As we first discussed here, “ban the box” state laws and local ordinances are picking up traction nationwide. Measures vary in scope and nature, but the typical policy bars employers from asking for criminal history information on job applications. Instead, the employer may only obtain criminal background information after they determined the candidate is suited for the job. Four states and numerous municipalities have already banned the box for private employers, including Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Newark, New Jersey. Now, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has joined this growing group in passing the “Fair Chance Act,” an ordinance amending the City’s Police Code. Mayor Ed Lee approved the ordinance on February 14, 2014. Continue reading
Electronic cigarettes are battery-operated devices that emit vaporized doses of nicotine (or non-nicotine) that is inhaled. The vapor produced by e-cigarettes is smokeless and does not contain the amount of harmful chemicals that regular cigarettes have. Many fans of electronic cigarettes credit these devices with helping them to cut down on or quit smoking altogether. Continue reading
On Monday, the Obama Administration announced that for the second time in a year, employers with 50 to 99 employees will have extra time — until January 1, 2016 — before they are required to offer health insurance to almost all their full-time workers. Initially, the employer mandate was to take effect on January 1, 2014, but last summer, the Obama Administration delayed that deadline until January 1, 2015 for all employers. Continue reading
In 2011, the National Labor Relations Board issued a rule which would have allowed for so-called “quickie” union elections. Under current rules, the time between the filing of a petition for a union election and the election itself is generally over a month, at times even longer. Under the “quickie” rule, union elections could take place within a few weeks, putting unprepared employers at a significant disadvantage.
In 2012, the “quickie” rule was dealt a blow by a federal judge who found that the NLRB’s lack of a quorum at the time prohibited the rule from taking effect. Late last year, the NLRB decided not to seek further review of that decision.
It was no secret why the NLRB backed down: by last year, it had five Senate-approved members, which gave it a quorum and the ability to issue the rule again. Today, it did just that. The Board issued a press release stating that the “quickie” election rule would be issued on February 6, 2014 and would be identical in substance to the 2011 rule.
This is bad news for employers, as the procedural mishaps which hampered the 2011 rule have been addressed and no longer exist. In all likelihood, the rule will take effect in 2014.
What should employers do to prepare? Employers need to ensure that supervisors know what to do when confronted with talk by employees about union activity. The single best way to accomplish that is by conducting preventative labor relations training with supervisors so that they know the telltale signs of union activity and the best practices for confronting it.
For years, plaintiffs’ lawyers have brought class actions against employers seeking compensation for time spent by employees putting on and taking off protective gear. The numbers have been staggering, as eight figure settlements have become commonplace. That is especially true in industries using heavy machinery, like poultry producers.
The Department of Labor has taken the position that time spent by employees changing clothes is compensable when it is “so directly related to the specific work the employee is employed to perform that [it] would be regarded as an integral part of the employee’s ‘principal activities.’” So, getting dressed to go to work in the morning is not compensable for an employee in a professional workplace. But, what about an employee who has to wear protective gear at work? According to the DOL, that time ordinarily is compensable. For example, in a 2005 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court found that time spent donning and doffing protective gear by employees in a poultry plant was compensable because it was integral to their work.
However, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) contains an exception to that rule for employees who work under a collective bargaining agreement. Under the FLSA, an employer and a union can agree that time spent “changing clothes” can be excluded from working time. Often, employees who wear the protective gear that is commonly the subject of these suits work in unionized workplaces, so this exception to the rule has been heavily litigated.
The plaintiffs’ bar maintains that time spent “donning” and “doffing” protective gear is not “changing clothes” and therefore cannot be excluded in a union contract. Why? They argue: (1) protective gear are not “clothes”; and (2) no clothes are being “changed” — they are merely being put on top of an employee’s street clothes.
After decades of uncertainty, the U.S. Supreme Court entered the fray and, for once, issued a unanimous decision favoring employers. In Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., the Court found that a union contact can, in most cases, exclude time spent donning and doffing protective gear is non-compensable under the FLSA and, in so doing, rejected most of the arguments set forth by the plaintiffs’ bar. It rejected the argument that “clothes” do not include protective gear. And it rejected the notion that putting on protective gear was not “changing” clothes if an employee put the gear over his street clothes.
In this particular case, the Court found that most of the gear involved — a jacket, pants, a hood, a hardhat, gloves, leggings, and boots — were “clothes” that could be excluded from compensation in a collective bargaining agreement. It did, however, find that glasses, earplugs and a respirator are not “clothes.” But on that last point, it found that if the majority of the time spent by employees was spent donning and doffing “clothes,” the fact that non-”clothes” were involved did not render any time spent donning and doffing them compensable.
For employers operating under a union contract, this a big win. They now enter bargaining knowing that this time can be excluded and their litigation risks significantly minimized.
It has been almost eight years since the United States Supreme Court decided the Lilly Ledbetter case under Title VII and six years since President Obama invited Ledbetter to attend his State of the Union address. You may or may not remember that Ledbetter’s attempt to sue under the theory that the statute of limitations on 25+ years of discriminatory wage decisions by Goodyear reset with each paycheck was roundly rejected by the Supreme Court. Shortly after Obama’s inauguration, he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Pub.L. 111–2, S. 181) into law, amending Title VII to adopt Ledbetter’s statute of limitations argument for Title VII wage claims. The Equal Pay Act itself has a separate three year statute of limitations. Continue reading
A recent amendment to the California Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003 (“CalOPPA”) will require certain owners and operators of commercial websites and online service providers to change their posted privacy policies to include additional information. CalOPPA requires certain owners and operators to conspicuously post their privacy policies related to the collection of personally identifiable information (“PII”) on their websites. AB 370, signed into law on September 27, 2013 and effective January 1, 2014, now requires these owners and operators to include a discussion of their “do not track” signals in their privacy policies. “Do not track” signals are mechanisms that provide consumers a choice regarding the collection of PII related to consumers’ online activities over time and across different websites or online services. Continue reading
In EEOC v. Mach Mining LLC, the Seventh Circuit answered this question in the negative. Finding that the EEOC’s failure to adequately conciliate was not a valid defense as courts do not have the tools to adequately assess conciliation efforts, the court dismissed Mach Mining’s motion. Continue reading
While 2014 is by most accounts predicted to be a robust regulatory year for the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) and the Department of Labor (“DOL”), the initial start has commenced with only a sputter. Effectively “dead,” after the passing of yesterday’s deadline for the NLRB to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review decisions from the Fourth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeal, is the NLRB’s controversial “poster” regulation. As previously reported, in August 2011 the NLRB adopted a rule that required most private-sector employers to notify employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act by posting a notice where other employee notices are customarily posted, including on the employer’s website. An employer’s failure to do so would have been considered an unfair labor practice. The NLRB has decided not to seek review of that decision with the U.S. Supreme Court and, as a result, the Circuit Courts’ decisions invalidating the poster rule will stand. Continue reading
If you thought the California Department of Fair Employment (“DFEH”) was not busy monitoring compliance with employers’ sexual harassment prevention training obligations, think again. The DFEH recently entered into a settlement agreement with the City of San Diego concerning its failure to provide mandatory sexual harassment training to city supervisors, including elected and appointed officials. The issue came to the fore when former Mayor, Bob Filner, who resigned during the scandal, claimed in defense of sexual harassment charges brought against him by former staffers that the City had failed to provide him with the necessary sexual harassment prevention training. The DFEH jumped on this allegation, filed a Complaint, and, after investigating, entered into negotiations with San Diego to correct any problems. While San Diego’s City Attorney, Jan Goldsmith, noted that it is the mayor’s office that is responsible for compliance with the Fair Employment and Housing Act’s training requirements, she explained that in approving the settlement, the San Diego City Council had shown its support for the training protocol. Continue reading