Holland & Hart labor and employment attorneys Dora Lane and Steve Gutierrez discuss potential impacts on employers and employees of the hold on the proposed Overtime Rule. Dora Lane was interviewed on Reno’s Channel 2 News. Steve Gutierrez talked with KDVR Fox 31 in Denver.
Watch the Reno interview
Watch the Denver interview
Many human resource professionals got into the office today not knowing whether to laugh or cry. Most are happy that the Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) new overtime salary requirement will not go into effect next Thursday, December 1, 2016, due to a federal judge’s grant of a nationwide preliminary injunction which prevents the DOL from implementing and enforcing the new rule. (See our post yesterday reporting on the injunction.) Yet, many organizations have already spent countless hours preparing for the new rule to go into effect next week and are wondering what to do now. Let’s review where things stand and your best options going forward.
Nationwide Injunction Delays Final Overtime Rule
In September, twenty-one states sued the DOL in federal court in Texas seeking to stop the DOL’s final rule that more than doubles the salary threshold for the so-called white collar exemptions and calls for automatic increases every three years. Business groups and industry associations also filed suit in the same Texas court seeking a similar outcome. The state-plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction. Shortly thereafter, the business-plaintiffs filed an expedited motion for summary judgment. The two cases were consolidated under Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III.
On November 16, 2016, Judge Mazzant heard oral argument on the state-plaintiffs’ emergency preliminary injunction motion. He issued his ruling yesterday, granting the preliminary injunction on a nationwide basis.
To prevail on their preliminary injunction motion, the states needed to show, among other things, that they would have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their case. The court ruled that the states met that burden, finding that the plain meaning of the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) focused only on the duties of such positions, without a minimum salary level. The court stated that although the FLSA delegated authority to the DOL to establish the types of duties that might qualify an employee for these exemptions, it did not authorize the Department to disqualify employees who meet the duties requirements but do not meet the salary level established in the DOL’s final rule. The court concluded that the DOL exceeded its delegated authority and ignored Congress’s intent by raising the minimum salary level so that it “supplants the duties test.”
Anticipating The Next Legal Move
The preliminary injunction is only the first step in this legal challenge to the DOL’s final overtime rule, but it provides a huge blow to the Obama administration’s efforts to raise wages for U.S. workers. The DOL could appeal the court’s ruling to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but according to a DOL statement, the agency is still “considering all of [its] legal options.” Whether an appeal would be successful is unknown. Absent an appeal, the Texas lawsuits continue, with a permanent resolution still to be decided. Read more
The new overtime salary requirement will not go into effect on December 1, 2016. A federal judge in Texas today issued a preliminary injunction in a challenge to the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) new overtime salary threshold. Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman division, ruled that the DOL does not have the authority to utilize a salary-level test or an automatic updating mechanism under the final rule.
The nationwide injunction means that the DOL rule which doubled the salary requirement for the white collar exemptions from $455 to $913 per week will not go into effect on December 1, 2016, as scheduled.
OT Changes Are Delayed, Not Necessarily Dead
Two lawsuits were filed in the Texas court seeking to stop the new overtime rule from becoming effective. The first one was brought by twenty-one states and the second by numerous business associations. The two cases were consolidated and will proceed before Judge Mazzant.
By granting the preliminary injunction, the judge has delayed the rule from becoming effective until further legal proceedings may occur. The court will need to rule on whether the injunction becomes permanent. The business parties’ motion for summary judgment, which seeks to throw out the final rule for good, has already been briefed and may be decided on an expedited basis.
Stay tuned as we will provide further analysis of the court’s ruling.
The U.S. Department of Labor’s final persuader rule was dealt yet another blow today as federal Judge Sam Cummings of the Northern District of Texas issued a permanent injunction declaring the rule unlawful. The ruling will prevent the persuader rule from being enforced anywhere in the nation.
Rule Would Have Expanded Disclosures of Union-Avoidance Activities
As we’ve reported before, the DOL’s final persuader rule, issued this past March, would have expanded the reporting requirements of both employers and their hired labor consultants who assist with union-avoidance activities. Under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), when employers hire outside consultants, including attorneys, who are directly involved in “persuading” workers whether or not to join a union or engage in collective bargaining, they must file a report disclosing the consulting relationship as well as the fees paid to the consultant. Under the now-enjoined “new rule,” the DOL expanded the scope of reportable activities to include not only those that involved the consultant making direct contact with employees, as was previously included as reportable “advice,” but also those activities where the attorney or labor consultant works with the employer behind the scenes to draft or review documents, presentations, speeches, and other materials to aid the employer in opposing union organizing and other related activities.
Legal Challenge Prevailed
The DOL’s expansion of the rule as to what constitutes reportable “advice” was highly controversial. The DOL was set to begin enforcing the final rule on July 1, 2016, but numerous business groups filed lawsuits claiming that the DOL overstepped its bounds and that the rule was unlawful. On June 22nd, a Minnesota federal judge declined to issue a preliminary injunction to block the rule, but less than a week later, Judge Cummings in Texas did just that. He issued a preliminary injunction blocking the DOL from enforcing the rule nationwide.
With today’s order, Judge Cummings turned his preliminary injunction into a permanent block on enforcement of the rule. The result is that the employers and labor consultants, including lawyers, will continue to report their persuader activities consistent with the prior rule. In other words, only those activities that meet the “advice” standard under the prior persuader rule are reportable. Such activities generally include only those that involve direct contact between the consultant and the employees.
Is This Rule Dead Forever?
It remains to be seen whether the DOL will appeal this order, but for now, the final persuader rule appears dead. With the new GOP administration taking office in late January, it is unlikely that the DOL, under GOP leadership, would try to advance this union-friendly rule in the years to follow. We’ll keep you posted on any new developments.
Colorado voters decided to raise the minimum wage to $12 per hour over the next four years. By about a 54-to-46 margin, Colorado passed Amendment 70 which amends the Colorado constitution to gradually raise the state’s minimum wage.
Gradual Increases In Minimum Wage
Amendment 70 raises the hourly minimum wage in Colorado by 90 cents per hour each year, starting from the 2016 minimum wage of $8.31. The annual increases will be as follows:
Tipped employees will continue to be entitled to a minimum wage that is $3.02 per hour less than the regular state minimum wage. The minimum wage for tipped workers is currently $5.29 per hour, plus tips. It will then go up by 90 cents per hour each year until reaching $8.98 in 2020.
After 2020, annual adjustments will be made to reflect increases in the cost of living.
Adjustments Already in Colorado Constitution
This is not the first time that Colorado voters have approved a Constitutional amendment increasing the minimum wage. In 2006, Colorado voters approved Initiative 42 which increased the minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.85 per hour, and added a provision to the Colorado Constitution that requires an annual adjustment in the state minimum wage based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). That measure was approved with 53 percent voting “yes” and 47 percent voting “no.” Under that amendment, the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment has set the state minimum hourly wage each year, adjusting it either up or down according to the changes in the CPI over the prior year.
Under this year’s Amendment 70, the minimum wage will only be adjusted up for increases in the CPI. It will not go down, even if the cost of living decreases. Read more
By Jude Biggs
As more and more employers use new analytical tools for recruiting and hiring, the potential exists for employment decisions to become more fair, objective and unbiased. But could the use of big data and technology-driven decision-making disfavor candidates who lack a robust digital footprint? These are questions that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will continue to explore after an initial “big data” public meeting in Washington, D.C. in October.
What Is “Big Data?”
The EEOC refers to “big data” as the use of algorithms, data scraping of the internet, and other technology-based methods of evaluating huge amounts of information about individuals. Big data can include computer algorithms that are based on various factors designed to correlate to successful characteristics on the job; for instance, a model may look for longevity on the job, degrees from particular institutions, membership in certain organizations, or a multitude of other factors. Computer models then use this seemingly objective criteria to scan the internet for individuals possessing the desired characteristics in “passive” candidate searches. Other types of predictive or talent analytics, based on the harvesting of a wide range of empirical data, are being incorporated into HR recruiting and decision-making platforms.
According to a recent survey of Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) members, about one-third of respondents reported that they use big data in employment. The proportion was even higher among larger employers.
Why Does the EEOC Care About Big Data?
The EEOC is trying to get ahead of this issue by making sure that employers’ use of technology-driven HR tools does not lead to discrimination in the hiring process. EEOC Chair Jenny Lang noted that while big data has the potential to drive innovations that reduce bias in employment decisions, “it is critical that these tools are designed to promote fairness and opportunity, so that reliance on these expanding sources of data does not create new barriers to opportunity.”
What Are The Potential Advantages of Technology-Based HR Decisions?
Technology is here to stay so the question is not will it be used in the HR context but rather how should it be used to best achieve employers’ goals. Using technology and big data can result in many positive outcomes, including that it:
In fact, given the global nature of online data, it is possible for certain types of employers to increase their diversity dramatically, by being able to cast a larger net to find applicants.
What Is The Potential Downside of HR’s Use of Big Data?
As with anything technology-related, the outcome is only as good as the computer program, factors selected, and data used. Many algorithms focus on correlation of successful characteristics without looking to specific job requirements. For example, a set of characteristics of high-performing employees may reflect the group’s demographics (for instance, graduation from an Ivy League school) rather than their skills or abilities to perform certain jobs (for example, leadership shown during a military deployment or creation of a successful program serving the poor). In such cases, algorithms may match people characteristics, but not job requirements.
Using big data may perpetuate past discrimination. If an algorithm is based on looking for applicants with the same characteristics as those possessed by existing managers, secretaries or high-tech programmers in a company, then the algorithm may limit diversity. Similarly, certain talent-seeking algorithms may rely too much on the make-up of the company’s current staff, meaning that minorities or other groups not currently represented in the workforce continue to be passed over.
Think about whether individuals who do not have a robust online presence will be at a disadvantage in the new, data-mining recruiting world. Individuals with lower incomes or in rural areas may not have ready access to computers, lessening their ability to engage digitally. Other individuals may choose not to engage in many online activities. Or, others who are at the start (or end) of their careers may not have established much of an online presence. Employers who focus only on technology-driven programs to identify and hire candidates may miss out on large groups of qualified individuals who simply lack significant online experience that is discoverable by algorithms.
In addition, the collection of other data points, such as attendance or leave-related data, may discriminate against disabled individuals, giving rise to ADA concerns. Moreover, such data, coupled with information about gaps in employment, could disproportionally hurt female candidates who are more likely to have taken time off of work for pregnancy or child-rearing reasons. Read more
Four-and-a-quarter million dollars. That is what a federal jury recently awarded an ongoing employee at Abbott Laboratories for her age discrimination and retaliation claims. What caused the jury to award such a large amount in damages? Here is a look at the facts, followed by tips on how to avoid such liability when dealing with older employees.
All Seems Fine—Until Employee Hits Her Fifties
Luz Gonzalez-Bermudez (Gonzalez) has worked for Abbott since 1984, beginning her career as a pharmaceutical representative followed by promotions that ultimately made her the HCP national sales manager. In that role, Gonzalez was classified in Abbott’s compensation system as a Level 18 position, warranting a six-figure salary, an annual incentive bonus, stock options, and a company car.
But, eighteen months after her promotion to the HCP national sales manager, when Gonzalez was about 51 years old, her position was eliminated and she was demoted to a marketing manager position. Her new job was a Level 17 position, but Abbott allowed her to keep her Level 18 compensation and benefits for up to two years.
In the marketing manager position, Gonzalez reported to Kim Perez, the Director of Marketing (and later, the General Manager). Perez evaluated Gonzalez’s performance as a marketing manager negatively. Gonzalez complained internally that Perez was creating a hostile work environment, due to repeatedly asking her about outstanding work, sending a lot of emails following up on pending matters, and a lack of communication about things Gonzalez needed to know to do her job.
When Gonzalez’s two years of Level 18 compensation was up, Perez and the Human Resources Director told her that she had been assigned a Product Manager position, which was a Level 15 classification. At that level, Gonzalez took a pay cut, lowered bonus, loss of stock options, and lowered company car benefits.
Employee Lawyers Up
About six months later, Gonzalez’s attorneys sent a letter on her behalf to Perez and others at Abbott, notifying them that they had been retained to represent her in any age discrimination claims that Gonzalez may have against them. Despite the letter, Abbott did not conduct an investigation into any possible claims. Shortly thereafter, Gonzalez filed an administrative charge with the Antidiscrimination Unit of the Puerto Rico Department of Labor and Human Resources alleging age discrimination and retaliation. Read more
Terminating an employee out on Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave is risky business. After all, the major tenet behind the FMLA is to permit employees to take job-protected time off when serious health or family concerns arise.
But does that mean that an employer may never terminate an employee out on leave? No, but you better have well-supported business reasons for your termination decision, and be prepared to defend your decision in court. A recent decision by Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals offers a useful look at how a Colorado employer did it right and avoided liability for an FMLA-interference lawsuit.
Twelve-Year Employee Struggles After Promotion
Hired in 2002, Kris Olson began working for Penske Logistics, LLC as a dispatcher. Over the next ten years, he was promoted three times, including his 2013 promotion to Operations Manager of Penske’s Denver warehouse. In that role, Olson supervised over 30 employees and was responsible for hiring, financial records, moving and tracking inventory, conducting regular inventory audits, and other managerial tasks.
In his first year as Operations Manager, Olson appeared to be performing adequately, but not exceptionally, scoring mostly “2” and “3” grades on a 5-point scale on his 2013 performance review. He was told he needed to continue to train in his position. In January 2014, however, Penske issued a written warning to Olson for failing to fire an employee who had violated safety rules. Olson was told that any future failure to follow procedures would result in more severe discipline, up to and including termination. In June (about five months later), Olson’s supervisor, Rick Elliott, put Olson on a 60-day “action plan” that instructed Olson to hire more workers, process inventory more quickly, and respond promptly to phone calls and emails. The “action plan” concluded with a warning that failure to meet all requirements would result in Olson’s immediate termination. Olson appeared to follow the instructions in his “action plan.”
On July 9, 2014, Olson requested FMLA leave, which was approved. Olson’s last day at the warehouse before going out on leave was Friday, July 18, 2014.
Employer Discovers Employee’s Misconduct
July 18th proved to be a pivotal day for Olson. On that day, Elliott received a monthly grade that primary client, Whirlpool, gave the warehouse for June – a “D.” With Olson out on leave, Elliott asked a supervisor at another Penske warehouse, Nicki Brurs, to come to Denver to investigate why Whirlpool rated the Denver warehouse so low. Brurs found that there were at least 152 discrepancies between the warehouse’s inventory records and its actual inventory. In addition, Brurs learned that the warehouse was 567 audits behind schedule, having done only 37 random audits over the preceding few months.
At that same time, Elliott also discovered that over the previous few months, Olson had not billed Whirlpool for extra work performed by the warehouse. Earlier, Elliott had asked Olson why he had not billed Whirlpool for extra work and Olson answered that there had not been any extra work for which to bill. On July 28, however, Elliott learned that there had been several instances of extra work for Whirlpool, meaning Olson had lied to him.
By August 1, Elliott had made up his mind that Olson had to go. He sent a report to human resources summarizing the problems he had discovered with Olson, including his dishonesty. He detailed that Olson had hidden inventory losses by creating records for an imaginary storage location – a “ghost stow” – that allowed Olson to hide inventory losses for four years. He also reported that Olson had instructed his staff not to tell Whirlpool when inventory was missing, but instead, to report the missing units as damages. Elliott told HR that he wanted to bring in a temporary replacement as Operations Manager while Olson was out on FMLA leave and fire Olson on his first day back to work. HR agreed that Olson should be fired.
Despite its decision, Penske continued its investigation into Olson’s misconduct. Over the next couple of weeks, Penske discovered additional inventory errors and “ghost stows,” resulting in more than $120,000 of errors in the warehouse’s records. It also concluded that Olson had failed to train his employees, failed to enforce attendance policies, failed to return damaged items, and other lesser performance issues. Read more
To implement President Obama’s September 2015 Executive Order, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued its final rule requiring certain federal contractors to provide up to seven days of paid sick leave per year to employees who work on covered contracts. Here are the essential requirements for contractors under this new rule.
Which Contractors and Employees Are Covered?
The final rule applies to new contracts with the federal government resulting from a solicitation that was issued, or contract that was awarded, on or after January 1, 2017. It includes contracts that are covered by the Davis-Bacon Act, the Service Contract Act, concessions contracts, and service contracts in connection with federal property or lands.
Not all employees of a federal contractor must be provided with this mandated paid sick time. Instead, employees must be allowed to accrue and use paid sick leave only while working on or in connection with a covered contract. Employees who perform work duties that are necessary to the performance of a covered contract but who are not directly engaged in performing the specific work called for by the contract, and who spend less than 20 percent of their work time in a particular workweek performing work in connection with such contracts, are exempt from the rule’s accrual requirements.
What Amount of Paid Sick Time Must Be Provided?
Contractors must allow employees to accrue one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked on or in connection with a covered contract, up to a maximum of 56 hours per year. In order to calculate that accrual, contractors may use an estimate of time their employees work in connected with (rather than on) a covered contract as long as the estimate is reasonable and based on verifiable information. As for employees for whom contractors are not required by law to keep records of hours worked, such as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, it may be assumed that such employees work 40 hours each week.
If a contractor prefers not to calculate accrual amounts, the contractor may elect to provide an employee with at least 56 hours of paid sick leave at the beginning of each accrual year.
What If A Contractor Already Provides Paid Sick Time Off?
A contractor’s existing paid time off (PTO) policy may fulfill the paid sick leave requirement as long as it provides employees with at least the same rights and benefits required under the final rule. In other words, if the contractor’s existing policy provides at least 56 hours of PTO that can be used for any purpose, the contractor does not have to provide separate paid sick leave, even if an employee chooses to use all of his or her PTO for vacation. However, if the contractor’s policy does not meet all of the requirements under the final rule, such as not permitting an employee to use paid time off for reasons related to domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, then the existing PTO policy would not comply. In such cases, the contractor would have to either amend its PTO policy to make it compliant, or separately provide paid sick leave for the additional purposes under the final rule.
How Does An Employee Use This Paid Sick Leave?
An employee may use paid sick leave in increments as little as one hour for absences resulting from any of the following:
An employee may request to use paid sick leave by a written or verbal request, at least seven calendar days in advance when the need for the leave is foreseeable. When not foreseeable, the request must be made as soon as is practicable. Contractors may limit the amount of paid sick leave that an employee uses only based on how much paid sick time the employee has available. Any denial of a request to use paid sick leave must be provided by the contractor to the employee in writing with an explanation of the denial. Operational need is not an acceptable reason to deny paid sick leave requests.
May Contractors Require Medical Certifications?
Contractors may require a medical certification only if the employee is absent for three or more consecutive full workdays. Contractors must inform employees that a medical certification will be required before he or she returns to work.
What About The Overlap With The FMLA?
Contractors must still comply fully with the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) as well as state and local paid sick time laws. If an employee is eligible for time off under the FMLA, the contractor must meet FMLA requirements for notices and certifications, regardless of whether the employee is eligible to use accrued paid sick leave. The contractor may, however, run the paid sick leave concurrently with unpaid FMLA leave.
Must Unused Paid Sick Time Be Carried Over or Paid Out?
Contractors must carry over unused, accrued paid sick leave from one year to the next, but may limit the maximum amount of accrual at any point in time to 56 hours. Contractors are not required to pay employees for accrued, unused paid sick leave at the time of job separation, but keep in mind that state or local laws may mandate a different result if the organization uses PTO instead of sick time. However, if an employee has been rehired by the same contractor within 12 months after a job separation, the contractor must reinstate the employee’s accrued, unused paid sick leave, unless such amount was paid out upon separation.
Preparing For January 2017
Employers who expect to seek or renew federal contracts on or after January 1, 2017 should review their existing sick leave and/or PTO policies to determine what changes may be required in order to comply with the new rule. The DOL provides many additional resources to explain the final rule, including a Fact Sheet, Overview of the Final Rule, and Frequently Asked Questions. Given the potential impact on contractors’ policies and how they are administered, we recommend taking steps now to determine how best to comply.
By Jude Biggs
Beginning January 1, 2017, employers may not require a California employee to agree to litigate claims in a state other than California or to apply the law of another state to disputes that arose in California. These new restrictions pose particular problems for companies headquartered outside of California who employ workers in California.
New CA Labor Code Section 925
Recently signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown, Senate Bill 1241 adds section 925 to the California Labor Code. It provides that an employer “shall not require an employee who primarily resides and works in California, as a condition of employment, to agree to a provision that would do either of the following:
In other words, an employer may not force an employee who primarily works and lives in California to enter into an employment agreement, as a condition of employment, that provides that any claims must be resolved, either in court or by arbitration, in another state (a so-called forum-selection clause) or that another state’s law, which offers less protection to the employee than California law, will apply (a choice-of-law provision).
Why It Matters
California law is typically more pro-employee than other states’ laws. For instance, California law prohibits employers from requiring employees to waive their right to a jury trial before a dispute arises and places substantial restrictions on arbitration agreements. It also requires the payment of business expenses, where many other states do not.
Multi-state companies frequently seek to create some uniformity and predictability in where employment disputes will be litigated so they insert a venue clause into their employment agreements. Such clauses often provide that disputes must be heard in the state where the business is based or where its legal team is located, regardless of where the employee lives or works. Similarly, companies may write into contracts that the law to be applied is that of the state where they are headquartered or incorporated. This offers the business uniformity across all its operations and helps to avoid onerous employment laws in certain states.
The new Labor Code section 925 makes non-California venue and choice-of-law provisions virtually unenforceable per se for California employees, when made a condition of employment. If an employee has to go to court to enforce his or her rights to have a case in California and to use California law in the case, the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees to the employee. Read more
By 
By 
By 