Federal/State/Local Laws

A couple of weeks ago we asked whether the federal government would pass a paid family leave law.  Although it is still unclear whether a federal law will pass, it is clear, for now, that there will not  be an expansion of paid family leave in New Jersey.

Governor Christie vetoed legislation that would have expanded paid family leave.  In his veto remarks, Governor Christie complained about the financial impact of the law.

The veto is conditional, meaning if the legislature approved a bill with Christie’s suggested changes, the law would pass.  However, it is clear that the legislature would not make Christies’ suggested changes as they have complained that his changes would gut the law.

Included in President Trump’s 2018 budget proposal is a request for funding a paid leave program.  The program would require $19 billion from the budget and would provide that employees were entitled to 6 weeks of paid leave from work.

So far, Republicans have not warmed to the idea.

Yesterday, at least 100 Democrats wrote a letter to President Trump also expressing concerns over the proposal.  However, the Democrats are concerned that the proposal does not go far enough. Democrats are pushing for consideration of other Democrat-sponsored bills that would provide for 12 weeks’ paid leave, matching the FMLA leave entitlement.

At this stage, it really is too early to tell whether some form of paid family leave will wind up in the final budget or if it will become a casualty of the horse-trading that goes on when trying to reach a consensus on the budget.

We will be keeping an eye on this one.

In November, voters in Arizona approved a ballot initiative that would require employers to provide paid sick leave.  The law goes into effect tomorrow.

Under the law, Arizona employers with less than 15 employees will have to provide up to 24 hours of paid sick leave.  Employers with 15 or more employees will have to provide up to 40 hours of paid sick leave.

In anticipation of the law, the Arizona Industrial Commission has issued FAQs, which can be found here.  The FAQs do make one significant change from the text of the law.  The FAQs do make clear that when counting employees for purposes of determining how much leave is to be offered, employers need only count employees working in Arizona.  Don’t get too excited.  This could change as the Commission itself notes that there might be further legislative guidance on this issue.

Employers not only need to make sure that they are offering leave, they will need to provide notices to the employees and post posters in both Spanish and English.

Arizona’s law, like many others, contains a no retaliation provision.  However, this provision should give employers pause.  Under the law, if any adverse action is taken against an employee within 90 days of them using sick leave, there is a presumption that adverse action was retaliatory.  Employers will then bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the action was for a legitimate purpose.

Employers should tread carefully before disciplining any employee who has recently used sick leave.

Catherine Savio writes:

Courthouse pillars
Copyright: bbourdages / 123RF Stock Photo

On May 31, 2017, the Second Circuit seemingly broadened the scope of liability under a New York state anti-discrimination law by holding that non-employer third parties can be held liable for violating rules regarding the use of a job applicant’s criminal history records in hiring processes.

The plaintiffs in Griffin v. Sirva Inc., No. 15-307 (2d. Cir. 2017), were employed by Astro Moving and Storage Company, a New York-based moving company. Astro is a contractor for the nationwide moving company Allied Vans Incorporated.  Allied prohibited the companies with which it contracted from employing individuals if they had ever been convicted of a sexual offense.

In 2011, Astro terminated the plaintiffs’ employment following a background check that revealed plaintiffs’ prior convictions for sexual offenses. In Griffin, the plaintiffs brought claims against Allied, a third-party contractor by whom they were not directly employed, under the New York State Human Rights Laws (“NYSHRL”) for violations of NYSHRL’s limitations on the use of criminal background checks in hiring decisions.

The United State District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the claims brought against Allied, holding that the NYSHRL criminal conviction ban only applies to employers. On appeal, the Second Circuit overturned the lower-court’s decision,  holding that NYSHRL covers entities other than those who directly employ the workers, including third-party contractors. The court cited a four-part test from a 1985 fourth department decision, State Div. of Human Rights v. GTE Corp., 109 A.D.2d 1082 (4th Dep’t 1985), noting that the power to control a worker’s performance is the most important factor in determining whether or not an entity is acting as a workers “employer” for NYSHRL purposes. The Court remanded the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York to determine whether or not Allied qualified as an employer for NYSHRL liability purposes.


Catherine Savio is an associate in the firm’s Litigation Department, resident in its New York office.

38608245 - therapy dog being comforted by a teddy bear on white background

A notable case caught our eye recently coming out of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Namely, The EEOC sued CRST International, Inc. (“CRST”) claiming that it, among other things, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by failing to accommodate and retaliating against a prospective truck driver.

The new driver allegedly requested the use of a prescribed emotional support animal to mitigate post-traumatic stress and mood disorder. CRST purportedly told the new driver simply to leave his dog at home and refused to provide an accommodation, citing unbendable company policies, and effectively rescinded his employment offer. Unfortunately, usually these policies must bend, or at the very least the possibility explored.

While the CRST case is in its early stages, and no court decisions have yet been issued, this complaint serves as a great illustration of just how far reaching the disability discrimination laws are. Here many employers would scoff or summarily dismiss the seemingly unworkable request of having a service animal in a trucking business. However, the CRST complaint reminds us of the potential disability accommodations that employers must consider and make. Regardless of the nature of the requested accommodation, the employer is, at the very least, required to engage in the interactive process with the employee and determine what, if any, reasonable accommodations can be made. Otherwise, you may end up on the wrong side of an EEOC lawsuit alleging ADA retaliation and failure to accommodate.

Please remember that when an employee or prospective employee requests a workplace disability accommodation in order to perform his or her job, an employer generally must consider the accommodation and, if it can be implemented without undue hardship, it must be granted. Anytime an accommodation request is received, never dismiss the request out-of-hand. Make sure to talk to your in-house human resources department or legal department, or involve outside counsel if necessary, to determine your legal obligations. Also, note that your state or local laws may provide additional protections beyond the ADA.

Today’s post comes to us courtesy of Justin Schwam, an associate in the Labor and Employment Department in Roseland:

60987399 - four young friends drunk and hungover after house party sitting on the couch.

With the trend of local paid sick leave ordinances continuing its progressive sweep in cities across the country, a consistent concern for companies located in the vicinity is whether their operations fall within the local law’s reach.  Does it only apply if the company is physically located in the city?  Or does any employee activity within the city trigger the often onerous recordkeeping obligations?

A few weeks ago, a Minneapolis judge limited the reach of the City’s law slated to go into effect later this year.   Judge Dickstein issued a temporary injunction against the enforcement of its Ordinance against businesses not physically located in the City.  Although the City argued that its exclusive enforcement authority meant that it would not apply the Ordinance against businesses outside the City, the court recognized that such assurances, “however sincere,” did not alter the Ordinance’s plain language.

The court’s analysis of this issue is also notable for its dissection of the City’s argument that its action was a permissible exercise of its police powers to protect the health and welfare of residents.  The court found that the City’s attempt to regulate extraterritorial businesses whose employees “are unlikely (or may never) enter the city while sick” was not a narrowly tailored means of addressing “identifiable harms within the city limits,” such as a rule governing the inspection of extra-territorial cows whose milk was sold within the city.  Because a prime justification for these local ordinances is typically the need to protect residents from the spread of contagion, the court’s refusal to accept policymakers’ assumptions that ill workers would use the sick leave benefit to “protect against potential harm” is significant.

Although the injunction ultimately may be lifted, or the ordinance amended – it’s not scheduled to take effect until July 1, 2017 – employers not located in Minneapolis are breathing a sigh of relief.   For now, employees who occasionally travel to Minneapolis will not be entitled to accrue sick leave under the law.

As local action on this issue will no doubt continue to pick-up steam, since more state governments are looking at measures to prevent municipal action than are moving to enact state-wide measures, it will be interesting to see how cases like this one influence future legal challenges and how future paid sick leave laws are drafted.  We will keep an eye out and report back on any developments.

 

The end of the year, that is.  Although given the number of celebrity deaths in the last week, I think some people might be reading that headline a little more broadly.  We are not making doomsday predictions, however.

Back in the fall, we started a list of employment laws that were going to go into effect in January 2017.   We tried to get a jump start on the list as we knew how quickly the end of the year can creep up on you.  How right we were as the Fall flew past and now we find ourselves just days away from the New Year without having updated the list.

Our first big update is to remind everyone that the FLSA salary test has been enjoined.  The other big changes have to do with sick leave laws.  The last few years have seen a lot of jurisdictions adopting sick leave laws.  This year is no exception. The sick leave laws going into effect in January 2017 are as follows:

  1. Executive Order 13706 — Back in September, President Obama issued an Executive Order that applies to federal contracts entered into, sent out for bid, or renewed after 1/1/17.  The EO requires that contractors provide up to a maximum of 56 hours paid sick leave per year.  The DOL has issued guidance for the Final Rule, which can be found here.
  2.  Morristown, New Jersey becomes the latest New Jersey municipality to have a paid sick leave law.  The law goes into effect on 1/11/17 and requires employers with 10 or more employees to provide up to 40 hours of paid sick leave.  Employers with less than 10 employees are not exempt from the law; they only have to provide 24 hours of sick leave.
  3.  Vermont –  The law applies to employers with 6 or more employees and goes into effect on 1/1/17.  This law does have two phase-in provisions.  For employers with less than 6 employees, the law will not be effective until 1/1/18.  For other employers, in the first year, they must only provide up to 24 hours of sick leave.  After the first year, employers must provide up to 40 hours of sick leave.
  4.  Spokane, Washington – This law is also effective as of 1/1/17 and is similar to Morristown’s law in that there are different requirements for employers with 10 or more employees and less than 10 employees. Employers with 10 or more employees must provide up to 40 hours of paid sick leave while employers with less than 10 employees must provide up to 24 hours of sick leave.

The laws will not only require a review of policies to insure that employees are being provided with sick leave, they also come with record keeping requirements and notice requirements.  Employers with questions are encouraged to seek the advice of employment counsel.

Delaware’s legislature and Governor have been busy bees in 2016.  This post details three protections added to Delaware’s employment discrimination law in 2016, two of which become effective on December 30th (i.e., next Friday).  Specifically, these laws protect employees on the basis of an employee’s (1) reproductive health decisions, (2) family responsibilities, and (3) wage discussions or disclosures.  Also worth noting:  each of these three provisions applies to employers who have 4 or more employees within the state at the time of an alleged violation.

Legislation

Reproductive Health Decisions

Effective December 30, 2016, Delaware employers should be aware that it is an unlawful employment practice to discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment (including failure/refusal to hire or discharge) because of a “reproductive health decision” by the individual. Reproductive health decision is defined as any decision “related to the use or intended use of a particular drug, device, or medical service, including the use or intended use of contraception or fertility control or the planned or intended initiation or termination of a pregnancy.”

It’s noteworthy here that this section doesn’t limit the prohibition against discrimination to actions taken against employees; that is, applicants are protected under this definition.  Nor is there language that carves out certain religious employers from this law, unlike there is for sexual orientation and gender identity under Delaware law.  As a general matter, an employee’s reproductive health decisions are probably not something most employers are (or should be) interested in, but as of December 30th, employers should not use any such knowledge they may have as the basis of an adverse employment action.

Family Responsibilities

Effective December 30, 2016, Delaware employers also may not engage in certain discriminatory acts based upon an employee’s “family responsibilities.”  As defined in the statute, family responsibilities means an employee’s caregiving obligations “to any family member who would qualify as a covered family member” under the FMLA.  This section does, however, permit employers to take certain actions “with respect to the employer’s attendance and absenteeism standards that are not protected by other applicable law and inasmuch as the employee’s performance at work meets satisfactory standards.”  It will be interesting to see if the Delaware Department of Labor issues any regulations or guidance to further clarify this section.

It’s also important to note that this law does not create an entitlement to leave for purposes of family responsibilities in and of itself.  The law itself notes that employers are not obligated to make special accommodations for employees who may have family responsibilities.  Rather, this is a non-discrimination provision, meaning the employer must apply its policies “related to leave, scheduling, absenteeism, work performance and benefits” in a manner that is not discriminatory against employees with family responsibilities.  This law provides another reason for employers to audit their workplace policies and practices — and seek any needed training — on these items to ensure compliance moving forward.

Wage Discussions/Disclosures

Delaware employers should also note that since June 30, 2016, it has been an unlawful employment practice under state law to:

(1) Require as a condition of employment that an employee refrain from inquiring about, discussing, or disclosing his or her wages or the wages of another employee;  (2) Require an employee to sign a waiver or other document which purports to deny an employee the right to disclose or discuss his or her wages; [or] (3) Discharge, formally discipline, or otherwise discriminate against an employee for inquiring about, discussing, or disclosing his or her wages or the wages of another employee.

The law does not obligate employers or employees to discuss wages; instead, it merely provides state law protection for employees who do choose to discuss wages.  A number of other states across the country have similar provisions.
Need to get up to speed on how these new laws may affect your workplace (including any needed updates to your employee handbook)?  Give us a call, or email us!

34383097 - veterans day

As the nation prepares to honor the service of men and women in armed forces, Massachusetts employers should be aware of some new obligations.

In July 2016, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed the HOME Act into law.  The HOME Act is an omnibus bill that, in part, amends M.G.L. 149, Section 52A1/2 . Previously, employers were required to provide any veteran with unpaid leave who desires to participate in Veterans’ Day or Memorial Day exercises, parades or services.

The HOME Act amends that law to provide that employers with 50 or more employees must provide paid leave. There are some limits to the law.  Veterans are permitted to participate in services in their community of residence.  This means employers would not have to grant multiple leave days for veterans to travel outside of their community of residence.  Employers also may deny leave where the employee’s services are essential to public health and safety and the employee is an essential employee to the employer.

The HOME Act also amends the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Act to provide that “veteran status” is a protected class.  As Veterans Day approaches, employers should remind supervisors and HR personnel that leave requests may need to be granted.

 

Bill Egan writes:

Under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), a covered employer must provide reasonable accommodations to disabled employees, unless doing so would cause an undue hardship on the employer. Generally, an employer’s duty to reasonably accommodate is initiated by a request for an accommodation from a disabled employee or someone speaking on the employee’s behalf.

Pillars
Copyright: bbourdages / 123RF Stock Photo

Most courts have held that a request for accommodation from an employee is a “predicate requirement” to the interactive process for determining whether a reasonable accommodation can be made and what that accommodation will look like. The ADA does not require an employer to speculate about the accommodation needs of employees and applicants.

That has now changed, at least in the Eighth Circuit.  In Kowitz v.Trinity Health, a hospital respiratory therapist returned to work under a lifting restriction after undergoing spine surgery and exhausting her 12-week FMLA leave.  Although the hospital initially accommodated this restriction, it terminated the therapist’s employment after she advised that her doctor restricted her for four months from performing the physical demonstration portion of the “basic life support” recertification process, a departmental requirement.

The District Court granted summary judgment to the hospital concluding that Kowitz was not qualified to perform the essential functions of her job because she was not certified to provide basic life support.  The court further held that because Kowitz never requested a transfer to another position, the hospital was under no obligation to reassign her to a position that did not require the basic life support certification.

The Eighth Circuit reversed, over a strongly worded dissent, holding that an express request for assistance is not needed to trigger an employer’s duty to discuss the reasonable accommodation option with an employee.  The court held, “Though Kowitz did not ask for a reasonable accommodation of her condition in so many words, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Kowitz, her notification to her supervisor that she would not be able to obtain the required certification until she had completed physical therapy implied that an accommodation would be required until then.”

The lesson from Kowitz is if the facts known to the employer about an employee’s disability are sufficient to make the employer aware of the possible need for a reasonable accommodation, the employer is legally obligated to engage in the interactive process to determine if indeed the employee needs such an accommodation and whether an accommodation can be made without posing an undue hardship on the employer.


Bill Egan is a partner in the Labor & Employment Department, resident in Fox’s Minneapolis office.