Monthly Archives: July 2018

July 19, 2018

FAQs About Implementing Arbitration Agreements and Class Action Waivers

Bryan Benard

In late May, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that arbitration agreements between an employer and an employee to resolve employment disputes through one-on-one arbitration do not violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In a huge win for businesses, the Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis decision means that employers may use arbitration agreements to prohibit employees from filing and joining class or collective action lawsuits in employment-related matters.

In the weeks since SCOTUS’s decision, organizations have asked important and thoughtful questions on how to implement and use arbitration agreements and class action waivers with their employees. Although no guidance is “one-size-fits-all,” these FAQs may help answer common issues that come up.

Why Should We Use an Arbitration Agreement?

By requiring that employees resolve employment disputes through arbitration instead of filing a lawsuit in court, employers may benefit from numerous differences in both procedure and exposure. First, proceedings before a neutral arbitrator (or panel of arbitrators) are handled in private whereas lawsuits filed in a state or federal court are available to the public. In other words, unless documents are filed under seal, most court documents, hearings, and trials will be open to anyone, including reporters, competitors, other employees, etc. Consequently, requiring arbitration keeps publicity related to employment disputes at a minimum.

Second, procedures and evidentiary rules differ between arbitration and court proceedings. An employer may set forth in the arbitration agreement which arbitration rules will govern employment-related disputes. In addition, the employer and employee (and their attorneys) mutually select an arbitrator whereas the parties to a court action do not have input into the judge assigned to their lawsuit. In addition, an arbitrator has broad discretion over discovery and need not follow formal discovery and civil procedure rules that govern the courts (which may or may not be desirable in a given context). Finally, although there are some grounds for judicial review, arbitration awards generally cannot be appealed, meaning that disputes can get to a final resolution quicker.

What are the Benefits of a Class Action Waiver?

A class action waiver is typically one provision within an arbitration agreement stating that the employee agrees to resolve employment disputes on an individual basis and agrees to refrain from pursuing or joining any class or collective actions in conjunction with his or her fellow employees. By having employees waive class actions, businesses may avoid lengthy and expensive class action lawsuits that often involve hundreds, even thousands, of current and/or former employees nationwide. In addition, attorneys who represent employees are unlikely to receive the millions in attorneys’ fees that can be awarded as class counsel when forced to represent employees on an individual basis.

Are There Any Downsides to Using an Arbitration Agreement and/or Class Action Waiver?

Sure, it is possible that mandatory arbitration agreements and class action waivers may not be a good fit for every employer or for use with every employee. Although generally viewed as a benefit to employers, private arbitration can mean that resolution of an issue with one employee does not bind or even influence the resolution of that same issue with other employees. Accordingly, some employers may want to have a court rule on the lawfulness of a particular policy or practice so that it has more certainty for future enforcement. Also, smaller companies may not see the benefit in separately litigating each employee’s dispute in a separate proceeding if the company only has a handful of employees—meaning that in some situations, addressing multi-plaintiff cases could be less expensive if the pool of employees is relatively small.

In addition, arbitration is not always less expensive than court litigation since the employer is generally required to pay its own attorneys’ fees as well as most of the arbitration and arbitrator fees. There is also criticism and skepticism leveled at arbitration, on the theory that arbitrators will not grant motions to dismiss or summary judgment motions, or may attempt to “split the baby” rather than making tough decisions in favor of employers. Finally, a remote but possible scenario in a tight labor market is that key employees may refuse to agree to these mandatory agreements resulting in the loss of good talent or skilled, experienced workers.

May We Make New Employees Sign a Class Action Waiver as a Condition of Employment?

Generally, yes. You may make it a condition of employment that new hires sign a mandatory arbitration agreement with a class action waiver. Read more >>

July 17, 2018

New Colorado Data Privacy Requirements Apply to Employers

Dustin Berger

By Dustin D. Berger

Organizations that employ workers in Colorado will soon face more stringent data privacy requirements, thanks to new legislation signed into law by Governor Hickenlooper at the end of May. This new law, HB 18-1128, imposes new obligations on all covered entities in the state that maintain documents that contain personal identifying information of Colorado residents. These obligations go into effect on September 1, 2018. Here are the highlights of the new requirements and steps employers should take to comply.

Practically All Employers Will Be Affected by the New Law

The new law applies to a “covered entity,” which is essentially defined as any individual or entity “that maintains, owns, or licenses personal identifying information”—regardless of how much business the covered entity does within Colorado. The statute defines “personal identifying information” as “a social security number; a personal identification number; a password; a pass code; an official state or government-issued driver’s license or identification card number; a government passport number; biometric data; an employer, student, or military identification number; or a financial transaction device.”

Because virtually all employers maintain information on their employees that is considered personal identifying information, such as social security numbers, employer identification numbers, passport numbers, or driver’s license numbers, employers with Colorado employees will be subject to the requirements of the new law.

The key provisions in the new law are its requirements that covered entities: (1) maintain reasonable security procedures and practices; (2) establish and follow a written policy for the destruction of personal information when it is no longer needed; (3) ensure that third-party service providers handling their personal information have implemented and maintained reasonable security procedures and practices; and (4) follow the law’s notification procedures when it becomes aware that a security breach “may have” occurred.

1. Reasonable Security Procedures and Practices

HB 18-1128 creates a new statutory section, C.R.S. § 6-1-713.5, that requires covered entities to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect personal identifying information from unauthorized access, use, modification, disclosure, or destruction. While not specifying exactly what type of security procedures are required, the new provision states that such procedures must be appropriate to the nature of the personal identifying information and the nature and size of the business and its operations.

If a covered entity discloses personal identifying information to a third-party service provider, it must require that the service provider implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices, as outlined in number 3 below.

2. Disposal of Documents Containing Personal Identifying Information

Colorado has had a statute governing the disposal of documents containing personal identifying information since 2004, but the new legislation amends C.R.S. § 6-1-713 to expand covered entities’ responsibilities with respect to personal identifying information. Now, the disposal requirements apply to documents that are kept electronically as well as those kept in paper form. The new law also requires that covered entities implement a written policy specifying that the entity shall destroy (or arrange for destruction of) the documents by making the information unreadable or completely indecipherable.

3. Ensure Third-Party Service Providers Have Reasonable Security Procedures

If a covered entity discloses personal identifying information to a third-party service provider, the covered entity must now require the service provider implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices that are reasonably designed to help protect the information from unauthorized access, use, modification, disclosure, or destruction, as appropriate to the nature of the information disclosed to the service provider. A third-party service provider is defined as an entity that has been contracted to maintain, store, or process personal identifying information on behalf of a covered entity.

4. Security Breach Notification Requirements Enhanced

The new law significantly amends Colorado’s statute governing notifications of a security breach, C.R.S. § 6-1-716. A “security breach” is defined, in relevant part, as the unauthorized acquisition of unencrypted computerized data that compromises the security, confidentiality, or integrity of personal information maintained by a covered entity.

Under the new provisions, a covered entity has no more than 30 days to provide notice of a security breach. Notice must be made to affected Colorado residents in a very specific manner including notice by mail, telephone, electronically, or by substitute notice, and must contain a myriad of information regarding the breach and options that are available to the affected person. If a breach is reasonably believed to have affected 500 Colorado residents or more, the entity also must provide notice of the breach to the Colorado Attorney General.

And, unlike the previous law, the 30-day period begins to run when the covered entity becomes aware that a “security breach may have occurred.” In the prior version of the law, the 30-day period did not begin to run until the covered entity became aware of a breach. This change is likely to increase the pressure on covered entities to timely respond to indicators and predictors of a security breach.

Sanctions

Employers who violate the law can face enforcement proceedings from the Colorado Attorney General or the district attorneys of the state. These proceedings can result in civil penalties of up to $2,000 per affected person, up to a maximum of $500,000 per incident. They also can be liable directly to affected persons who are harmed by the violation.

Steps for Employers to Take

The new data security requirements go into effect on September 1, 2018, so employers who maintain personal identifying information on Colorado residents have little time to prepare to comply. Steps to take include:

Develop and implement reasonable practices designed to protect personal identifying information from unauthorized access, use, or disclosure (e.g., password-protection, encryption, etc.) that are commensurate with the sensitivity of the personal identifying information.
Create a written policy regarding the destruction and disposal of paper and electronic documents containing personal identifying information.
Review agreements with third-party service providers to ensure that service providers have reasonable procedures to protect the security of personal identifying information provided to them.
If you have a security incident response plan, update it to reflect the changes in the law.
If you do not have a security incident response plan, prepare one to ensure that you can meet the new law’s notification requirements.

July 3, 2018

California Supreme Court Changes Test for Independent Contractor Status

Bryan Benard

by Bryan Benard

For purposes of compliance with California wage orders, a company seeking to establish that a worker is an independent contractor rather than an employee now must meet a three-part test, according to a recent opinion by California’s highest court. This new test is a significant departure from the previous multi-factor test that has been the standard in California since 1989.

The New “ABC” Test

The Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) regulates wages, hours, and working conditions in California, and issues wage orders that specify required minimum wages, meals and lodging credits, exemptions, meal and rest periods, seating and temperature requirements, and other work-related requirements in the state. These wage orders apply to employees, not to independent contractors, so the IWC’s definition of what it means to “employ” an individual is key in determining proper classification. Under the IWC’s wage orders, “employ” means “to engage, suffer or permit to work.”

In its recent decision, the California Supreme Court stated, “[i]n determining whether, under the suffer or permit to work definition, a worker is properly considered the type of independent contractor to whom the wage order does not apply, it is appropriate to look to a standard, commonly referred to as the “ABC” test, that is utilized in other jurisdictions in a variety of contexts to distinguish employees from independent contractors.” Dynamex Operations West, Inc., v. Superior Court, S222732 (Cal. Apr. 30, 2018). Under the ABC test, a hiring company must establish the following three factors in order to show that a particular worker (or group of workers) should be considered an independent contractor rather than an employee:

A. that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact;

B. that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and

C. that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business.

If the hiring company is unable to prove any one of these three parts of the test, the worker will be considered an included employee for purposes of the California wage order, not an independent contractor.

Previous Borello Test Abandoned

By setting forth the ABC test for independent contractor status under the wage orders, the Court rejected the previously accepted test which had been in place since 1989. The so-called Borello test was established by the California Supreme Court in the case of S.G. Borello & Sons Inc. v. Dep’t of Industrial Relations, and it set forth a multi-factor test for determining independent contractor status, relying primarily on the principal factor of whether the person to whom service is rendered has the right to control the manner and means of accomplishing the result desired. The Borello test also included nine additional factors that were not to be considered separate tests, but instead were intertwined and whose weight would often depend on the particular circumstances of employment/engagement.

In establishing the new three-part ABC test, the Court stated that its “interpretation of the suffer or permit to work standard is faithful to its history and to the fundamental purpose of the wage orders and will provide greater clarity and consistency, and less opportunity for manipulation, than a test or standard that invariably requires the consideration and weighing of a significant number of disparate factors on a case-by-case basis.”

Consequently, going forward the ABC test now replaces the Borello test for determining independent contractor status for purposes of the California wage orders. An open question is whether the new test will apply retroactively to existing and/or past worker relationships or prospectively only. Reports state that the California Employment Law Council has filed an amicus request to ask the Court to clarify whether the new test is prospective only.

Wage-and-Hour Class Certification at Issue

The new ABC test arose out of a delivery company’s challenge to class certification of a class of delivery drivers whom the company treated as independent contractors. The drivers alleged that they had been misclassified and were instead employees, entitled to the wages and protections afforded by the relevant wage order.

Applying the new ABC test to the delivery drivers in the case, the Court concluded that there was a sufficient commonality of interest to support the certification of the proposed class. In particular, the Court wrote that there is sufficient commonality of interest under part B of the test as the hiring entity is a delivery company and the work performed by the proposed class is as delivery drivers. This means that in this case, deciding whether the certified class performed work within or outside the company’s usual course of business would be determinable on a class basis. Similarly, with regard to part C of the test, the Court found that there would be sufficient commonality on whether the drivers engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business, as the class was limited to drivers who performed delivery services only for Dynamex. As a result, the Court upheld the class certification.

California Employers Should Re-examine Independent Contractor Status

The new ABC test will apply to the IWC’s wage orders, meaning that California employers who classify any workers as independent contractors should review whether they meet the new ABC test. If they do not meet all three prongs of the new test, they should be reclassified and treated as employees under the applicable wage orders. At present, this ruling will not change the test for independent contractor status for any purposes other than the wage orders, such as for unemployment or workers’ compensation purposes.