Category Archives: Uncategorized

REMINDER/IMPORTANT WARNING: July 1 Minimum Wage Increases in Illinois, Cook County and the City of Chicago…and Major Expansion of What Employers are Covered by Chicago’s Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Leave Ordinance

Contributed by Michael Wong and Sara Zorich, June 26, 2020

It’s that time of year and even a pandemic will not stop Illinois, Cook County and the City of Chicago from increasing their minimum wages on July 1, 2020 as follows:

Non-Tipped EmployeesTipped Employees
(Claiming the Tip Credit)
Illinois (all employers)$10.00 per hour$6.00 per hour
Cook County (employers in
municipalities that did not opt-out)
$13.00 per hour$6.00 per hour*
*Technically, the Cook County Minimum Wage Ordinance for tipped employees only increases to $5.30. However, since that is less than the new State minimum wage for tipped employees of $6.00, following the Cook County Minimum Wage Ordinance for tipped employees would be a violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The July 1 change for the City of Chicago includes significant changes and new nuances that employers must be aware of, including different wage rates based on number and age of employees.

Large Employers
(21 or more employees)
Small Employers
(4 to 21 Employees; and Employers with 0 to 21 Domestic Workers)
Youth Workers
(Under 18, subsidized temporary youth employment program or transitional employment program)
Chicago$14.00 per hour$13.50 per hour$10.00 per hour
(same as State Min Wage)
Tipped Workers (Claiming the Tip Credit):Large EmployersSmall EmployersYouth Employers
Chicago$8.40 per hour$8.10$6.00
O’Hare and Midway Airport Certified Service Providers: $14.15 for non-tipped employees and $7.65 for tipped employees.

WARNING MAJOR CHANGES

However, the biggest change that employers must take note of does NOT pertain to the wage rate, but WHO will be subject to the City of Chicago’s Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Leave Ordinances. The Amendment to the Chicago Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Leave ordinance passed on November 11, 2019, redefines and expands what employers are covered. Currently, only employers who (1) maintain a business facility within the geographic boundaries of the city and/or (2) are subject to one or more of the City’s license requirements in Title 4 of the Chicago Code are subject to Chicago’s minimum wage and paid sick leave ordinances.

Chicago Minimum Wage

The City’s revisions that go into effect July 1 delete the requirement that an employer must have a business facility within the geographic boundaries of the City and/or be subject to the City’s license requirements to be covered. After July 1, the new definition for employer in the Chicago Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Leave ordinances will be “a person who gainfully employees at least one employee.”

Under this change, it can be interpreted that any employer who has an employee who performs at least two (2) hours of work within the geographic boundaries of the City, during any particular two-week period, must pay that employee the Chicago minimum wage for the time spent working within the City of Chicago.

Chicago Paid Sick Leave

Furthermore, the Chicago Paid Sick Leave ordinance uses the SAME definition for “Employer” as the Chicago Minimum Wage ordinance. This means that ANY employer who has ANY employee perform at least two (2) hours of work within the geographic boundaries of the City, during any particular two-week period, must document and record the amount of paid sick leave accrued by that employee for the time spent working in the City!

As an example of the potentially drastic nature of this change is this scenario: a Texas business sends its non-exempt employee to New York. The employee’s flight has a 2 ½ hour layover at O’Hare (O’Hare and Midway are both within the geographic boundaries of the City of Chicago). Technically under Chicago’s Paid Sick leave ordinance, the Texas business would have to record the amount of paid sick leave that the employee accrued during the 2 ½ hours that the employee was “working” in Chicago.

Any employer who has employees going into the City of Chicago, now MUST review and understand their obligations and whether they are subject to the Chicago Minimum Wage and Paid Sick leave ordinances after July 1.

Posters

For employers that are subject to the Cook County or Chicago minimum wage and paid sick leave ordinances, you will need to get the most up-to-date required poster, which can be found on the City of Chicago webpages for Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Leave in English or Spanish. Additionally, under Chicago’s new rules, employers will have to provide written notice each year with the first paycheck after July 1, whether by paper or electronic means.

The Cook County website has posters for Minimum Wage and Sick Leave that are only in English. Illinois has not updated its minimum wage poster (yet).

Employers that are unsure whether they must comply, what they must do to comply or that fail to implement compliant policies, including tracking sick leave accrual or carryover, should discuss options with employment counsel to mitigate exposure and minimize risk.

Forgiveness Requirements Relaxed with Passage of Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act

Contributed by Rebecca Dobbs Bush, June 5, 2020

On June 5, 2020, President Trump signed the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act. Notable changes will allow businesses more time to spend loan proceeds on permitted costs. This is significant relief for those businesses that were unable to continue operations and bring employees back to work.  With many of those employees being lower paid, paying them to stay at home was not well received as it interfered with the higher amounts of unemployment compensation they could otherwise receive.

The significant changes allowed by the PPP Flexibility Act are:

  • The period during which borrowers have to account for payroll and non-payroll expenses has been expanded from 8 weeks to 24 weeks.
  • Borrowers are only required to spend 60% on payroll costs and can spend 40% on non-payroll costs.  This is revised from the previous ratio of 75/25.  (Note that the definition of payroll and non-payroll costs remains unchanged).  This means a borrower has 16 weeks longer than originally legislated to cover rent and other permitted non-payroll costs.
  • Certain scenarios can provide for a borrower to be excused entirely from the FTE calculation. This means an employer that is unable to maintain the same employee levels during the 24-week period may not need to have the forgiveness of a loan prorated based upon a reduction in their average FTEs.
  • Repayment terms are modified.  Notably, the first payment will not be required to be made within 6 months of loan origination.  Instead, a borrower has 10 months from either the date the covered period ends or from 12/31/20 (whichever is later) to apply for forgiveness.  Initial payment is not due until forgiveness is determined.
  • The previous “cure” deadline of 6/30/20 where borrowers could rehire employees and/or reinstate salary levels has been extended to 12/31/20.
  • PPP borrowers are permitted to utilize the provision of the CARES Act that permits delay of payment of payroll taxes.

Register Now! Complimentary Webcast: BACK IN BUSINESS: Returning Workers to the Workplace – May 29, 2020

“Business as usual” will be anything but for the foreseeable future. Business owners need to evaluate the issues and risks as they prepare to return workers to the workplace.
 
Join attorneys Jeff Risch and Suzannah Overholt on May 29th at 11:00 AM CT as they discuss how employers can get back to business as effectively as possible, including:

  • The latest guidance from local, state, and federal government on phasing in workers
  • Screening employees, including temperature checks at the door, and related privacy concerns
  • Protecting employees, including identifying appropriate PPE
  • Public transportation and commuting issues
  • Managing childcare issues
  • Avoiding discrimination claims and related pitfalls
  • Diminishing the threat of workers compensation claims
  • Supporting subcontractors/independent contractors without making them employees
  • Managing public relations
  • And more!

We hope you can join us for this timely webcast!

CDC Issues New Relaxed Guidelines for Safety Practices for Essential Workers Potentially Exposed to COVID-19

Contributed by John Hayes, April 10, 2020

An important question for employers in essential industries is whether its employees should come to work after potential exposure to COVID-19.  The previous guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) recommended employees stay home for 14 days after exposure.  However, late on April 8, 2020 the CDC issued new guidelines — abandoning the former restrictions — for employers of critical infrastructure workers in essential sectors such as health care, manufacturing, food and agriculture, information technology, and transportation.  The CDC guidance is designed to educate employers on the procedures to follow in allowing employees to return to work after having been exposed to the COVID-19, and to get employees in essential sectors back to work sooner rather than later.   

The CDC advises that critical infrastructure workers may be permitted to continue to work, or return to work, following potential exposure to COVID-19, provided they remain asymptomatic and additional precautions are implemented by the employer.  Specifically, the CDC says employers should adhere to the following practices when an employee has been potentially exposed to COVID-19 (a potential exposure means a household contact or having close contact within six feet of an individual that has confirmed or suspected COVID-19, up to 48 hours before the individual became symptomatic):

  • Pre-Screen: Employers should measure the employee’s temperature and assess symptoms prior to them starting work. Ideally, temperature checks should happen before the individual enters the facility.
  • Regular Monitoring: As long as the employee doesn’t have a temperature or symptoms, they should self-monitor under the supervision of their employer’s occupational health program.
  • Wear a Mask: The employee should wear a face mask at all times while in the workplace for 14 days after last exposure. Employers can issue facemasks or can approve employees’ supplied cloth face coverings in the event of shortages.
  • Social Distance: The employee should maintain 6 feet and practice social distancing as work duties permit in the workplace.
  • Disinfect and Clean work spaces: Clean and disinfect all areas such as offices, bathrooms, common areas, shared electronic equipment routinely.
  • Implement the CDC’s prior guidance for employers to plan and respond to COVID-19: Among other recommendations, increase air exchange in the workplace. 

The CDC further recommends that if the employee becomes sick during the day, they should be immediately sent home and surfaces in their workspace should be cleaned and disinfected pursuant to CDC guidelines.  Information on persons who had contact with the ill employee during the time the employee had symptoms and 2 days prior to symptoms should be compiled.  Others at the facility with close contact within 6 feet of the employee during this time would be considered exposed.

This is just the first step the federal government is taking towards reopening the country, and is only a small part in the ever-evolving guidance to employers from the CDC.  Employers of workers in an essential business sector should be mindful of these new guidelines issued by the CDC for both the safety of its workforce and potential pitfalls of allowing, or not allowing, an employee potentially exposed to COVID-19 to come to work.  We will continue to monitor this very fluid situation and issue updates here as soon as things change.

Families First Coronavirus Response Act: What It Means For Employers

Contributed by SmithAmundsen’s COVID-19 Task Force (Kelly Haab-Tallitsch, Rebecca Dobbs Bush, Suzannah Overholt, and Jeff Risch), March 15, 2020

On March 14, 2020, the U.S. House of Representatives passed House Bill 6201 (HR6201). The legislation seeks to protect private sector workers and government employees during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the legislation does not apply to any private sector employer with 500 or more employees. To be clear, the current legislation will regulate only those private sector employers who employ less than 500 employees. The Senate is expected to take up the bill early this week. The legislation would take effect within 15 days of enactment and expire on December 31, 2020.

HR6201 contains major changes to the FMLA as it seeks to provide job protected paid leave to any employee who has been on the job for at least 30 days – for up to 12 weeks – related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The legislation also mandates up to 80-hours of paid sick leave for reasons related to COVID-19. It also provides $1 billion in additional funding to the Unemployment Insurance (UI) System and encourages states to relax UI eligibility requirements. Tax credits are provided to employers to help offset the financial cost of the paid leave.

Highlights of the legislation include:

PAID TIME OFF:

Emergency Paid Sick Leave – up to 80-hours for ALL employees working for a private employer with less than 500 employees or any public sector employer

HR6201 requires employers with fewer than 500 employees and all government employers to provide all employees up to 80-hours of paid sick leave, paid at the employee’s regular rate of pay in order to:

  1. self-quarantine if diagnosed with COVID-19;
  2. seek a diagnosis or care for symptoms of COVID-19; or
  3. comply with an order or recommendation by a public health official or health care provider to self-isolate due to exposure to or symptoms of COVID-19.

Additionally, this paid sick leave entitlement must also be available – at two-thirds the employee’s regular rate of pay – for employees to care for a family member for such purposes or to care for a child (under 18 years of age) whose school has closed or paid child care provider is unavailable due to the coronavirus.

Full-time employees are entitled to 2 weeks (80 hours) of paid leave and part-time employees are entitled to the average number of hours that they work in a typical two-week period. Paid sick leave under HR6201 must be provided in addition to any paid time off provided under an employer’s existing policies and employers may not require employees exhaust existing accrued paid time off prior to using emergency paid sick leave. The bill ensures employees who work under a multiemployer collective agreement are also provided such benefits that meet the requirements of the Act.

EXPANDED COVERAGE FOR FMLA:

Paid Family and Medical Leave — up to 12 weeks for employees employed for 30 or more days by a private employer with less than 500 employees or any public sector employer

Employees of employers with fewer than 500 employees or government employers, who have been on the job for at least 30 calendar days, have the right to take up to 12 weeks of job-protected leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act to be used for any of the following reasons:

  • To comply with a requirement or recommendation by a public health official or health care provider that the presence of the employee in the workplace would jeopardize the health of others due to the employee’s exposure to or symptoms of coronavirus;
  • To care for a family member who is adhering to a requirement or recommendation by a public health official or health care provider to quarantine due to exposure to or symptoms of coronavirus; and
  • To care for a child (under 18 years of age) of an employee if the child’s school or place of care has been closed, or the child-care provider is unavailable, due to coronavirus

The first 2-weeks of time off for the above reasons are unpaid under the FMLA, but the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Law requires that an employee is paid during that time period, as described above.  After the first 2-weeks of leave under the FMLA, employees will be entitled to receive a benefit from their employers that will be no less than two-thirds (2/3rd) of the employee’s usual pay. The bill ensures employees who work under a multiemployer collective agreement and whose employers pay into a multiemployer plan are provided with leave.

Certain small employers can be exempt from this expanded FMLA coverage if they meet a “viability” exception.  While we can assume the general intent behind the exception, the precise mechanism and process for such an exception is subject to US DOL regulation yet to be published.

The Act also clarifies that individuals that are subject to a multiemployer collectively bargained agreement and whose employers pay into a multiemployer plan must be provided with leave and benefits on par with the benefits provided under the Act.

PAYROLL CREDIT FOR PAID LEAVE

HR6201 provides a refundable tax credit applied to the employer portion of the Social Security payroll tax equal to 100 percent of paid sick leave and family leave wages paid by an employer for each calendar quarter, subject to the following caps: Sick leave wages paid with respect to employees who must self-quarantine, obtain a diagnosis or care for symptoms, or comply with a self-isolation recommendation or order from a public health official or health care provider are capped at $511 per day for purposes of the payroll tax credit; Sick leave wages paid to employees caring for a family member or for a child whose school or place of care has been closed, are capped at $200 per day; and  Family leave wages under the expanded FMLA taken into account for each employee are capped at $200 per day and $10,000 for all calendar quarters.

If the credit exceeds the employer’s total Social Security payroll tax liability for any calendar quarter, the excess credit is refundable to the employer. Employers may elect to not have the credit apply. A similar refundable tax credit is available for self-employed individuals.

SmithAmundsen’s Labor & Employment COVID-19 Task Force is continuing to monitor all local, state and federal orders and legislative initiatives in these unprecedented times. Be assured that we will continue to provide updates where and when warranted. We will also be providing ongoing webinars on the subject to try and help employers operate as effectively and safely as possible. With that in mind, please do not hesitate to contact your SA relationship attorney in the days and weeks ahead for direct guidance. We are here 24/7.

BREAKING NEWS: Illinois Recreational Cannabis Law Protections for Employers & the Workplace Clarified!

Contributed by Jeffrey A. Risch, November 15, 2019As Illinois set out to become the first state to legalize recreational cannabis through statutory authority, the legislative intent for protections for employers and the workplace were intended to include some of the strongest in the nation. However, when the dust settled and the statutory framework was analyzed, there appeared to be room for reasonable minds to have differing opinions on what the law actually meant for the workplace.

22712583 - vector form icon

clipboard and pen.

On one hand, could employers lawfully implement reasonable, non-discriminatory drug testing policies aimed at prohibiting applicants and employees from lawfully using recreational cannabis and gaining or maintaining employment? On the other hand, would employers be violating the law if they did not hire someone who tested positive for THC or if they could not ultimately demonstrate that an employee was actually impaired while on the job? These sorts of questions lingered. A quick online search trying to find answers would only frustrate HR professionals, safety managers, and business owners further. Clarity was needed.Therefore, through the efforts of several business groups and trade associations (including the Illinois Chamber of Commerce) working across both political aisles, SB1557 passed the Illinois General Assembly on November 14, 2019. While SB1557 includes wrinkles for the licensing, manufacturing and distribution of recreational cannabis in Illinois, it also contains language found below designed to protect employers from litigation.In essence, the language attempts to clear up concern that an employer may have been required to show actual impairment in the workplace vs. simply being able to implement and follow a reasonable, non-discriminatory drug testing policy.   Specifically, Section 10-50 of the law will now read as follows (changes in bold):

(410 ILCS 705/10-50) Sec. 10-50. Employment; employer liability.(a) Nothing in this Act shall prohibit an employer from adopting reasonable zero tolerance or drug free workplace policies, or employment policies concerning drug testing, smoking, consumption, storage, or use of cannabis in the workplace or while on call provided that the policy is applied in a nondiscriminatory manner.(b) Nothing in this Act shall require an employer to permit an employee to be under the influence of or use cannabis in the employer’s workplace or while performing the employee’s job duties or while on call.(c) Nothing in this Act shall limit or prevent an employer from disciplining an employee or terminating employment of an employee for violating an employer’s employment policies or workplace drug policy.(d) An employer may consider an employee to be impaired or under the influence of cannabis if the employer has a good faith belief that an employee manifests specific, articulable symptoms while working that decrease or lessen the employee’s performance of the duties or tasks of the employee’s job position, including symptoms of the employee’s speech, physical dexterity, agility, coordination, demeanor, irrational or unusual behavior, or negligence or carelessness in operating equipment or machinery; disregard for the safety of the employee or others, or involvement in any accident that results in serious damage to equipment or property; disruption of a production or manufacturing process; or carelessness that results in any injury to the employee or others. If an employer elects to discipline an employee on the basis that the employee is under the influence or impaired by cannabis, the employer must afford the employee a reasonable opportunity to contest the basis of the determination.(e) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create or imply a cause of action for any person against an employer for:

  1. actions taken pursuant to an employer’s reasonable workplace drug policy, including but not limited to subjecting an employee or applicant to reasonable drug and alcohol testing, reasonable and nondiscriminatory random drug testing, and discipline, termination of employment, or withdrawal of a job offer due to a failure of a drug test; , including but not limited to subjecting an employee or applicant to reasonable drug and alcohol testing under the employer’s workplace drug policy, including an employee’s refusal to be tested or to cooperate in testing procedures or disciplining or termination of employment;actions based on the employer’s good faith belief that an employee used or possessed cannabis in the employer’s workplace or while performing the employee’s job duties or while on call in violation of the employer’s employment policies;actions, including discipline or termination of employment, based on the employer’s good faith belief that an employee was impaired as a result of the use of cannabis, or under the influence of cannabis, while at the employer’s workplace or while performing the employee’s job duties or while on call in violation of the employer’s workplace drug policy; orinjury, loss, or liability to a third party if the employer neither knew nor had reason to know that the employee was impaired.

(f) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to enhance or diminish protections afforded by any other law, including but not limited to the Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act or the Opioid Alternative Pilot Program.(g) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to interfere with any federal, state, or local restrictions on employment including, but not limited to, the United States Department of Transportation regulation 49 CFR 40.151(e) or impact an employer’s ability to comply with federal or state law or cause it to lose a federal or state contract or funding.(h) As used in this Section, “workplace” means the employer’s premises, including any building, real property, and parking area under the control of the employer or area used by an employee while in the performance of the employee’s job duties, and vehicles, whether leased, rented, or owned. “Workplace” may be further defined by the employer’s written employment policy, provided that the policy is consistent with this Section.(i) For purposes of this Section, an employee is deemed “on call” when such employee is scheduled with at least 24 hours’ notice by his or her employer to be on standby or otherwise responsible for performing tasks related to his or her employment either at the employer’s premises or other previously designated location by his or her employer or supervisor to perform a work-related task.

Additionally, much needed clarification for public employers was also included concerning how off duty use of cannabis by certain emergency personnel should be administered. The following was added to Section 10-35. Limitations and penalties:

(410 ILCS 705/10-35)(8) the use of cannabis by a law enforcement officer, corrections officer, probation officer, or firefighter while on duty; nothing in this Act prevents a public employer of law enforcement officers, corrections officers, probation officers, paramedics, or firefighters from prohibiting or taking disciplinary action for the consumption, possession, sales, purchase, or delivery of cannabis or cannabis-infused substances while on or off duty, unless provided for in the employer’s policies. However, an employer may not take adverse employment action against an employee based solely on the lawful possession or consumption of cannabis or cannabis-infused substances by members of the employee’s household. To the extent that this Section conflicts with any applicable collective bargaining agreement, the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement shall prevail. Further, nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit in any way the right to collectively bargain over the subject matters contained in this Act;

These changes help to better assure employers that they have the ability to implement fair, reasonable drug testing policies designed to protect their employees and the public. Recreational consumers will certainly have the legal right to use cannabis, but the employer should have the legal right to say “you better not have THC in your system to become or remain employed here.” Of course, any drug testing policy must be carefully vetted, designed, and implemented. After all, lawyers will be lawyers. 

While many questions still remain and medicinal usage requires a different analysis (for now) it appears employers can take better comfort and be more confident in creating policy designed to maintain a safe and healthy workplace through reasonable drug testing policies. However, employers must continue to carefully examine their own unique industry, risks and risk tolerances, together with their geographic footprint and applicant pool. The drug testing policy and drug-free workplace program for the “widget manufacturer” in Peoria is likely to be vastly different than that of the “accounting firm” in Schaumburg.

The Doctor is In – At Amazon

Contributed by Suzannah Wilson Overholt, October 30, 2019

Studio macro of a stethoscope and digital tablet with shallow DOF evenly matched abstract on wood table background copy space

Last year we reported on Haven Healthcare, the venture started by Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and J.P. Morgan. Amazon has now announced a pilot program for its employees in Seattle that puts a modern spin on employer provided health care.

Announced in September, Amazon Care  provides telemedicine and in-person health care services. Employees can see a provider via a mobile app or website and text a nurse on any health topic. If follow-up care is needed, a nurse can make a home visit. Amazon contracted with a private practice for the nurse visits to collect lab samples, perform some testing (e.g. strep throat), administer common vaccines, and perform physical examinations. Courier Care delivers medications to employees’ homes (likely linked to Amazon’s earlier purchase of medication delivery company PillPack).

This announcement follows Amazon’s hiring of a health care technology expert and a physician who supervised a chain of health clinics in Seattle. Amazon strengthened the telemedicine component of Amazon Care last week when it purchased Health Navigator, which supports medical providers through automated technology.  Health Navigator has a tool that recognizes a patient’s written complaints and acts like a doctor would when listening to a patient describe symptoms. The company also has a health “bot” chat function that asks a patient questions and then interprets the answers to recommend next steps for care. A “diagnosis symptom checker” generates a list of possible causes for a symptom based on a patient’s responses to questions. 

Amazon Care is not connected to the employees’ regular health care providers, which may limit coordinated care. However, Amazon maintains that the program is a supplement to, not a substitute for, health insurance already offered to its employees. Only employees who participate in Amazon’s health plans can participate in Amazon Care. 

Amazon’s model is a far cry from the employer sponsored health clinics of yesteryear and reflects a growing trend among employers interested in controlling health care costs. Employers hope such clinics will prevent chronic diseases among their workforce through a renewed emphasis on primary care and improve productivity since employees do not have to miss time from work for doctors’ appointments. They are also a recruiting (and retention) tool.  Clinic operators have been exploring ways to use technology or develop new models to extend the reach of their services.  

In 2018, a-third of U.S. employers with 5,000 or more employees offered general medical worksite clinics, up from 24% in 2012. Many of these employers contract with third-party clinic operators, creating a growing market for such companies. Health systems operate about 18% of worksite clinics

Amazon’s model is different, however, because Amazon is self-insured and is creating its own health care system separate from the existing market by contracting directly with providers and acquiring the assets to provide telemedicine services. This appears to be an introduction to Haven Healthcare’s objective and could have wide ranging implications for insurers, health care providers and employers by restructuring the manner in which health care is provided and coordinated. We will continue to monitor this developing trend and provide further updates.  

US DOL Issues Final Rule on Salary Threshold for Exempt Status

Contributed by Sara Zorich, September 24, 2019

In a follow up to our recent post, the US Department of Labor (DOL) has now issued its final rule regarding the salary thresholds for exempt status. The final rule will go into effect on January 1, 2020 and establishes the following rules:

  1. Salary exempt employees must earn at least $684/week (equivalent to $35,568 per year for a full-year worker) (which is slightly more than was proposed in March 2019 due to inflation/updated data but less than was proposed during the Obama Era);
  2. Employers can use non-discretionary bonuses and incentive payments that are paid at least annually to satisfy up to 10% of the salary basis for the white collar exemptions (if this is utilized the minimum salary paid can be no less than $615.60/week) (however, it should be noted that (1) if the employee does not earn the bonus the employer will need to pay the amount anyway no later than one week from the end of the 52 week period or the salary basis will not be met and (2) if the employee leaves employment before the bonus is paid/earned the employer will have to pay the pro-rata share of the bonus at termination to ensure the minimum salary threshold was met);
  3. In order to qualify for the “highly compensated exemption” employees must earn at least $107,432/year (formerly $100,000/year) and must be paid at least $684/week (however, Illinois employers should note this is not applicable in Illinois because Illinois did not adopt the highly compensated exemption); and
  4. Revises the special salary level for the motion picture industry and US territories.

We anticipate the new rule will receive legal challenge. However, litigation is unpredictable, so employers should begin preparing now to ensure they are ready for January 1, 2020.

Does Your Attendance Policy Violate the FMLA?

Contributed by Steven Jados, September 5, 2019

The recent decision in Dyer v. Ventra Sandusky, LLC, issued by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (which has jurisdiction over Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee), should motivate employers to take another look at whether their attendance policies run afoul of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

There are plenty of gray areas in the law, but it is generally clear that employees are not to be disciplined because they are absent for FMLA-covered reasons. That also means that employees should not accumulate attendance “points,” e.g., under a no-fault attendance policy, for FMLA-covered absences when such points can contribute to discipline up to and including termination of employment.

Clocking In

To its credit, the employer in Dyer did not assign attendance points for FMLA-covered absences.  But unfortunately for the employer, that is not the end of the story.

Under the employer’s attendance policy, employees were eligible for a one-point “reduction” of their attendance point balance for every 30-day period in which the employee had “perfect attendance.” The employer’s definition of perfect attendance was not self-explanatory.  For instance, an employee could be absent for several different reasons — including vacation, bereavement, jury duty, military duty, holidays, and union leave — and still have “perfect attendance” and eligibility for attendance point reductions.

However, FMLA-covered absences were not included among the types of absences that preserved perfect attendance status and point-reduction eligibility. And if an employee had a FMLA-covered absence, his progress toward the 30-day point reduction goal was reset to zero.

The Sixth Circuit noted that the FMLA’s regulations generally require that an employee not lose benefits while on FMLA leave. Because attendance point reductions (and progress toward such reductions) are benefits, the Sixth Circuit noted that, at the very least, progress toward the 30-day goal should be frozen while employees are on FMLA leave, rather than being reset to zero. The court also indicated that if other “equivalent,” but non-FMLA forms of leave were counted toward the 30-day goal, then FMLA-covered absences should also be counted toward the 30-day goal.

The bottom line is that the Dyer decision instructs employers that disciplinary and benefit policies must be closely scrutinized to determine whether they might dissuade employees from taking FMLA leave — or otherwise harm employees who take FMLA leave. If harm results, or if employees are faced with the decision of taking FMLA leave or forgoing benefits, potential exposure to liability under the FMLA may exist.