Category Archives: Uncategorized

Salary History Inquiry Bill Down But Far From Out

Contributed by Noah A. Frank, September 19, 2017

wage

On June 28, 2017, HB 2462, an amendment to the Illinois Equal Pay Act, passed both chambers of Illinois General Assembly. The bill would have made an employer’s inquiry into an applicants’ wage, benefits, and other compensation history an unlawful form of discrimination. Even worse for Illinois employers, the bill would allow for compensatory damages, special damages of up to $10,000, injunctive relief, and attorney fees through a private cause of action with a five (5) year statute of limitations.

On August 25, 2017, Governor Rauner vetoed the bill with a special message to the legislature that, while the gender wage gap must be eliminated, Illinois’ new law should be modeled after Massachusetts’s “best-in-the-country” law on the topic, and that he would support a bill that more closely resembled Massachusetts’ law.

The bill, which passed 91 to 24 in the House, and 35 to 18 in the Senate, could be reintroduced as new or amended legislation following the Governor’s statement, or the General Assembly could override the veto (71 votes are needed in the House, and 36 in the Senate, so this is possible) with the current language.

Why is this important?

With the Trump Administration, we have seen an increase in local regulation of labor and employment law. This means that employers located in multiple states, counties, and cities must carefully pay attention to the various laws impacting their workforces. Examples of this type of “piecemeal legislation” we have already seen in Illinois and across the country include local ordinances impacting minimum wage, paid sick leave, and other mandated leaves. Additionally, laws that go into effect in other jurisdictions may foreshadow changes at home as well (e.g., Illinois’s governor pointing towards Massachusetts’s exemplary statue).

Had it become law, this amendment would have effective required employers to keep applications and interview records (even for those they did not hire) for five years to comply with the statute of limitations for an unlawful wage inquiry (the Illinois Equal Pay Act already imposes a five year status of limitations for other discriminatory pay practices). By contrast, under Federal law, application records must be kept for only one year from the date of making the record or the personnel action involved (2 years for educational institutions and state and local governments).

What do you do now?

While the law has not gone into effect as of the date of this blog, it is likely that some form of the salary history amendment will ultimately become law in Illinois. Businesses should carefully review their job applications, interview questions, and related policies to avoid inquiries that may lead to challenges in the hiring process.

Additionally, record retention (and destruction!) policies should be reviewed for compliance with these and other statutes – as well as to ensure data integrity and security.

Finally, seek the advice of experienced employment counsel for best practices in light of national trends to remain proactive with an ounce of prevention

The Trouble with 401(k) Investment Policies

Contributed by Rebecca Dobbs Bush, September 15, 2017

If I had a dollar for every time this conversation occurred…

Lawyer: Do you have a copy of your investment policy?

                Client: Who would have been the one to write that?  Us? Our broker/advisor?

Or, this one…

Lawyer: Is your investment advisor serving as a fiduciary to your plan?

                Client: What does that mean? How would I determine that?

17800977 - an ornate clock with the words time to invest on its faceThe most common area in which 401(k) plans are being scrutinized these days is in their selection and design of investment offerings. While participants often get to direct how their funds are invested, that direction is limited to only those investment offerings that an employer/sponsor makes available as part of the 401(k) plan.

Employers typically rely on investment advisors to help design the options available to participants. In some cases, options are limited depending on the total dollars invested in the plan. In many cases, the investment advisor provides the employer with a model investment selection policy to customize and adopt.

While a model policy is a helpful starting place, in many cases the employer, not quite sure what to do with it, never customizes the model policy and instead sticks it away in a file. The policy is then often forgotten and not reviewed or even referenced each time investment offerings are scrutinized. It is impossible to ensure the selection and design of the investment offerings is in line with the policy if the policy has been completely forgotten.

Every employer that offers a 401(k) plan should ask themselves the following:

  1. What fiduciary status does the plan’s investment advisor maintain? (i.e., who really has the final say on investment option design and selection for the plan?); and
  2. What is our 401(k) investment policy and what are we doing to make sure it’s understood and being followed by decision-makers for the plan?

An employer that can’t answer these questions is not only vulnerable to potential litigation, but also risks the potential of not maximizing the invested assets of all participants.

In most cases with a 401(k) plan, an employer is supposed to serve as a trusted fiduciary maintaining a multi-million dollar investment portfolio on behalf of their employees.  With that much at stake, an employer needs to make sure it is selecting and monitoring investments, along with a skilled investment advisor, carefully and diligently.

How Will the End of the Deferred Action For Childhood Arrival (DACA) Affect Employers?

Contributed by Sara Zorich, September 14, 2017

On September 5, 2017, the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security rescinded the memorandum issued during the Obama administration that had established the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) program, announcing that it will be phased out over the next six months, allowing Congress time to craft a “permanent legislative solution.”

Ending DACA will affect not just the people covered under the program, but also thousands of employers nationwide. A controversial Obama-era policy, DACA has been a program where certain people who came to the United States as minors without documentation, yet met several guidelines, could request consideration of deferred removal proceedings and request authorization to live and work in the United States legally. Currently, the program shields around 800,000 young undocumented immigrants from deportation and allows them to work legally.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration ServicesU.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued new guidance on their website as of September 5, 2017 regarding initial DACA requests and DACA renewals. Here are the key points to note:

  • DACA beneficiaries will not be affected until after March 5, 2018—six months from the date of the announcement
  • No new DACA applications will be considered, but applications filed by September 5, 2017 will still be processed
  • Current DACA recipients whose permits and or work authorization expires between now and March 5, 2018, have until October 5, 2017 to apply for renewal of these benefits

In light of this change, employers are recommended to review their Form I-9’s and identify any individual whose work authorization is going to expire on or before March 5, 2018. Employers should notify these employees of the date their work authorization will expire and remind them that the company cannot continue to employ the employee past this expiration date unless the employee is able to provide proof of continued work authorization. To reiterate, any DACA renewals must be filed no later than October 5, 2017 or USCIS will not process them. Read the USCIS announcement for details.

However, some Employment Authorization Document (EAD) categories (other than DACA) have been granted a 180 day automatic extension to the employee’s work authorization deadline. Visit the USCIS website for more information on the eligibility requirements for the Automatic Employment Authorization Document (EAD) Extension. Thus, employers must be careful to follow the applicable guidelines when addressing the proper end date of an employee’s work authorization and reauthorization requirements.

Final Takeaway: Employers must understand that they MAY NOT discriminate and cannot refuse to hire an individual solely because that individual’s employment authorization document will expire in the future.

We anticipate that Congress may now attempt to fast track some type of immigration reform related to those persons that were formerly covered under DACA, but only time will tell.

Spoliation and the Dangers of Failing to Preserve Evidence

Contributed by Carlos Arévalo, September 12, 2017

In a case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. GMRI Inc., the EEOC recently argued that a restaurant chain acted in bad faith, and should be sanctioned for “spoliation” of evidence because, the EEOC claimed, it intentionally destroyed hiring data. It argued the destruction of evidence “prejudice[d] EEOC by opening the door for GMRI to attack EEOC’s statistical and anecdotal evidence, and to rely upon otherwise impermissible [defendant] favorable proxy data.”

investigate documents

Investigate and analyze magnifying glass and stack of documents

Among the allegedly destroyed evidence are emails the EEOC claimed would have established the fact that the managers for the defendant were instructed to hire “young.” In addition, the defendants are said to have intentionally shredded paper applications and interview booklets used for new restaurant openings that would have supported the EEOC’s allegations that the company had a pattern or practice of failing to hire applications over the age of 40. In response, GMRI argued that the EEOC is looking at sanctions because it has failed to find any evidence of age discrimination.

In a different case that has been pending in Colorado since 2010, the EEOC secured sanctions against an employer for its failure to produce records it claimed had been destroyed. In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. JBS USA LLC, the EEOC claimed that a meat-processing company failed to reasonably accommodate Muslim workers’ requests for prayer breaks. JBS asserted an undue burden affirmative defense throughout the case, arguing production line slowdowns and downtime would have been caused by allowing prayer breaks to Muslim employees. The EEOC sought discovery from JBS about its undue burden affirmative defense, specifically, all reports or data showing all dates and times the fabrication lines on any and all shifts were stopped, as well as the speed of the lines.

After years of maintaining these records were destroyed, JBS produced a number of reports it found in a warehouse; however, more records presumably stored in boxes at the warehouse could not be located. The Court sanctioned JBS for the loss or destruction of documents directly relevant to JBS’s allegations of undue hardship. The critical problem for JBS, as the Court noted, was the fact that JBS management knew “within a year” after downtime records were created that they were relevant to the EEOC investigation, yet still failed to set them aside for use in the litigation.

What is the lesson to be learned? 

EEOC v. GMRI Inc., teaches that the EEOC may claim spoliation and pursue sanctions against a defendant, even (or perhaps particularly) where the evidence does not readily support the EEOC’s allegations of discrimination. EEOC v. JBS USA, LLC provides an important lesson for businesses regarding the preservation of documents in ongoing litigation. As noted above, the critical problem for JBS was that JBS management knew downtime records were relevant yet still failed to preserve them.

Both cases illustrate the importance of immediately implementing Litigation Holds. Employers must, as a matter of course, establish appropriate procedures and work with staff, IT professionals, and legal counsel to ensure all relevant evidence is preserved.  Failure to preserve evidence may deprive defendant of an otherwise viable defense.

IMPORTANT DOL UPDATE: The Final Rule on Doubling White Collar Salaries Is Shot Down By Texas Judge

Contributed by Heather Bailey, September 6, 2017

31096470 - concept of time with businessman that hold an alarm clock

Concept of time with businessman holding a clock

Previously, we reported to you on the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) Final Rule that raised the minimum salary threshold required to qualify for the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (“FLSA”) “white-collar” exemptions (executive, professional and administrative classification) from $455 per week ($23,660 annually) to $913 per week ($47,476 annually) as of December 1, 2016 (see our prior articles: U.S. DOL Publishes Final Overtime Rule and; Are you ready for December 1st? The FLSA Salary Changes Are Almost Here).

The Obama administration’s goal with this Final Rule, announced on 5/23/2016, was to give approximately 4 million workers the ability to earn overtime pay, instead of getting paid a fixed salary since many employers would not be able to afford to pay their otherwise exempt employees $47,476 annually. Implementation of this new rule had been temporarily stalled in a federal court in Texas just prior to it going into effect this past December 1st (see our prior articles: Court Enjoins DOL Overtime Rule and; Business Realities Under the Halted DOL Final Overtime Rule).

However, on August 31, 2017, Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas answered many business owners’ prayers by ruling the DOL indeed exceeded its authority by more than doubling the minimum salary threshold for exempting white-collar employees (see the full case here).

The judge did not say the DOL could not raise the minimum salary at all. Rather, relying heavily on Chevron, USA, Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), the judge stated that by more than doubling the current minimum threshold, the DOL effectively eliminated the need for looking to the employees’ actual duties and responsibilities—which was the essence of Congress’s intent when it created the FLSA white collar exemptions. The judge looked to the plain meaning of what it means to work in an executive, administrative and professional capacity concluding the primary focus was not the salary minimum but instead the actual duties and responsibilities.

What are the ramifications? The Department of Justice voluntarily dismissed its appeal of Judge Mazzant’s earlier preliminary injunction ruling putting the Final Rule on hold, so it seems unlikely it will appeal this ruling. However, this decision could catapult the Trump administration to issue a new rule providing for a more moderate increase in the minimum salary threshold – one that does not vitiate the primary focus of the “white collar” overtime exemptions: the employees’ actual duties and responsibilities.

Practice Tips:

  • The good news for now is that employers can continue to follow the previous DOL regulations for white collar exemptions (i.e., duties test and salary test).
  • If you did not do so previously, analyze your exempt positions to confirm they meet the duties test and are truly exempt positions. For example, is your manager truly a manager or is she really a lead worker? Is this manager hiring, firing and disciplining two or more employees?  Is your payroll clerk clearly just doing data entry or is he exercising independent discretion and judgment?  If the position does not meet the duties test, you transitioning the position to make it overtime eligible.
  • Ensure management is trained to enforce policies related to overtime pay such as those relating to working time, time clock procedures, meal and rest breaks, working off the clock issues, etc.
  • Did you already make changes to your employees’ pay or duties based upon the final rule going into effect on December 1, 2016?  While there are ways to change those decisions (i.e., you can change an employee’s pay moving forward for work not yet performed), you need to keep in mind morale issues for employees whose compensation may decrease either by way of a salary reduction or loss of overtime pay.  In these situations, it is highly recommended that you work with your counsel on determining the best practices for your business and your workforce.

With the judge’s ruling, many business owners will be able to find some comfort in being able to keep their exempt employees on a reasonable salary without having to break the bank.

Seventh Circuit Opinion Focuses on Employee Handbook in Determining Whether Employer had Constructive Notice of Non-Supervisory Sexual Harassment

Contributed by Allison P. Sues, August 22, 2017

Employee handbookOn August 2, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision in Nischan v. Stratosphere Quality, LLC providing clarity on what constitutes an employer’s “constructive notice” of harassment.

Michele Nischan worked as a project supervisor at Stratosphere Quality, LLC, a company that provides third-party inspection and quality-control services to car manufacturers. Nischan alleged that an employee of one of the client manufacturers “relentlessly” sexually harassed her by routinely rubbing himself against her and making offensive comments, amid other inappropriate actions.

Because the alleged harasser did not have supervisory authority over Nischan, Stratosphere could only be held liable for the alleged sexual harassment if it was negligent in discovering or remedying it. Normally, to prevail on this type of claim, the employee presents evidence that she made a concerted effort to report the harassment. Here however, it was undisputed that Nischan did not report the harassment during the relevant time period.

Nevertheless, an employer may be held liable even when an employee fails to report sexual harassment if the employer knew or should have known of the harassing conduct but failed to act. The Federal Appellate Court explained that constructive notice will generally attach when someone who has a duty to pass the information up the chain of command learns of the harassment.

Nischan claimed a fellow project supervisor (her peer) and an operations manager were both present when one of the incidents of harassment occurred. However she testified she was unsure whether the operations manager witnessed the harassment and he denied witnessing any conduct that constituted sexual harassment.  The lower court concluded there was no basis to impute liability to the employer because only her peer, not the higher level employee, knew of the harassment.

The Seventh Circuit disagreed.  Even though the project supervisor who witnessed the harassment held the same low level project supervisor position as Nischan and was not Nischan’s supervisor, the employer’s handbook required that any employee with any supervisory responsibility report observed instances of harassment up the chain of command or to human resources. The Seventh Circuit noted that the employer “is accountable to the standard of care it created for itself” and that because the employer’s own rules “required [the project supervisor] to report the sexual harassment that she observed, Stratosphere had constructive notice of the harassment.”

Bottom Line: This case serves as a reminder that each company’s unique employee policy may guide the court in determining an employer’s legal obligations. Employers should review their harassment and reporting policies and ensure that all employees that fall under its scope receive proper training on identifying harassing behavior—even if it is directed at another—and promptly reporting it.

You CAN Ask Your Employees To Be Happy! Federal Appeals Court Reins In National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)

Contributed by Beverly Alfon, August 17­, 2017

Labor LawMuch has been written and discussed about the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) attack on handbook policies over the past several years. The NLRB has found what many consider to be run-of-the-mill, standard policies that have, for many years, raised no issues or controversy, to be violative of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Last year, the NLRB struck down various policies in a handbook issued by T-Mobile, including one that encouraged employees to be professional and maintain a “positive work environment” in T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. NLRB, No. 16-60284 (5th Cir. 2017). In its decision, the Board reasoned: “[w]e find that employees would reasonably construe the rule to restrict potentially controversial or contentious communications and discussions, including those protected by Section 7 of the [NLRA], out of fear that the [employer] would deem them to be inconsistent with a ‘positive work environment.’” T-Mobile appealed the NLRB’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Specifically, T-Mobile challenged the Board’s determination that the following provisions from its employee handbook violated the NLRA because they discouraged unionizing or other concerted activity protected by the Act. Provision (1) encouraged employees to “maintain a positive work environment”; (2) prohibited “[a]rguing or fighting,” “failing to treat others with respect,” and “failing to demonstrate appropriate teamwork”; (3) prohibited all photography and audio or video recording in the workplace; and (4) prohibited access to electronic information by non-approved individuals.

On July 25, the Fifth Circuit held that the Board erred in finding that a reasonable employee would construe policies (1), (2), and (4) to prohibit protected activity. The Court reasoned:

In this case, where the record does not suggest that the rules have been applied in the context of union or collective activity, the ‘reasonable employee’ is a T-Mobile employee aware of his legal rights but who also interprets work rules as they apply to the everydayness of his job. The reasonable employee does not view every employer policy through the prism of the NLRA. Indeed, ‘[the Board] must not presume improper interference with employee rights.’

The Court did agree with the Board’s finding that a reasonable employee would construe policy (3) to prohibit protected activity. It reasoned that unlike the other policies such as the “workplace conduct” policy and “commitment –to-integrity” policy, the recording policy blanketedly forbids certain forms of clearly protected activity. For instance, it would prohibit an off-duty employee from taking a picture of a wage schedule. Notably, last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a similar NLRB decision on workplace recordings.

Bottom line: This federal appeals court decision in T-Mobile USA Inc. v. NLRB gives employers and their counsel additional basis for defending legitimate personnel policies in the face of numerous NLRB decisions issued over the past several years that have been viewed as an attempt to diminish management’s right to set basic employee standards in the workplace. However, it seems that blanket policies prohibiting workplace recordings continue to require careful wording and business justification.