Category Archives: Colorado

June 16, 2014

Sexual Orientation Discrimination By Federal Contractors To Be Prohibited, According to News Reports

Major news sources are reporting that President Barack Obama plans to issue an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The specific details of the executive order have not been finalized and the signing date is not yet known. The planned order was revealed by administration officials on Monday, June 16, 2014, just before the President attends a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) event sponsored by the Democratic National Committee in New York City on Tuesday.

For twenty years, various federal lawmakers have introduced and tried to pass ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by all employers with 15 or more employees. The most recent ENDA bill passed in the Senate but is dead in the House, as House Speaker John Boehner reportedly has said he will not allow the bill to come to a vote. Like it has done with its minimum wage and other pay initiatives that stalled in Congress, the White House is furthering its goals for U.S. workers outside the legislative process by issuing an executive order. Although the executive order applies only to federal contractors, many of whom already have policies prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, the prohibition for contractors on this basis is seen as a step toward protection for LGBT workers in all work contexts.

Hearing word of the impending executive order, lawmakers and various groups appear to be urging the administration to include an exemption for religious reasons. That is unlikely to happen with the executive order but until we see the final order, it is unclear if any federal contractors and subcontractors will be exempt. We will keep you posted as this unfolds.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

June 13, 2014

Forced “Onionhead” Practices At Work Result in EEOC Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

By Brad Cave

“I love you, man.” Appropriate for beer commercials but perhaps not for the workplace. A New York employer who allegedly required employees to participate in prayer circles, thank God for their job and say “I love you” to managers and co-workers faces a religious discrimination lawsuit filed recently by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of three employees who were fired, allegedly for opposing the required “Onionhead” practices, and a class of similarly harmed individuals. EEOC v. United Health Programs of America, No. 14-cv-3673 (E.D.N.Y. filed June 11, 2014).

Company Required “Harnessing Happiness” or “Onionhead” Practices

According to the EEOC complaint, three former employees of United Health Programs of America filed charges alleging religious discrimination in violation of Title VII because the company required employees to engage in practices under a belief system called “Harnessing Happiness” or “Onionhead.” According to the Harnessing Happiness website, Onionhead is an “incredibly pure, wise and adorable character” who “wants everyone to know how they feel and then know what to do with those feelings.” The three women claim that the company required them to participate in various Onionhead-related activities on a daily and weekly basis, including praying, reading spiritual texts, burning candles, keeping lights at work very dim, thanking God for their employment and saying “I love you” to colleagues and managers. They assert that every day, employees were asked to select Onionhead-related cards to keep next to their computers and to wear Onionhead-related pins. In addition, one of the company’s upper managers and the aunt of the company owner, “Denali,” was the leader of the Onionhead practices and allegedly would require employees to attend one-on-one sessions with her in order to read and discuss books about “divine plans,” “moral codes” and “enlightenment.”

Fired – Allegedly for Opposing Onionhead Practices

Each of the three Charging Parties, Elizabeth Ontaneda, Francine Pennisi and Faith Pabon, were allegedly fired for objecting to the Onionhead practices. Pennisi, an Account Manager and IT Project Manager, spoke up at a managers’ meeting in July 2010, stating that she was Catholic and did not want to participate in the Onionhead activities. Ontaneda, a Senior Accounting Manager for Customer Service, also spoke up at the meeting, saying she felt the same way. A few weeks later, both women were relocated to work in an open area on the customer service floor, rather than in their offices, and their duties were changed to require answering phones. Denali placed a large statue of Buddha in Pennisi’s empty office. Denali also spoke of “demons” in connection with Ontaneda’s and Pennisi’s resistance to Onionhead practices. The day after losing their offices, the women called in sick and were terminated by the company owner by phone and voicemail.

Pabon, a Customer Care Consultant, attended a spa weekend in Connecticut with Denali and about 20 other customer service employees. Pabon alleges that Denali stated that the purpose of the trip was spiritual enlightenment and that they were to be together at all times, holding hands, praying and chanting. Pabon refused to participate in some of the group activities and on Monday following the spa weekend, Denali fired Pabon for “insubordination.”

Hostile Work Environment, Failure to Accommodate and Retaliation

The EEOC asserts numerous religious discrimination claims against the company, including creating a hostile work environment based on religion, failure to accommodate the employees’ own religious beliefs or lack thereof, terminating employees based on religion and retaliating against employees for opposing the required Onionhead practices in the workplace. The EEOC also alleges that some employees were constructively discharged when they felt compelled to leave the company to avoid participating in the required Onionhead activities.

Reports suggest that the company denies any merit to the lawsuit and that they expect it to be dismissed. We don’t yet know the basis of their defense and must remember that at present, the allegations are unproven. It will be an interesting case to follow. We will keep you posted as it proceeds through the court

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

June 2, 2014

Disabled Employee Not Entitled to Additional Leave as Reasonable Accommodation

By Jude Biggs

After Kansas State University denied her request to extend a leave of absence for longer than six months, assistant professor Grace Hwang, who suffers from cancer, filed suit against the University alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the University had not violated the Rehabilitation Act because Ms. Hwang could not show that she was able to perform the essential functions of her job. In addition, the Tenth Circuit held that requiring the University to extend the six-month’s leave was not a reasonable accommodation. Hwang v. Kansas State Univ., No. 13-2070 (10th Cir. May 29, 2014).

Policy Provided Six-Month’s Paid Leave of Absence

Ms. Hwang was set to teach classes at Kansas State University under a one-year contract that covered all three academic terms — fall, spring and summer. Before the fall term, Ms. Hwang was diagnosed with cancer. She asked for a leave of absence to seek medical treatment. The University granted her a paid six-month leave under its regular policy which capped the length of a leave at six months.

As the six-month leave was coming to an end, Ms. Hwang’s doctor advised her to seek more time off of work. She asked the University to extend her leave through the end of the spring semester, intending to return before the summer term. The University refused to extend her leave but instead arranged for Ms. Hwang to receive long-term disability benefits, effectively ending her employment with the University.

Ms. Hwang sued the University in federal court alleging that the University’s denial of her request for extended leave constituted disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act. The Rehabilitation Act prohibits disability discrimination by entities that receive federal funds, such as Kansas State. 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). The federal district court dismissed her lawsuit on a motion to dismiss (before any discovery was done), and Ms. Hwang appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers the states of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma and New Mexico.

Extended Leave Not A Reasonable Accommodation Under Rehabilitation Act

The University did not dispute that Ms. Hwang was a capable teacher and that her cancer rendered her disabled as defined by the Rehabilitation Act. The central issue in the appeal was whether the University was required to ignore the six-month time limit in its leave policy to extend Ms. Hwang’s leave of absence beyond six months. The Court said no. Because Ms. Hwang wasn’t able to work for an extended period of time, she was not capable of performing the essential functions of her job. In addition, requiring the University to keep her job open for that extended period of time did not qualify as a reasonable accommodation. The Court wrote: “[a]fter all, reasonable accommodations – typically things like adding ramps or allowing more flexible working hours – are all about enabling employees to work, not to not work.”

The Court noted that a “brief absence from work” for medical care may be required as a reasonable accommodation, as it likely allows the employee to continue to perform the essential functions of the job. Determining how long employers must provide for leave as a reasonable accommodation depends on factors such as the duties essential to the job in question, the nature and length of the leave sought and the impact of the leave on co-workers. That said, the Court stated that it would be difficult to find a six-month leave of absence in which the employee performs no work (e.g., no part-time hours or work from home) reasonable in any job in the national economy today. Ms. Hwang’s terrible problem, in the Court’s view, was one other forms of social security aim to address. In addition, the Court noted that the aim of the Rehabilitation Act is to prevent employers from denying reasonable accommodations that would allow disabled employees to work, not to turn employers into a “safety net” for those who cannot work.

“Inflexible” Six-Month Leave Policy Not Inherently Discriminatory

Ms. Hwang asserted that the University’s “inflexible” sick leave policy that capped the maximum length of sick leave at six months violated the Act. She cited the EEOC’s guidance manual which states that if a disabled employee needs additional unpaid leave as a reasonable accommodation, the employer must modify its “no-fault” leave policy to provide the additional leave, unless the employer can show that there is another effective accommodation that would allow the individual to perform the essential functions of her job, or that granting additional leave would cause the employer an undue hardship. The Court, however, pointed to another section of the EEOC’s guidance manual to counter Ms. Hwang’s argument, as the EEOC manual states “ . . . six months is beyond a reasonable amount of time.” In fact, the Court stated that an “inflexible” leave policy can actually help protect the rights of disabled employees rather than discriminate against them because such a policy does not permit individual requests for leave to be singled out for discriminatory treatment.

Not all leave policies will past muster, however. The Court stated that policies that provide an unreasonably short sick leave period may not provide enough accommodation for a disabled employee who would be capable of performing his or her job with just a bit more time off. Alternatively, policies that are applied inconsistently, such as where some employees are allowed more time off and others are held to a strict time limit, could be discriminatory. In this case, however, the Court found that Ms. Hwang did not allege any facts to support a claim that she was treated differently than other similarly situated employees.

Retaliation Claim Fails As Well

Ms. Hwang also asserted that she was unlawfully retaliated against for reporting disability discrimination. In particular, she based her claims on two theories : (1) the University failed to explain her COBRA health benefits before or immediately after her termination; and (2) she wasn’t hired for two other positions at the University that she applied for after losing her teaching job. The Court easily dispensed with both theories.

First, COBRA allows thirty days for an employer to provide separating employees with a COBRA notice. Consequently, the University was not required to provide Ms. Hwang with notice of her COBRA benefits before or immediately after her termination of employment. Second, although Ms. Hwang alleged that she was not hired for two other University positions for which she applied, she failed to allege any facts suggesting that the University’s decision not to hire her was because she had engaged in legally protected opposition to discrimination. She not only failed to provide facts showing that she was qualified for the two jobs, but she also failed to offer facts suggesting that the University officials who decided not to hire her knew about her disability and her complaint about disability discrimination. Without such allegations, the Court ruled that Ms. Hwang’s retaliation claim failed.

ADA Application

Although this case alleged a violation of the Rehabilitation Act, courts typically analyze such claims similarly to those alleging a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Consequently, this case may prove helpful to employers defending ADA claims where the employer denies an employee’s request for an extended leave of absence. Employers should heed the Court’s warning about leave policies that may be discriminatory if they provide an unreasonably short leave or are inconsistently applied. However, lengthy leaves of six months or more, or leaves of an unlimited duration in which the disabled employee provides no work, will likely not be considered a reasonable accommodation.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

May 13, 2014

Independent Contractor Status — Colorado Supreme Court Sets Forth Applicable Test

By Bradford J. Williams

Yesterday we posted an article describing the unsettled test for independent contractor status under Colorado’s unemployment insurance benefits laws after the Colorado Court of Appeals issued a new decision last week. Now, that test has been settled as the Colorado Supreme Court issued its decision in the Softrock and Western Logistics cases.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled yesterday that determining whether a worker is “customarily engaged in an independent trade, occupation, profession, or business” in order to be deemed an “independent contractor” under Colorado’s unemployment insurance benefits laws requires an evaluation of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the relationship between the worker and the putative employer. In two companion cases, the Court rejected a stringent, single-factor test for determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor for purposes of unemployment insurance tax liability and benefits. Reversing decades of case law, the Court ruled that no single factor is dispositive of an employer-employee relationship. Instead, courts and agencies may consider nine factors enumerated in a statute pertaining to independent contractor agreements, as well as “any other information relevant to the nature of the work and the relationship between the employer and the individual.” ICAO v. Softrock Geological Servs., 2014 CO 30; Western Logistics, Inc. v. ICAO, 2014 CO 31.

Putative Employer Must Prove Independent Contractor Status

Under the Colorado Employment Security Act (CESA), employers must pay unemployment taxes on wages paid to employees, but not on compensation paid to independent contractors. Similarly, employees are entitled to collect unemployment insurance benefits under the CESA whereas independent contractors are not. Putative employers bear the burden of proving that workers are independent contractors, not employees, for purposes of the CESA.

In order to establish that a worker is an independent contractor, a putative employer must prove that the individual (i) is free from control and direction in the performance of his or her service, and (ii) is customarily engaged in an independent trade, occupation, profession, or business related to the service performed. C.R.S. § 8-70-115(1)(b). The CESA does not define what must be shown to satisfy the second part of this test.

2012 Court of Appeals Decisions on the Single-Factor Test

For years, the Colorado Division of Employment and Training and most courts have applied a single-factor test, rejecting claims that workers are independent contractors, and thus ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits, where they do not provide similar services to others while working for the putative employer. It has not mattered, for instance, whether the workers were directed or controlled by the putative employer, whether they maintained separate business entities, whether they set their own hours, whether they were trained by the putative employer, whether they were paid an hourly or fixed rate, whether they provided their own equipment, whether they had their own offices, or whether they advertised their own businesses. If they did not provide similar services to others while working for the putative employer, they were almost always deemed to be employees for purposes of receiving unemployment insurance benefits.

In 2012, one division of the Colorado Court of Appeals reaffirmed this decades-old case law effectively mandating a single-factor test. Western Logistics, Inc. v. ICAO, 2012 COA 186. Another division of the Court of Appeals, however, rejected the stringent, single-factor test, holding for the first time that agencies and courts must instead apply a multi-factor test to determine whether an individual “is customarily engaged in an independent trade, occupation, or business related to the service performed.” Softrock Geological Servs. v. ICAO, 2012 COA 97. In Softrock, the Court of Appealsstated that the factors to be considered in the “customarily engaged” inquiry are the nine factors set forth in statutory section 8-70-115(1)(c), which defines evidence that must be included in an independent contractor agreement to create a presumption that a worker is an independent contractor rather than an employee. In March 2013, the Colorado Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeals in both the Western Logistics and Softrock cases in order to finally determine the appropriate test for deciding whether a worker is customarily engaged in an independent business for purposes of the CESA.

Single-Factor Test No Longer Dispositive

In its decision yesterday, the Supreme Court concluded that the appropriate test for courts and agencies to apply is a totality of the circumstances test that looks at all the relevant factors bearing upon the relationship between a worker and his or her putative employer. The Court rejected the stringent, single-factor test used in Western Logistics and numerous other cases, finding that relying on a single factor – i.e., whether a worker provides similar services to others at the same time he or she works for the putative employer – is unfair to putative employers because it leaves the independent contractor determination up to the unpredictable decisions of workers. For instance, it ignores the putative employer’s own intent regarding the working relationship, and also ignores whether workers even desire to find other work in the same field.

In its decision, the Court broadly adopted the Court of Appeal’s approach in Softrock, concluding that the statutory factors should be considered in determining whether a worker is engaged in an independent business under the CESA. However, the Supreme Court went even further, holding that other factors may also be relevant to this determination. The Court rejected “a rigid check-box type inspection,” and opted instead for a fact-specific inquiry into the nature of the working relationship between a worker and his or her putative employer where no single factor is dispositive of the worker’s status.

Interestingly, just last week, yet another division of the Colorado Court of Appeals anticipated the Supreme Court’s ruling in these two cases, concluding that virtually any relevant circumstances may be considered in weighing independent contractor status. The decision rejected both the Western Logistics single-factor test and the Softrock multi-factor test that limited the determination to just those factors specifically delineated in statute. See Visible Voices, Inc. v. ICAO, 2014 COA 63.

Many Factors May Determine Independent Contractor Status

The Supreme Court’s new totality of the circumstances test is very helpful to putative employers because it allows them to prove independent contractor status based on the entire working relationship between the worker and the putative employer. A putative employer seeking to prove that a worker is an independent contractor engaged in an independent business or trade may now produce evidence bearing upon the nine factors set forth in statute, showing that the putative employer did not:

Require the worker to work exclusively for the putative employer; except that the worker may choose to work exclusively for that business for a finite period of time specified in the independent contractor agreement;
Establish a quality standard for the worker; except that the putative employer can provide plans and specifications regarding the work but cannot oversee the actual work or instruct the worker as to how the work will be performed;
Pay a salary or hourly rate but rather a fixed or contract rate;
Terminate the worker during the contract period unless the worker violates the terms of the contract or fails to produce a result that meets the specifications of the contract;
Provide more than minimal training for the worker;
Provide tools or benefits to the worker; except that materials and equipment may be supplied;
Dictate the time of performance; except that a completion schedule and a range of mutually agreeable work hours may be established;
Pay the worker personally but rather makes checks payable to the trade or business name of the worker; and
Combine the putative employer’s business operations in any way with the worker’s business, but instead maintains such operations as separate and distinct.

The putative employer may also invoke other evidence not set forth in the statute, but nonetheless relevant to whether the worker maintains an independent trade or business. As suggested in recent cases, these factors include, but are not limited to, whether the worker:

Maintains an independent business card, listing, address, or telephone;
Has a financial investment in the project or risks suffering a loss;
Uses his or her own equipment on the project;
Sets the price for performing the project;
Employs others to complete the project; or
Carries liability insurance.

Although we have yet to see how the courts and agencies will apply this new totality of the circumstances test, putative employer should try to satisfy as many of these factors as possible in order to establish that workers are independent contractors, not employees. Putative employers should also continue to use independent contractor agreements that satisfy all the statutory factors needed to create a presumption that workers are independent contractors. However, there is now no limit to the types of evidence putative employers may invoke to establish independent contractor status, and putative employers are no longer bound by the outdated rule that workers must always offer their services to others at the same time the work for the putative employer in order to be considered independent contractors.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

May 12, 2014

Independent Contractor Status Dependent On More Than One Factor, Says Second Colorado Court

By Bradford J. Williams

A second division of the Colorado Court of Appeals has just rejected a stringent, single-factor test for determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor for purposes of receiving unemployment insurance benefits. On May 8, 2014, a division of the Court of Appeals issued a decision in an unemployment insurance tax liability case, rejecting longstanding case law holding that a worker is an employee, and thus entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, unless he “actually and customarily provides similar services to others while working for the putative employer.” Visible Voices, Inc. v. ICAO, 2014 COA 63.

For years, the Colorado Division of Employment and Training has rejected claims that workers are independent contractors, and thus ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits, based solely upon the fact that they do not provide similar services to others while working for the putative employer. It has not mattered whether the workers were directed or controlled by the putative employer, whether they maintained separate business entities, whether they set their own hours, whether they were trained by the putative employer, whether they were paid an hourly or fixed rate, whether they provided their own equipment, whether they had their own offices, or whether they advertised their own businesses. If they did not provide similar services to others while working for the putative employer, they were almost always deemed to be employees for purposes of receiving unemployment insurance benefits.

In rejecting this stringent, single-factor test, the Visible Voices court followed the 2012 lead of another division of the Colorado Court of Appeals in Softrock Geological Servs. v. ICAO, 2012 COA 97 (cert. granted Mar. 25, 2013). First breaking with the decades-old, single-factor assessment, the Softrock court held that the Division of Employment and Training must instead apply a multi-factor test to determine whether an individual “is customarily engaged in an independent trade, occupation, or business related to the service performed.” This multi-factor test considers factors set forth in Colorado statute.

While broadly adopting the Softrock court’s reasoning, the Visible Voices court went even further, holding that factors not listed in the Colorado statute may also be considered in assessing independent contractor status. The Visible Voices court further noted that some of the statutory factors might also not be relevant to a particular worker depending on the circumstances. In short, the Visible Voices court concluded that virtually any relevant circumstances may be considered when weighing independent contractor status, and rejected the argument that the multi-factor test is limited to just those factors specifically delineated in statute.

By choosing to consider multiple factors, the Visible Voices court expressly declined to follow Western Logistics, Inc. v. ICAO, 2012 COA 186 (cert. granted Mar. 25, 2013), in which yet another division of the Colorado Court of Appeals recently reaffirmed the decades-old cases effectively mandating a single-factor test. Unlike the Western Logistics court, the Visible Voices and Softrock courts have decided that no single factor is determinative of independent contractor status.

Two divisions of the Colorado Court of Appeals have now rejected the single-factor test that has long stymied putative employers’ attempts to prove that their workers are independent contractors for purposes of unemployment insurance benefits. However, the Colorado Supreme Court will have the last word on the proper test for determining independent contractor status as it is currently reviewing both the Softrock and Western Logistics cases. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in both cases on March 6, 2014 (audio of the oral arguments may be accessed here), and a decision is expected in the coming months. Based on the oral arguments, a favorable ruling for putative employers seems possible. We will let you know the outcome as soon as the Supreme Court rules on this issue.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

May 9, 2014

Colorado Legislative Wrap-Up: Wage Theft, Disability Definition and Workers’ Comp Physician Choice Bills Pass

By Emily Hobbs-Wright

The Colorado General Assembly wrapped up its 2014 Legislative Session this week, passing a number of bills that change the landscape for Colorado employers. Here is a look at the significant employment-related bills that passed and are expected to be signed into law by Governor Hickenlooper as well as other bills that were introduced but did not make it through the legislative process.

Bills that Passed This Session.

Wage Protection Act of 2014. Senate Bill 14-005 establishes an administrative procedure to adjudicate wage claims under Colorado law. For wages and compensation earned on or after January 1, 2015, the Colorado Division of Labor may receive complaints and adjudicate claims for nonpayment of wages or compensation of $7,500 or less. The written demand for unpaid wages to the employer may come from or on behalf of the employee and is satisfied if a notice of complaint filed with the Division is sent to the employer. In addition to existing fines that may be levied against employers who fail to pay wages, the new law allows the Director of the Division of Labor or a hearing officer to impose a fine of $250 on an employer who fails to respond to a notice of complaint or any other notice from the Division when a response is required. All fines collected will be credited to the State Wage Theft Enforcement Fund to be used for enforcement of this law.

The Wage Protection Act also requires Colorado employers to keep payroll records, including the information contained in an employee’s itemized pay statement, for at least 3 years after payment of wages and to make such records available to the employee and the Division of Labor. (C.R.S. §8-4-103 (4.5)). Employers who violate this record retention requirement are subject to a fine of $250 per employee per month, up to a maximum fine of $7,500.

This new law also provides for the recovery of reasonable attorney fees and court costs for an employee who recovers unpaid wages under Colorado’s minimum wage requirement. Additionally, the new law sets forth procedural requirements for employers responding to a demand for payment and procedures for resolving wage disputes through the administrative procedure. The majority of the new provisions in this law go into effect on January 1, 2015.

Definition of Disabled Individuals Aligned with Americans With Disabilities Act. Senate Bill 14-118 conforms state law definitions of a disability to match definitions under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Specifically, the terms “disability” and “qualified individual with a disability” under Colorado Revised Statute section 24-34-301 are given the same meaning as under the ADA. This bill also moves the definition of “sexual orientation” out of the Employment Practices definition section (C.R.S. § 24-34-401) and into the general definition section for the Civil Rights Division (C.R.S. § 24-34-301.) It also changes the term “assistance dog” to “service animal” and provides additional penalties for violations of the rights of an individual with a disability who uses a service animal and for persons who cause harm to service animals. The law also expanded the available remedies for retaliation and violations of the fair housing and public accommodations discrimination prohibitions. Once signed into law by the Governor, these provisions will go into effect on August 6, 2014.

Expanded Doctor Choice for Workers’ Compensation. House Bill 14-1383 changes the Colorado workers’ compensation law to allow injured workers more choice of doctors. Currently, an employer or workers’ compensation insurer must provide a list of at least 2 physicians or corporate medical providers from which an injured employee may select a treating physician. This bill expands that number to 4. There are additional provisions related to the location and shared ownership status of the health care providers. After signed into law by the Governor, this law will become effective on April 1, 2015.

Clarification of Credit Report Restriction Allowing Employment Use By Financial Institutions. Senate Bill 14-102 amends last year’s Employment Opportunity Act which restricts an employer’s use of credit reports. This amendment clarifies that all positions at a bank or financial institution are jobs for which credit information is deemed to be “substantially related to the employee’s current or potential job.” As a result, financial institutions will be able to obtain and use credit information on employees and applicants when making employment decisions for all job positions. Governor Hickenlooper signed this bill into law on March 27, 2014 and it became effective immediately.

Bills that Failed to Pass This Session.

Paid Sick Leave. Called the Family and Medical Leave Insurance Act (FAMLI), Senate Bill 14-196 sought to create an insurance program to provide pay to employees who take unpaid FMLA or sick leave. The program would be paid for by employees who pay premiums into a “fund” in the state treasury; employers would not be funding it. Eligible employees would be able to receive a percentage of their pay while on leave, not to exceed $1,000 per week. The bill would have prohibited Colorado employers from discharging, discriminating or retaliating against employees who seek to use benefits under the program or assist in a related-proceeding. Advocated by the Colorado chapter of 9 to 5, this bill, introduced on April 15th, differed from previous paid sick leave bills as it did not require employers to fund the program. On May 1, this bill was postponed indefinitely in committee and therefore, did not make it to a vote.

Drug Testing Misdemeanor. House Bill 14-1040 would have established a drug misdemeanor for an employee who is legally required to undergo drug testing as a condition of his or her job and either tests positive for a controlled substance without a prescription, or knowingly defrauds the administration of the drug test by an employer. To “defraud the administration of a drug test” is defined in the bill to include submitting a sample from someone else or a sample collected at a different time or some other conduct intended to produce a false or misleading outcome. This bill passed the House but the Senate sent it to committee where it was postponed indefinitely.

Anti-Union Bills. – House Bills 14-1087 would have prohibited collective bargaining for the state’s public employees. House Bill 14-1098 and Senate Bill 14-113 would have prohibited employers from entering into agreements to require employees to join a union. All three bills failed shortly after introduction as expected due to the democratic majority in both chambers of Colorado’s legislature.

The bills that passed in the 2014 Legislative Session reflect a continued trend at the state level to implement new or refine existing employment-related laws. We will keep you posted on any further developments.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

May 6, 2014

Separation Agreements Targeted By EEOC Again

By Mark Wiletsky

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently filed a lawsuit seeking to stop a Colorado employer from using its form separation and release agreement and to allow employees who have signed the form agreement to file charges of discrimination and participate in EEOC and state agency fair employment investigations. In its federal court complaint, the EEOC alleges that CollegeAmerica Denver violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) by conditioning employees’ receipt of severance benefits on signing a separation and release agreement which, according to the EEOC, chills and interferes with the employees’ rights to file charges and/or cooperate with the EEOC and state fair employment practice agencies.

As we wrote on this blog earlier, the EEOC has been scrutinizing employers’ separation agreements. This is the second such lawsuit challenging language in the separation agreements that does not permit the filing of discrimination or retaliation charges with the EEOC or other government agencies. As in the EEOC’s earlier complaint against a national pharmacy, the recent complaint against CollegeAmerica Denver targets numerous provisions in the separation agreement, including the release of claims, a non-disparagement clause and provisions in which the employee represents that he/she has not filed any claims, has disclosed to the company all matters of non-compliance and will continue to cooperate with and assist the company with any investigation or litigation.

Many of the targeted provisions are standard clauses in form separation agreements. Although it remains to be seen whether the courts will agree with the EEOC’s claims, it is always a good idea for organizations to review their agreements and ensure they do not raise any red flags for the EEOC while still protecting the company from future payouts for employment-related claims. We will continue to provide updates as new developments arise.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

April 16, 2014

EEOC Loses Kaplan Credit Check Appeal

By Brad Cave

In 2010, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, claiming that Kaplan’s use of credit reports had a disparate impact on black applicants. The trial court threw out the EEOC’s suit because it used an invalid method for determining the race of Kaplan’s applicants. The EEOC appealed, and lost again. In a stinging opinion, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Kaplan and rejected the methodology promoted by the EEOC’s expert witness. The Sixth Circuit’s opinion dooms the agency’s background check disparate impact lawsuit against Kaplan and slaps the EEOC for suing a private employer “for using the same type of background check that the EEOC itself uses.” The ruling also illustrates the EEOC’s failure to show that an employer’s use of neutral background checks results in a disparate impact on African-American applicants. EEOC v. Kaplan Higher Educ. Corp., No. 13-3408 (6th Cir. April 9, 2014).

Credit Checks Aimed At Preventing Employee Abuses

Kaplan is a for-profit test preparation and higher education provider. Because some Kaplan students receive financial aid, some Kaplan employees have access to students’ financial information, including information that is subject to the U.S. Department of Education confidentiality regulations. Years ago, Kaplan discovered that some of its financial-aid officers had stolen aid payments and some executives had engaged in self-dealing by hiring relatives as vendors for the company. To help stop these abuses, Kaplan began conducting credit checks on applicants for senior-executive positions as well as accounting, financial aid and other positions where employees have access to company or student financial information. Neither Kaplan nor its credit check vendor provided or linked the applicant’s race with the applicant’s credit report.

EEOC Alleges Kaplan’s Credit Checks Screen Out More African-Americans

Consistent with its efforts to target employers who use background check policies to screen applicants, the EEOC sued Kaplan alleging that Kaplan’s use of credit checks resulted in more African-Americans being rejected than whites, creating a disparate impact in violation of Title VII. To support its claim, the EEOC hired industrial and organizational psychologist Kevin Murphy to analyze Kaplan’s credit check data and offer an expert opinion based on the statistics. However, because the credit check information did not include the applicant’s race, Murphy and his team needed another method to determine race. They created a process that the EEOC called “race rating” in which a team of five “race raters” reviewed drivers’ license photos for a portion of the applicants to visually identify their race. Despite having credit information for 4,670 applicants, Murphy based his “expert” analysis on only 1,090 applicants, of whom 803 had been racially classified using Murphy’s “race rating” process.

“Homemade Methodology” Rejected by Court

The Sixth Circuit wholeheartedly rejected Murphy’s “race rating” process, stating that “[t]he EEOC brought this case on the basis of a homemade methodology, crafted by a witness with no particular expertise to craft it, administered by persons with no particular expertise to administer it, tested by no one, and accepted only by the witness himself.” The Court upheld the exclusion of Murphy’s testimony not only due to his faulty methodology, but also because the group of 1,090 applicants in Murphy’s statistical analysis was not representative of the applicant pool as a whole. Of Kaplan’s entire pool of 4,670 applicants, only 13.3% of the applicants were rejected on the basis of credit checks, but Murphy’s smaller pool of applicants had a fail rate of 23.8%. The Court found that Murphy’s unrepresentative sample might not equate to the respective fail rates of black versus white applicants and therefore, was an unreliable method for the EEOC to show disparate impact.

EEOC’s Own Background Check Policy Contradicts Its Attack on Private Employers For Use of Credit Checks

Although not central to the exclusion of the EEOC’s expert, the Court put the EEOC’s own background check policy front and center. Through the discovery process, Kaplan had successfully obtained information on the EEOC’s background check policies and pointed to the agency’s personnel handbook which states “[o]verdue just debts increase temptation to commit illegal or unethical acts as a means of gaining funds to meet financial obligations.” To address those potential concerns, the EEOC runs credit checks for 84 of the 97 positions within the agency. The Court highlighted the disconnect between the EEOC attacking Kaplan for a credit check policy that the agency used itself.

Future EEOC Challenges to Employer Use of Credit Checks

The Kaplan decision is the latest in a string of EEOC losses in class actions alleging disparate impact based on an employer’s use of a neutral background check process. The EEOC seems unable to provide evidence to support a finding that African-Americans, Hispanics or other groups are being rejected for employment at higher rates than whites based on background checks. In addition, the EEOC’s own use of credit checks in hiring will be used against it in any future similar lawsuits. Although it remains to be seen whether the EEOC will back off of its systemic enforcement efforts related to the use of background checks, the trend for employers is positive.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

April 3, 2014

Severance Payments Are Wages Subject to FICA Tax

By Arthur Hundhausen and Mark Wiletsky

Employers offer severance payments to separating employees for numerous reasons, including rewarding long-time employees affected by a plant closure, to maintain goodwill, to secure a release and waiver of existing or potential claims, or to comply with company policies or agreements that require such payments. But whether the severance is dictated by policy or an individually-negotiated benefit, one sticky issue that employers may neglect to address is whether severance payments are subject to FICA taxes. The U.S. Supreme Court recently settled that issue by confirming that severance payments made to employees terminated against their will are taxable wages under FICA. United States v. Quality Stores, Inc., No. 12-1408, 572 U.S. ___ (2014). The Supreme Court’s ruling was consistent with the longtime IRS historical position on this issue.

Involuntary Terminations Due to Bankruptcy Triggered Severance Payments

Quality Stores terminated thousands of employees in connection with its involuntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in 2001. The employees received severance payments under one of two plans, ranging from six to eighteen months of severance pay. Initially, Quality Stores reported the severance payments as wages for FICA purposes on the Forms W-2 filed with the IRS and the employees. Consistent with such reporting, Quality Stores paid the employer’s required share of FICA taxes and withheld the employees’ share of FICA taxes as well. Quality Stores then decided to file FICA tax refund claims with the IRS, totaling over $1 million in paid FICA taxes. The IRS neither allowed nor denied the refund claims, so Quality Stores sought a refund as part of its bankruptcy proceeding. Both the District Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that severance payments were not “wages” under FICA, meaning Quality Stores and its affected employees were entitled to a refund of the FICA taxes paid.

The Sixth Circuit’s decision, however, directly contradicted rulings by other Courts of Appeals, which concluded that at least some severance payments constitute “wages” for purposes of FICA taxes. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the issue to resolve the split among the courts.

FICA’s Broad Definition of Wages Includes Severance Payments

FICA defines wages as “all remuneration for employment, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash.” Under the plain meaning of this definition, the Court found that severance payments made to terminated employees constitutes “remuneration for employment.” The Court noted that severance payments are made to employees only, often will vary depending on length of service, and are made in consideration for past services in the course of employment.

Looking at statutory history, the Court noted that in 1950, Congress repealed an exception from “wages” for “[d]ismissal payments which the employer is not legally required to make” from the Social Security Act and since that time, FICA has not excepted severance payments from the definition of “wages.” Agreeing with the government’s position in the case, the Court ruled that severance payments are taxable wages for FICA purposes.

Implications for Employers

The Court’s ruling confirms that employers are obligated to pay their portion of FICA taxes and withhold the employees’ portion of FICA taxes from severance payments. Depending on the amount of the severance at issue, this FICA obligation can greatly change the total payout amount for the employer. It also can catch unknowing employees off guard if they are expecting to receive a higher severance payment without FICA taxes being withheld. Employers should factor the FICA tax obligation into any severance offer to ensure that both the company and the separating employee understand the total amount that is at issue and the final amount that the employee will receive. In addition, employers offering severance payments should review their policies and practices to ensure that proper tax payments are made.

If employers identify past severance payments where no FICA taxes were paid or withheld, such employers should consult with their tax counsel to determine whether any corrective steps are required. In general, the applicable statute of limitations for an employer’s payroll tax liability begins on April 15 of the year following the year in which wages are paid (when prior year payroll tax returns are “deemed” to be filed), and expires after three years. For example, the applicable statute of limitations for payroll taxes owed for 2010 began on April 15, 2011 and expires on April 15, 2014.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

March 13, 2014

Harassment Training for Supervisors is Key in Minimizing Risk

By Mark Wiletsky

Most employers today have policies prohibiting harassment. But if your supervisors and employees are not trained on those policies, and if harassment is allowed to occur, your organization could face significant liability.

Female Bailiff Alleges Egregious Sexual Harassment By Her Supervisor

Camille Kramer was employed as a jailor and later as a bailiff by the Wasatch County Sheriff’s Department. While working at the jail, male co-workers allegedly made offensive comments about Kramer’s breasts, she was subjected to sexually explicit materials on work computers and had to listen to graphic sexual conversations. Kramer complained to Sheriff Kenneth Van Wagoner, the head of the Sheriff’s Department. Sheriff Van Wagoner said he’d “take care of it” and proceeded to call a staff meeting at which he used Kramer as a volunteer to act out the exact harassing scenarios that she had reported to him. Van Wagoner told the group: “[t]hat’s harassment. Don’t do it.” When the harassment got worse after the meeting, Kramer complained again to the Sheriff, who told her she might want to avoid that area.

Kramer transferred to the courthouse to work as a bailiff. Sergeant Rick Benson, also a bailiff, supervised both Kramer and one other bailiff. According to Kramer, Benson subjected Kramer to a campaign of sexual harassment and sexual assault that ranged from demanding foot rubs to groping and rape. Kramer did not report Benson’s conduct to the Sheriff because Benson threatened her job if she said anything and she believed nothing would be done about it anyway.

Later, Kramer told female co-workers about the rape and assault. She also told them that she was having a consensual affair with another man and was pregnant from that relationship. Sheriff Van Wagoner found out about Benson’s sexual assault of Kramer and her pregnancy from one of Kramer’s co-workers. He assigned a detective who was not trained in human resources or in conducting sexual harassment investigations to look into the misconduct. The detective focused his investigation exclusively on finding out who fathered Kramer’s baby, not on Benson’s conduct. When it was learned that Kramer was involved with a married county firefighter, the detective urged Kramer to resign and Kramer was disciplined with her certification suspended for six months for “actions unbecoming an officer.” Although the Sheriff decided to terminate Benson, Benson resigned before that could happen.

Benson directly supervised Kramer’s work as a bailiff. He wrote her performance evaluations, which could cause her to be promoted, demoted or fired. He could create a corrective action plan for her which might include transfer, reassignment or separation, if he deemed her performance was substandard. At all times, however, the Sheriff was the final decision-maker and the only person who had the actual authority to take tangible employment actions against Kramer.

Kramer sued the County and the Sheriff for sexual harassment in violation of Title VII, among other claims. The district court granted summary judgment to the County, holding that because Benson did not have the actual authority to unilaterally fire Kramer, the County could not be vicariously liable for Benson’s conduct. It also ruled that supervisor status could not be based on Benson having apparent authority over Kramer because no reasonable juror could find that Kramer reasonably believed that Benson had the power to fire her. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the County and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Kramer v. Wasatch Cty. Sheriff's Office, No. 12-4058 (10th Cir. Feb. 25, 2014).

Delegation of Power and Apparent Authority

The Tenth Circuit pointed to wording in the Supreme Court’s recent case, Vance v. Ball State, 570 U.S. ___ (2013), to determine whether the County could be vicariously liable for Benson’s conduct. Vance held that a “supervisor” for purposes of determining employer liability for workplace harassment under Title VII includes only those individuals who have the authority to take tangible employment actions against the victim. Although that seemed like a bright-line test, the Tenth Circuit stated that if Benson had or appeared to have the power to take or substantially influence tangible employment actions or used the threat of taking such actions to subject Kramer to a hostile work environment, then the County could be vicariously liable for Benson’s severe or pervasive sexual harassment. Because the Court found sufficient evidence in the record that raised genuine issues of fact as to whether the Sheriff effectively delegated to Benson the power to cause tangible employment actions by relying on Benson’s recommendations and performance evaluations when making decisions regarding firing, promotion, demotion and reassignment, the Court reversed the grant of summary judgment to the County. The Court stated that even if the Sheriff took some independent analysis when considering input from Benson on employment decisions, Benson could qualify as a supervisor if his recommendations were among the proximate causes of the Sheriff’s decision-making. The Court also found that there was evidence to suggest that Kramer reasonably believed that Benson had the power to take tangible employment actions against her meaning Benson qualified as a supervisor under apparent authority principles.

No Tangible Employment Actions

If Benson is a supervisor under the definition established in Vance, the County would be strictly liable for Benson’s harassment if it resulted in a tangible employment action. Kramer asserted that four actions constituted tangible employment actions. First, she argued that Benson’s rape was a tangible employment action. The Court disagreed, stating that while the rape was inarguably a severe form of sexual harassment, Benson did not commit the rape in an official company action. Next, Kramer asserted that Benson prepared a negative performance evaluation of her and argued that was a tangible employment action. However, Benson improved the evaluation after speaking with Kramer and before submitting it to the Sheriff, so even though the threatened poor evaluation contributed to a hostile work environment, it did not constitute a tangible employment action. The Court similarly rejected the final two alleged employment actions, a denial of leave time and assigning Kramer to an unfavorable duty that denied her the training needed for a promotion. The Court found that the loss of one day’s leave time was not a “significant” change in Kramer’s benefits and the assignment to an unfavorable duty did not have a deleterious economic consequence for Kramer or reduce her opportunity for advancement. Finding that Kramer did not suffer a tangible employment action, the Court remanded for consideration of whether the County established the Faragher/Ellerth defense.

Teachable Moments from the Tenth Circuit

The Court’s thorough discussion of Benson’s conduct and what the Sheriff did/did not do when he learned of potential misconduct reveals many teachable moments for employers. First and foremost, make sure to train your supervisors and employees on prohibited forms of harassment, and how important it is to promptly and appropriately address issues when they arise. For example, when an employee reports harassing behavior, as Kramer did when she first worked at the jail, take it seriously. Do not simply tell workers to “stop it” or tell the person who complained to “avoid the area” or stay away from the perpetrators. Make sure that the person conducting the investigation is trained in workplace harassment investigations. Do not focus the investigation solely on the potential wrongdoing of the complaining party, as the detective did when trying to determine the father of Kramer’s baby. Talk to all parties implicated in the misconduct, including any witnesses who may have knowledge of the hostile work environment. If the investigation reveals harassing behavior, take immediate steps to correct it and prevent it from happening again. Follow up with the person who reported it to make certain your corrective actions are effective and that no further incidents have occurred. And finally, do not retaliate against the complaining employee. Learning from these missteps will go along way in minimizing your risk of harassment liability.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.