In recent years, many states have enacted legislation directed at employment contracts containing non-compete and non-solicitation clauses. Illinois first did so in 2016 with the Freedom to Work Act (the Act), which bans certain Illinois employers from entering into non-compete agreements with low-wage employees.
Now, the Illinois General Assembly has taken the matter up again with additional proposed amendments to the Act.
Although the new legislation has not been finalized, some provisions that appear likely to be included in the final version are: income thresholds for employees who are not “low wage,” a requirement that the employer provide the employee with a copy of the contract in advance of signing it, employee-friendly attorney’s fee-shifting provisions, and exemptions for union workers. While the legislation primarily is geared toward protecting employees, it also helps employers by clarifying the state of the law on several issues, including clearer standards for the enforceability of non-compete clauses.
The amendments are projected to take effect on June 1, 2021, and will not apply to contracts entered into before that date. Employers should contact their employment counsel to make sure any agreements entered into on or after the effective date comport with the new law. SmithAmundsen attorneys are working closely with employer-side groups on the legislation and will update readers of this blog as further developments arise.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) EEO-1 Component 1 Online Filing System is set to open on Monday, April 26, 2021. Private employers with at least 100 employees, and federal contractors with at least 50 employees and a contract worth $50,000 or more, must file their EEO-1 data for years 2019 (previously postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic) and 2020, by Monday, July 19, 2021. Employers will be required to first file for 2019, then file for 2020 – after the 2019 report is submitted and certified.
As a reminder, EEO-1 reports require data from a “workforce snapshot period,” which is any single pay period during the last quarter of the year (October through December), as selected by the employer. Employers may select different workforce snapshot pay periods for 2019 and 2020.
Employees who telework must also be included in the EEO-1 report for the establishment to which they report. Practical tip: Do not include home addresses for these remote employees as a company location.
The 2019 and 2020 reports will only include “Component 1” data, which is comprised of the same workforce demographic information that has long been required on the EEO-1. As of right now, the controversial “Component 2” pay data information does not need to be reported to the EEOC. Last year, the EEOC did not renew its authority to collect the pay data information and is still evaluating the Component 2 data that it received for FY 2017 and 2018 to determine whether or not the information is useful, and whether or not the data collection form needs to be revised.
It should also be noted that the U.S. Congress also could act on legislation pending in the form of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would require the EEOC and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) to initiate pay data collection.
Bottom line: Employers should be prepared to begin submissions of their EEO-1 reports for 2019 and 2020 as soon as possible. Don’t stop there. Evaluate your EEO-1 data and strongly consider pay equity analysis, with the goal of identifying and correcting any potential issues, sooner rather than later.
Effective March 23, 2021, new Illinois law generally prohibits the use of criminal convictions in employment decisions and creates additional new hurdles for employers who decide to rely on any conviction for employment purposes-unless otherwise authorized by law. Join Jeff Risch and Allison Sues on Thursday, April 29 @ noon CT for a timely discussion surrounding the new law. During this webcast attendees will learn:
How to navigate new hiring mandates
What to include in the mandated written notices to a denied applicant or terminated employee because of a conviction record
How to reconcile the new IL law with existing local, state and federal mandates (i.e. FFCRA, Ban the Box, etc…)
How to analyze whether a specific conviction history has a substantial relationship to a certain job position or poses a unreasonable risk to property or safety
What does “unless otherwise authorized by law” really mean for employers
The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), signed by President Joe Biden on March 11, 2021, included a COBRA Subsidy covering 100% of COBRA premiums for “Assistance Eligible Individuals” during the period of April 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021. The 100% premium subsidy will be reimbursed to employers through their quarterly payroll tax returns.
Pursuant to ARPA, employers are required to notify certain individuals about potential eligibility and details of the subsidy by May 31, 2021. Individuals then have 60-days to elect. And although Notice 2021-01 described extensions of various plan deadlines for potentially up to 1-year or 60-days after the expiration of the “Outbreak Period,” the US Department of Labor (DOL) now makes clear in its FAQ on COBRA premium assistance under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, that this extension of timeframes for employee benefit plans does not apply to notice periods related to the COBRA premium assistance. Also noted within the published FAQ, a penalty of $100 per qualified beneficiary, not to exceed more than $200 per family, may be assessed on employers for each day they are in violation of the COBRA rules.
(Note: This may include providing notice to individuals currently enrolled in COBRA continuation coverage, individuals that never elected COBRA, or those that elected and then dropped COBRA continuation.)
Finally, as ARPA also requires employers to notify individuals approaching the end of their premium assistance eligibility period, the US DOL has provided a model notice of expiration. This notice is to be provided to individuals 15-45 days before their premium assistance is set to expire.
The above model notices cannot be used without modification that customizes each with specific information about the relevant individual and the employer’s group health plan. As potential fines for noncompliance can be steep, employers should carefully set procedures for timely distribution of all requisite notices.
The short answer is: Be careful what you wish for! During this COVID-19 pandemic, vaccinations have been at the front of everyone’s mind. Now, with the mass rollout of vaccinations across the country, employers’ main questions have been: i) Can we mandate vaccinations for our workforce or, alternatively, ii) can we ask employees whether they have been vaccinated or not (and to show proof of vaccination)? Our Labor & Employment blog has been at the forefront for the first question and provides more information on COVID-19 vaccination developments and what legal risks come into play for employers when mandating the vaccine in the workplace.
The good news is that generally asking your employees for proof of their vaccination status is not considered a medical exam for reasons that include the fact that there are many reasons that are not disability-related that may explain why an employee may or may not have gotten a vaccination. For example, they may not have one yet because they have been unable to secure an appointment, or they simply do not believe in the vaccination because they think COVID is a hoax. This is different from someone not getting vaccinated due to a disability or religious belief. Moreover, this general practice is not a HIPAA violation and HIPAA does not apply in this context. The rub and risk come if you ask follow-up questions that may elicit whether the employee may have a disability. Simply following-up with “why do you not have the vaccination yet?” could be treading into that risky territory that touches on whether an employee’s disability is the reason why the employee has not been vaccinated.
If you find yourself in that territory, you will have to evaluate the employee’s response within the framework of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (or Title VII, if the employee’s response implicates religious beliefs) requirement to justify proof of vaccination being “job-related and consistent with business necessity.” This is the same analysis an employer must undertake when mandating vaccinations, and it can be a tedious and high standard to meet. View the Labor and Employment Blog for more information on the ADA and employers’ efforts to require mandatory vaccinations and health screenings for employees.
The same is true of follow-up questions that may elicit genetic information (e.g., I cannot get the vaccination due to my family’s history of being immuno-compromised). (See Sections K.8 and K.9 of the EEOC guidance described above). Once again, simply asking for vaccination proof does not run afoul of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) so long as you stop there in your inquiries.
Again, be careful what you wish for. It’s one thing to ask the employee whether they were vaccinated and to show proof, and it’s another to ask why they were not vaccinated. Once you start eliciting disability, religious or genetic information with follow-up questions, you are placing your company at risk of knowing more information than you may have bargained for.
You need to ask yourself, first, why do I want to know information regarding why my employees have been vaccinated or not? What are you going to do with this information? Having a need and plan for this information will help ensure you have a business justification for why this information is necessary. If you don’t have a plan or a need, you may determine that knowing this information is not really necessary after all.
When asking employees to show proof of vaccination, it is good to remind them that you do not want them to include any other medical information that may be listed on their vaccination-related documents.
If you determine this is the route you want to take, always work with competent labor & employment counsel to help guide you through the process so you do not step on any landmines (even if it’s just a simple follow-up question).
Big Labor continues to use local, state and federal prevailing wage laws to target contractors they have a “beef” with. Since most prevailing wage audits are triggered by a complaint (including 3rd party complaints), trade unions and certain union-friendly organizations can easily turn in a contractor with the general assertion that the contractor is not complying with applicable prevailing wage law. While contractors and merit shop trade associations could do likewise, they typically don’t for obvious business reasons. Having concentrated my practice on assisting contractors with prevailing wage disputes throughout the U.S., this trend not only continues but is ramping up in recent months. While contractors who intentionally cheat the system and ignore their legal obligations should get what they rightly deserve, many contractors are facing audit assessments that are simply off or incorrect. Paying a disputed assessment in the hope of not upsetting the government agency or believing that cooperation will bring you favor is arguably one of the worst things a contractor can do these days; failing to properly document your disputes with any assessment that you believe has been issued in error could be the 2nd worst thing.
In short, I am now seeing more and more audit findings that are just flat out wrong, in whole or in relevant part. Additionally, it is often the case that even if the ultimate assessment is correct, the discrepancy is based on a clerical mistake, an unintentional accounting or reporting error or a case of disputed worker classification. However, many general contractors and public bodies, especially local units of government, are being told that they must reject the bid of a contractor who has any past or pending prevailing wage complaint against it, even when the contractor is the low bidder. By rejecting bids or terminating contracts with non-debarred contractors who are simply fighting the good fight with prevailing wage issues, these general contractors and public bodies are depriving contractors of fair due process, stifling competitive bidding and ignoring their obligations to the taxpayer.
In these times, contractors need to be extra cautious and careful in any and all communications with any government agency investigating prevailing wage compliance. To be clear, every complaint must be taken seriously by the contractor to ensure that the record ultimately reflects that the contractor is not only complying with its legal obligations, but also free to bid and perform public construction projects without interference.
With the above in mind, there are 5 basic rules for anyone performing public construction work to follow with an eye on growing prevailing wage enforcement:
Know your legal obligations under any and every local, state or federal prevailing wage ordinance/law that applies to your business (note: what’s permissible under Federal Davis-Bacon may be unlawful under local/state prevailing wage law);
Ensure your business is complying with all applicable prevailing wage obligations for every worker, every day, every week, every job — not simply paying the correct rates but also keeping and maintaining detailed and accurate time and payroll records;
Never allow a prevailing wage audit or investigation to be closed or remain in limbo without some document that confirms your full compliance with your legal obligations (you will have to do this yourself);
Never sign any settlement agreement concerning prevailing wage issues without first reviewing it with competent legal counsel to help ensure that no admission of liability or guilt is made and to expressly state that you are free and clear to bid and perform future public construction work; and
Educate your local units of government on who you are and highlight your good name and business reputation — get to know the public officials, get involved and form relationships.
As we previously blogged about, the Illinois legislature passed Senate Bill 1480, which, in relevant part, provides that unless otherwise authorized by law, an employer may only consider an individual’s criminal conviction history if there is a substantial relationship between the criminal history and the position sought or held, or if the employer can show that the individual’s employment raises an unreasonable risk to property or to the safety or welfare of specific individuals or the general public. Governor Pritzker has now signed the bill into law – which went into effect immediately. SmithAmundsen LLC’s Labor & Employment Group has been intimately involved in the tracking of this legislation and continues to voice concerns on behalf of employers. With that in mind, our firm has created an EMPLOYER’S GUIDE to help employers not only navigate the new mandates, but also includes sample forms that may prove useful to employers at this critical time.
While this law would not restrict employers from running criminal background checks on applicants or employees, it clearly creates many unique challenges. Undoubtedly, Illinois’ new law is the most restrictive and cumbersome in the country.
Private employers in Illinois now have more landmines to navigate as the state’s legislature pushed through SB1480 during its most recent “lame duck” session. Gov. Pritzker just signed the legislation into law today! While there are many substantive provisions and amendments to various laws contained in SB1480 (including new restrictions on the use of criminal convictions as we blogged about previously), the law also amends the Illinois Business Corporation Act (IBCA) and the Illinois Equal Pay Act (IEPA); resulting in unprecedented compulsory reporting of race, gender and ethnicity statistics and related pay data. These changes are part of a new national trend (see our previous blog on CA’s new law), while the Biden Administration begins to review similar pay data reporting mandates.
Amendments to the IBCA
Under the IBCA, private corporations who are required to file an Employer Information Report EEO-1 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will have to submit substantially similar data they report under Section D of the EEO-1 report — in a format to be approved by the IL Secretary of State (SOS) — as part of their annual corporate filing with the SOS. For any corporation that must submit EEO-1 related data to the state, the SOS will then publish the corporation’s data on gender, race and ethnicity on the SOS’s official website. This new mandate is set to be in place for any and all annual corporate filings with the State of Illinois beginning on and after January 1, 2023. Employers who fail to comply with the new IBCA mandates will not be authorized to conduct business in Illinois and/or will have their status as a corporation involuntarily dissolved.
Amendments to the IEPA
The changes to the IEPA are much more complex and employers who are not intimately familiar with Illinois’ unique Equal Pay Act law are playing with fire. Private employers with 100+ employees within the State of Illinois must certify their equal pay compliance (including, demonstrating how they actually comply) and provide pay data information to the IDOL. Employers who fail to comply with the IEPA certification mandates or provide false information to the IDOL will result in a non-discretionary fine of 1% of their annual gross profits.
As a reminder, the IEPA generally applies to all employers with employees working in the state. The state law is also materially different than the federal law in many aspects, including, but not limited to: the fact that any pay disparity is reviewed on a county level (not facility); encompasses African American status in addition to gender; limits the defenses available to employers trying to justify pay disparities; broadens what “equal” means by utilizing a “substantially similar” standard; and prohibits inquiry into salary/wage history.
The amendments under SB1480 applies to any PRIVATE employer with more than 100 employees in the state. These employers will have to obtain an Equal Pay Registration Certificate from the IDOL within 3 years from the effective date of the new law (today, March 23, 2021) and must recertify every 2 years thereafter. These businesses will be required to apply for an equal pay registration certificate by paying a $150 filing fee and submitting an equal pay compliance statement to the IDOL. In addition to submitting their most recently filed EEO-1 report for each county in which the business has a facility or employees, they will also need to compile a list of all employees during the past calendar year (separated by gender and the race and ethnicity categories), and report the total wages paid to each employee during the past calendar year. The IDOL will then issue an equal pay registration certificate to these employers, who must also submit a statement signed by a corporate officer, legal counsel, or authorized agent of the business that confirms the following:
that the business is in compliance with the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Illinois Human Rights Act, the Equal Wage Act, and the Equal Pay Act of 2003;
that the average compensation for its female and minority employees is not consistently below the average compensation for its male and non-minority employees within each of the major job categories in the Employer Information Report EEO-1;
that the business does not restrict employees of one sex to certain job classifications and makes retention and promotion decisions without regard to sex;
that wage and benefit disparities are corrected when identified to ensure compliance with applicable anti-discrimination laws; and
that the business identifies how often wages and benefits are evaluated to ensure such compliance.
The equal pay compliance statement must also indicate whether the business, in setting compensation and benefits, utilizes:
a market pricing approach;
state prevailing wage or union contract requirements;
a performance pay system;
an internal analysis; or
an alternative approach to determine what level of wages and benefits to pay its employees. If the business uses an alternative approach, the business must provide a description of its approach.
The issuance of a registration certificate will not serve as a defense against any IEPA violation found by the IDOL, nor a basis for mitigation of damages. The certification can also be suspended or revoked by the IDOL at any time.
While the pay data submitted to the IDOL will be considered private for the IDOL’s eyes-only, the IDOL’s decision to issue, not issue, revoke, or suspend an equal pay registration certificate will be public information.
There are also new anti-retaliation provisions in the amendments that make it financially painful for any employer found to have taken adverse action against an employee for engaging in protected activities under the IEPA. But, that’s not all… the legal burden is now placed on the employer to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that it would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of any protected conduct.
What Employers Must Do Moving Forward:
Review and, if necessary, modify equal pay policies that demonstrate a commitment to IEPA compliance.
Audit equal pay compliance annually. This includes creating strong/reliable compensation systems that are in line with the law (base wage, benefits, commission programs and bonus opportunities).
Update job descriptions annually. Focus not only on job titles, but the actual duties, responsibilities and qualifications of the position.
Evaluate performance reviews. ***These continue to be the “kiss of death” for many employers since very few evaluators are willing to be honest and direct.
Consider partnering with credible 3rd parties to help design and implement compensation systems in order to comply with all applicable anti-discrimination laws.
As the 2021 construction season gets underway, and with an increasing number of construction projects being completed with a mix of union and non-union subcontractors, many workers have legitimate questions about their rights and responsibilities on such mixed-staffed projects. These questions especially can arise when a “dual-gate” system has been established (creating a “neutral” gate for union contractors and a separate, “reserved” gate for non-union contractors), or when a union is involved in different types of activities at the jobsite, such as picketing, bannering (erecting stationary signage or using the inflatable rat), or hand-billing (handing out flyers to the public).
This update does not address how project owners and general contractors can lawfully establish such dual-gate systems, but rather addresses common questions raised by subcontractors and their employees after such system has been established. Mostly, though, this update aims to dispel common myths and untruths perpetuated by union representatives that simply are contrary to established law under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
The following Q&A should allow you to answer those questions and, more importantly, educate workers (especially including union-represented workers) about their rights and responsibilities when there is a labor dispute at a mixed construction project.
Q:The unions have said they don’t have to “honor” a dual-gate system and that any picketing on the project means that the entire job is being picketed. Is that true?
A: This is not true. Under the NLRA, it is UNLAWFUL for a union to fail to properly honor a valid dual-gate system (for example, by picketing the gate designated for union contractors). If the union sets up its pickets at the “neutral” union gate, an Unfair Labor Charge can be filed and the NLRB will seek a federal court injunction to prevent the union from picketing the wrong gate.
Q:Isn’t it lawful for employees of union subcontractors to refuse to work while a picket is located at the project—even if there is a neutral gate for the union members to enter?
A.NO. It is NOT a lawful work stoppage for a union tradesperson to refuse to enter through a neutral gate. Such actions are NOT protected under the NLRA. Union workers can be disciplined/fired for refusing to enter and work through a neutral gate.
Q:What if a union Business Agent instructs or encourages union workers to refuse to enter through, or work “behind,” a lawful, neutral gate?
A:It is UNLAWFUL for a union or its Business Agent to instruct or encourage any employee to refuse to enter a neutral gate, or to leave a jobsite and refuse to work when there is a neutral gate established for those employees.
Q: Can the union take away employees’ pensions or blackball them if they enter a neutral gate?
A: NO! This is a common tactic used by unions and Business Agents to threaten their own members with loss of pension or other sanctions if they enter through a neutral gate and work. Such statements are completely and entirely false and unlawful. A union cannot punish—and cannot threaten to punish—any employee who enters a neutral gate and works.
Q: If the union is “bannering” or hand-billing, isn’t that the same as picketing?
A: NO. If the union is bannering (using stationary signage or the inflatable rat) or handing out flyers to the public, without normal picketing, the NLRB currently says that is NOT a picket line. It is not a lawful work stoppage to refuse to work during bannering/leafletting and, just like the above, it is illegal for a union to threaten or take action against employees who work in those circumstances.
SmithAmundsen’s Labor & Employment Group serves as labor counsel to multiple construction industry associations and has particular experience in helping owners, developers, GC’s and contractors maintain labor harmony. Knowing the law and separating fact from fiction goes a long way in ensuring construction projects get done on time and on budget.
Commercial air pilot and Air Force reservist Eric White filed a class action against United Airlines under the United Services Employee and Reemployment Right Act (USERRA) claiming United violated USERRA by not providing paid military leave to the same extent as other paid leave. The district court dismissed White’s lawsuit, but last month the 7th Circuit ruled that paid leave falls within the definition of “rights and benefits” employees are entitled to pursuant to USERRA. The case has been sent back to district court.
Generally, USERRA provides that any person who is absent from work as a result of military service is deemed to be on a leave of absence and is “entitled to such other rights and benefits” provided to other employees under contract, policies and practices. In the lawsuit, White argued that the phrase “rights and benefits” is to be applied broadly and should include “paid leave.” Of significance, White also alleged that United not only deprived him of paid leave but also prevented him and others in his putative class, from fully participating in United’s profit sharing plan. United maintained that USERRA does not mandate paid leave.
In its decision, the 7th Circuit found that rights and benefits “captures all ‘terms, conditions, or privileges’ with no express limitation” and an employer’s policy of paying employees during a leave of absence is a term, condition or privilege of employment. Insofar as Congress chose not to include an exception to this rule, it should be applied broadly. The court also rejected United’s arguments that “Congress did not realize that it was opening the door to this kind of paid leave…and that [the Court’s] reading would effect a costly sea-change for public and private employers.” The court focused on the specific language of the statute and noted that “USERRA mandates only equality of treatment; and does not specify how generous or how parsimonious an employer’s paid leave policies must be.”
A number of district courts are dealing with similar cases and this 7th Circuit decision, a matter of first impression at the federal appellate level, will be leading the way. Employers should be reviewing policies as well as collective bargaining agreements and practices to ensure they have a handle on paid leave rights and benefits. You can and should evaluate any common policy or practice that is not on all fours with the legal requisites, as a common question of fact or law as to the employees could form the cornerstone of what could become a new wave of class action litigation. Employers should also be mindful of parallel state statutes that, in some instances, supplement and complement USERRA “rights and benefits.”