent to which the employer took steps to assess the adverse impact of its employment practice on older workers;
- the extent to which the employer took preventive or corrective steps to minimize the severity of the harm, in light of the burden of undertaking such steps; and
- the existence of a lesser discriminatory alternative and the reasons why the employer selected the option it did.
The proposed rule also emphasizes that in order for the RFOA defense to apply, the challenged practice must be based on an objective, non age-related factor (e.g., salary, seniority, etc.).
The EEOC’s final draft regulations now go to the White House Office of Management and Budget for a review period that takes approximately 90 days. If the draft regulations are approved, they will return to the EEOC for a final vote before taking effect.
To learn more go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/11/21/president-obama-hire-veteran.
Article courtesy of Pettit Kohn (www.pettitkohn.com).
Looks Like the NLRB is Having a Hard Time Getting Its Way!
The National Labor Relations Board has agreed to postpone the effective date of its employee rights notice-posting rule at the request of the federal court in Washington, DC hearing a legal challenge regarding the rule. The Board’s ruling states that it has determined that postponing the effective date of the rule would facilitate the resolution of the legal challenges that have been filed with respect to the rule. The new implementation date is April 30, 2012.
Most private sector employers will be required to post the 11-by-17-inch notice on the new implementation date of April 30. The notice is available at no cost from the NLRB through its website, www.nlrb.gov, which has additional information on posting requirements and NLRB jurisdiction.







