Author Archives: admin

October 2, 2023

SEC Settlement A Reminder for Employers: Review Your Separation Agreements

Mark Wiletsky

Companies routinely use separation agreements with departing employees. Through those agreements, the employee receives some type of separation benefit (typically a payment or severance), and in exchange the employee waives and releases any potential claims against the company. The goal is to avoid an existing or potential dispute, claim, or lawsuit. But if companies do not routinely review and update those agreements, they risk the agreement being challenged or invalidated. Even worse, companies are sometimes investigated and forced to pay fines or penalties for provisions in these agreements. A recent settlement announced by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) provides a strong reminder to employees to regularly review and update agreements used with employees.

The Facts

On September 19, 2023, the SEC announced a settlement with a real estate services firm. According to the announcement, the company violated the SEC’s whistleblower protection rule with separation agreements it used between 2011 and 2022. The agreements contained a common provision: employees had to affirm that they had not filed a complaint about the company with any state or federal court or local, state, or federal agency. These types of representations are typically included in separation or settlement agreements to ensure that any pending complaint or charge is resolved in conjunction with the separation or settlement agreement. Read more >>

September 28, 2023

Worship in the Workplace and Reasonable Accommodations

Mark Wiletsky

by Mark Wiletsky

Question: Do employers need to provide a space for employees to worship and/or pray in the office?

Answer: The short answer is: Maybe. Employers must reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious, ethical, or moral beliefs or practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. For decades, courts held that employers could deny such requests under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if the accommodation would impose more than a “de minimis” cost or burden. In June 2023, however, the U.S. Supreme Court “clarified” that standard. In Groff v. DeJoy, the Supreme Court held that employers can deny requests for religious accommodation only if the accommodation would result in “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of [an employer’s] particular business.” The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has provided similar guidance, stating that employers should not try to suppress all religious expression in the workplace. Read more >>

September 27, 2023

What Can Employers Do When Employee Threats Are Related To a Disability?

Jordan Walsh

By Jordan Walsh

The Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) generally prohibits employers from taking adverse employment actions against an employee because of the employee’s disability. To challenge an employment action under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that (1) she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) she is qualified for her position, even with her disability, with or without a reasonable accommodation; and (3) she suffered an adverse employment action because of her disability. See Mayo v. PCC Structurals, Inc., 795 F.3d 941, 944 (9th Cir. 2015). If this showing is made, the burden shifts to the employer to present a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment action. See Curley v. City of North Las Vegas, 772 F.3d 629, 632 (9th Cir. 2014). If the burden is met the plaintiff must establish that the employer’s reason for the adverse employment action was pretextual. See id. Read more >>

February 23, 2023

NLRB Changes the Game for Confidentiality Provisions in Severance Agreements

By Greg Saylin, Steven Suflas, Tyson Horrocks, Brit Merrill, and Kody Condos

This week, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or “Board”) issued a decision that could significantly shape the terms of severance agreements with departing employees. Under this decision, all employers are prohibited from including provisions that prohibit disparagement of the employer or prevent the employee from discussing the terms of the agreement. However, the opinion is certain to be challenged in the federal appellate courts.

Often, non-unionized employers do not think the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or “the Act”) applies to them. However, that is not true. Section 7 of the Act guarantees employees “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” Read more >>

December 5, 2022

Can An Employee Be Required to Sign a Noncompete Agreement Before They Receive Their Final Paycheck?

Juan Obregon

By Juan Obregon

Question: Can we require an employee to sign a noncompete agreement before they receive their final paycheck?

Answer: In short: no, employers cannot withhold an employee’s final paycheck until they sign a non-compete. Doing so likely violates Colorado’s restrictive covenant statute (Colo. Rev. Stat. 8-2-113) and the Colorado Wage Claim Act (Colo. Rev. Stat. 8-4-101, et seq).

Under Section 8-4-109 of the Colorado Wage Claim Act, when the employer terminates an employee, “wages or compensation for labor or service earned, vested, determinable, and unpaid at the time of such discharge is due and payable immediately.” When an employee quits “the wages or compensation shall become due and payable upon the next regular payday.” Either way, if the employee performed the labor to earn those wages, they are due and failing to pay it timely could subject the employer to significant penalties. Read more >>

December 1, 2022

New Guidance on Bonuses and Commissions May Cause Headaches for Employers

Juan Obregon

By Juan Obregon

Organizations commonly require employees to be employed on the date a commission or bonus is paid to receive the commission or bonus. The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE), which interprets and administers Colorado’s Wage Act, recently indicated that practice is not permissible, which means employers will need to revisit their bonus agreements and commission plans sooner rather than later. The failure to heed the CDLE’s guidance may result in costly wage claims.

Overview

The Colorado Wage Act requires employers to pay employees the wages and other compensation they earn. Non-discretionary bonuses and commissions are considered wages. Under the Colorado Wage Act, an employee is not entitled to wages or compensation unless such amounts are “earned, vested, and determinable.” The question, of course, is: when are bonuses or commissions earned, vested, and determinable? Read more >>

July 22, 2022

Very Bad Year for Wyoming Noncompetes (And What You Can Do To Improve Yours)

by Brad Cave

Brad Cave

The Wyoming Supreme Court decided four cases in the last 12 months against the enforcement of employees’ agreements not to compete with their former employer. Although each case was unique, the tenor and direction of these decisions are bad news for Wyoming employers who rely on noncompete agreements. In addition, one of the rulings requires Wyoming employers to immediately review the reasonableness of the geographic scope and time covered by their noncompete agreements and perhaps modify those terms, or they risk being unable to enforce the agreement at all. You should act now to improve your odds of enforcing the agreements against disloyal former employees. Here’s our take on the steps you should take.

Confirm your noncompetes are supported by consideration

Contracts must be based on consideration—something of value—exchanged between the parties. All employees have employment contracts with their employers, which are supported by consideration of the job itself with its promise of payment of wages. When noncompete agreements are signed at the time of hiring, the job is the consideration. When an employer asks employees to sign a noncompete after employment begins, they must give new consideration beyond just keeping the job. Consideration can consist of anything of value that is specifically offered and accepted in exchange for the noncompete, but without new consideration, the post-hire noncompete is not enforceable. Read more >>

May 2, 2022

CDLE Issues New Guidance on Vacation, PTO, and Payroll Deductions

By Mark Wiletsky

Mark Wiletsky

The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) recently provided guidance for Colorado employers on two important issues: payment of vacation and paid time off (PTO) to employees upon separation from employment, and deductions from pay. While these documents are not binding, they represent the CDLEs interpretation of Colorado law and therefore provide helpful guidance to employers.

Vacation, PTO, Floating Holidays, and More. In Nieto v. Clark’s Market, Inc., 2021 CO 48, the Colorado Supreme Court held that employers must pay employees all accrued but unused vacation pay upon separation from employment. Unfortunately, that decision left open some questions for employers, which CDLE addresses in INFO #14, including:

What counts as vacation pay? Basically, any leave that can be used at the employee’s discretion, such as paid time off (PTO), annual leave, personal days, floating holidays, etc. The CDLE explains that “vacation pay” includes any paid leave for which there is no qualifying event. Leave that is based on a qualifying event, such as health needs, a designated public holiday, caretaking, or bereavement, is not considered vacation pay.
Does that mean PTO, annual days, etc. must be paid upon separation from employment? Yes, according to the CDLE. If the paid leave can be used without a qualifying event, then any accrued but unused paid time off must be paid upon separation from employment.
What about a “floating holiday” that can be used for any holiday the employee celebrates? That is not vacation pay, according to the CDLE, because it is tied to a specific qualifying event, e., a holiday the employee celebrates. However a “floating holiday” that can be used completely at the employee’s discretion is vacation pay.
If we do not have a written policy, do we still have to pay accrued but unused vacation upon separation? Yes, if you have a practice of providing vacation or paid time off, it does not matter whether the policy is written.
What about “unlimited vacation” – do we need to pay anything upon separation? No, but the CDLE notes that if the company caps the time off or otherwise does not allow for “unlimited” vacation, then you likely would have to pay any unused vacation upon separation.
Are use-it-or-lose-it policies permissible? No, according to the CDLE. Once employees earn vacation pay (regardless of the name used for such pay), they cannot forfeit such pay. Capping the amount of earned vacation or PTO that rolls over from year to year would amount to a forfeiture. The Colorado Supreme Court did not address this question in Nieto, but the CDLE’s guidance appears to be consistent with the reasoning in Nieto.
Can we cap the amount of vacation pay employees earn? Employers may set a maximum cap at which accrual stops, until such time as the employee falls below that cap.

January 14, 2022

U.S. Supreme Court Blocks OSHA’s Vaccine-or-Test Rule; Upholds CMS’s Healthcare Vaccine Mandate

By Mickell Jimenez and Curtis Greenwood

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, has blocked the Department of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) requiring private employers with 100 employees or more to vaccinate-or-test for COVID-19 from taking effect. However, in a separate decision, the Court allowed a more limited Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Interim Final Rule, requiring COVID-19 vaccination of staff working at health care facilities that receive Medicare and Medicaid money from the federal government.

The Court’s decision on OSHA’s ETS does not prohibit employers across the country from implementing their own vaccinate-or-test policies. But absent an obligation to do so, it remains unclear whether employers will choose to implement such a policy given the already challenging staffing issues and the need to comply with the myriad confusing and sometimes contradictory patchwork of laws and regulations enacted by state and local governments. Employers that implement a vaccinate-or-test policy, or other type of policy to address the impact of COVID-19 in the workplace, should ensure that the policy complies with applicable law. Particular attention should be paid to the requirement to accommodate, where appropriate, employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs and/or medical conditions. Read more >>

November 15, 2021

Utah’s New Law on Employer Vaccination Policies: What Employers Need to Know

By Bryan Benard and Kody Condos

Bryan Benard

On November 16, 2021, Governor Spencer Cox signed into law SB2004 “Workplace COVID-19 Amendments,” a bill passed during a special session of the Utah Legislature. While the bill was introduced in response to vaccine mandates contained in the Executive Orders of President Biden and the special rule or ETS from the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (“OSHA”) (which has now been stayed by the federal courts), this new law nonetheless carries significant legal requirements for Utah employers. The bill became immediately effective yesterday upon the Governor’s signature without giving employers any lead time to prepare or change policies/processes. This law does not apply to any “person” that is regulated by the Centers for Medicare or Medicaid Services related to COVID-19 (unless a state entity) or that is a federal contractor.

Kody Condos

At a high level, the bill:

(1) requires that any employer vaccination mandate include exemptions for a) health reasons; b) sincerely held religious beliefs; and c) “sincerely held personal beliefs”;

(2) prohibits employers from taking any adverse action against an employee or potential employee who is not vaccinated or asks for an exemption;

(3) requires employers to pay for any COVID testing requirements; and

(4) prohibits employers from retaining a copy of any vaccination documents but allows employers to keep a record of whether an employee is vaccinated. Read more >>