DOL Continues to Team Up with States to Go After Misclassified independent Contractors
Louisiana joins a growing list of states that are teaming up with the DOL to go after 1099 misclassification. States that have joined with the DOL now include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New York, Utah, and Washington. Typically what these arrangements do is
- Conduct joint investigations periodically,
- Coordinate enforcement activities and provide mutual assistance,
- Refer potential violations of statutes enforced by the other,
- Develop “methodologies” for exchanging investigative leads and complaints, and
- Otherwise share information “as appropriate”.
We will continue to warn employers to make sure a duck is a duck. Remember the agenda is to call everyone ducks. Look at the Independent Contractor tools on HR That Works.
All in an EEOC Week
The EEOC is proud of its lawsuits. I used to be proud of mine too…until I realized thy cause more damage than good…even where there was bad conduct. According to the EEOC’s press release page these are the claims from just one week:
EEOC Sues Owner of Golden LivingCenter – Dartmouth for Disability Discrimination 3/19/12
Agricultural Supplier Olam Settles EEOC Pregnancy Discrimination Suit for $140,000 in Fresno 3/15/12
Warren Tricomi to Pay $30,000 to Settle EEOC Pregnancy Discrimination Suit 3/15/12
Hal Leonard to Pay $150,000 to Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment Charge 3/14/12
Family Video to Pay $70,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit 3/14/12
Sterling and Sterling to Pay $120,000 to Settle EEOC Suit for Retaliation 3/14/12
EEOC Sues GGNSC Administrative Services For Disability Discrimination 3/13/12
Menorah House Settles EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuits 3/12/12
As you can see from the titles, disability and pregnancy leave have been major targets. Employers must do two things to better manage these claims: First, take disability requests and harassment complaints seriously. If you don’t know what to do, then get help. Secondly, get Employment Practices Liability Insurance. See the checklist on HR That Works. I bet every one of the companies sued that didn’t purchase it wishes it had. Also understand this – these settlements and verdicts are LESS than they would be if brought by private attorneys in state courts.
District Court Invalidates Portion of NLRB Posting Rule
A federal district court judge has partially invalidated the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) rule requiring private sector employers to post a notice informing employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
The Rule
In August 2011 the NLRB adopted a final administrative rule that requires covered employers to post a “notice to employees” regarding their rights under the NLRA. The notice describes the NLRA and informs employees of their rights under the NLRA, including but not limited to their right to organize a union to negotiate with their employer about their wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment.
The NLRB’s rule also establishes several penalties for non-compliance. Under the rule, the NLRB may find that an employer commits an unfair labor practice where it fails or refuses to post the notice. The NLRB also may toll the NLRA’s six-month statute of limitations for filing unfair labor practice charges if employers fail to post the notice. Finally, the NLRB also may use an employer’s failure to post the notice as evidence of an unlawful motive in unfair labor practice proceedings where motive is a disputed issue.
At the time it adopted the rule, the NLRB announced that it would take effect on November 14, 2011. The NLRB since delayed the rule’s implementation date to April 30, 2012, amid substantial controversy surrounding the rule.
The Lawsuits
Shortly after its adoption, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation (NRTW) filed lawsuits in federal district court challenging the rule. They argued that the NLRB lacked authority under the NLRA to promulgate the rule and that the rule violated the First Amendment.
The District Court’s Opinion
Judge Amy Berman Jackson upheld only that portion of the NLRB’s rule that requires employers to post the notice to employees regarding their rights under the NLRA. She determined that the NLRB is granted broad rulemaking authority under the NLRA and is not limited to enacting rules that address only particular statutory sections. Finding that the NLRA places the NLRB “squarely at the heart of labor management relations,” the judge held that the dissemination of information about employee rights under the NLRA—as the NLRB’s rule requires—“is well within its bailiwick.”
The judge also found that the NLRB provided a reasonable explanation for adoption of the notice requirement: in order for employees to fully exercise their rights under the NLRA, they must know that those rights exist, and requiring employers to post notices of those rights raises employee awareness. Finally, she concluded that the NLRB did not act arbitrarily when it adopted the notice requirement because it relied on empirical and anecdotal evidence demonstrating that many employees are unaware of their rights under the NLRA—including the fact that a comparatively small percentage of private sector employees are represented by unions.
On the other hand, the judge invalidated those portions of the rule tolling the statute of limitations for filing unfair labor practice charges and finding that failure to post the notice constitutes an unfair labor practice. The NLRA expressly limits unfair practices to those enumerated in Section 8 of the statute, and similarly, Section 10(b) expressly establishes a six-month statute of limitations. The judge concluded that the NLRB’s rule impermissibly expanded the reach of both of these provisions. Notably, however, the judge found that nothing prohibits the NLRB from finding on a case-by-case basis that failure to post the notice constitutes an unfair labor practice.
Lastly, the judge rejected the claim that the NLRB’s rule violated the First Amendment because it compelled employers to speak against their will. According to the judge, the notice constitutes “government speech” because its content and message are controlled by the government, and therefore is not subject to the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.
What It Means
Although the judge invalidated two portions of the rule, she upheld the notice requirement, and that portion of the NLRB’s rule remains valid. Further, the NLRB is permitted to rely on an employer’s failure to post the notice as grounds for the finding of an unfair labor practice on a case-by-case basis.
As a final note, the plaintiffs in this matter did not specifically challenge that aspect of the NLRB’s rule that permits the NLRB to use an employer’s failure to post the notice as evidence of unlawful motive in its unfair labor practice proceedings. As a result, the judge found that that portion of the rule remains valid.
For now, employers who are covered by the NLRA must plan to post the notice on April 30. Another challenge to the rule is pending in a federal district court in South Carolina. We will continue to monitor that case and will keep you updated as to further developments.
By Jennifer Dunn, Amy Moor Gaylord, Chris Johlie
Article courtesy of Worklaw Network firm Franczek Radelet.
Watch Those Doctors Notes Required by Attendance Policies
Attendance policies that require employees to provide a doctor’s note stating the nature of the absence before the health-related absence would be excused could result in unlawful medical inquiries under the ADA. In a case filed by the EEOC against Dillard’s department stores on behalf of employees who were affected by such an attendance policy (EEOC v. Dillard’s, Inc.), the EEOC claimed that the employer violated the ADA when it required that doctor’s notes in support of an absence specifically identify the nature of the illness, or the absence would be treated as unexcused. Some employees were disciplined and terminated for these “unexcused” absences.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California concluded that Dillard’s attendance policy, on its face, permitted supervisors to conduct impermissible disability-related inquiries. Dillard’s policy required employees to disclose “the nature of the absence (such as migraine, high blood pressure, etc ….)” and “the condition being treated.” Such an inquiry by Dillard’s, the court held, may tend to elicit information regarding an actual or perceived disability and invited intrusive questioning into the employee’s medical condition in violation of the ADA. Indeed, the ADA regulations make clear that an employer “shall not … make inquiries of an employee as to whether such employee is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of the disability, unless such examination or inquiry is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity.” The court found that there was no evidence indicating that Dillard’s policy was job-related or a matter of business necessity.
This case provides a strong reminder for employers to review their attendance policies to ensure that they comply with today’s interpretation of workplace laws to avoid the EEOC’s scrutiny. The court did provide some guidance for Dillard’s, and employers in general, when it noted that “Dillard’s could have required its employees to submit a doctor’s note specifying the date on which the employee was seen, stating that the absence from work was medically necessary, and stating the date on which such employee would be able to return to work.”
EBSA Website Update
The Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration has updated its website with the following:
- Summary of Benefits and Coverage and Uniform Glossary
- Final Regulations, available at www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/SBCfinalreg.pdf
- Compliance Guide, available at www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/SBCguidance.pdf
- Summary of Benefits and Coverage Template, available at www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/SBCtemplate.pdf
- Sample Completed SBC, available at www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/SBCSampleCompleted.pdf
- Instructions for Completing the SBC – Group Health Plan Coverage, available at www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/SBCInstructionsGroup.pdf
- Instructions for Completing the SBC – Individual Health Insurance Coverage, available at www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/SBCInstructionsIndividual.pdf
- Why This Matters language for “Yes” Answers, available at www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/SBCYesAnswers.pdf
- Why This Matters language for “No” Answers, available at www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/SBCNoAnswers.pdf
- HHS Information for Simulating Coverage Examples, available at http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/other/index.html#sbcug
- Uniform Glossary of Coverage and Medical Terms, available at www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/SBCUniformGlossary.pdf
- Automatic Enrollment, Employer Shared Responsibility and Waiting Periods
Technical Release 2012-01, available at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/tr12-01.html
I’m a big fan of podcast learning. During the past four years, I’ve educated myself on a wide variety of subjects from business to personal growth, financial matters, and spiritual ones.




