Category Archives: Legislation

December 26, 2017

The New Tax Bill & Employee Benefits: What is Changing? What is Not?

On December 22, 2017, the President signed into law the Republican tax bill that was passed by Congress just days earlier. Beyond cutting individual tax rates temporarily and slashing corporate taxes to 21 percent permanently, the tax bill includes some important changes to the taxation of certain employee benefits.

Listed below are the major changes to employer-provided benefits under the final tax bill:

Revised: Time to repay “offset” employer-sponsored retirement plan loans.
- Currently, retirement plan loans are generally accelerated (i.e., immediately due and payable) when the plan terminates or the participant terminates employment. If the loan is not repaid, the plan will “offset” the loan against the participant’s account. This loan offset may be rolled over by making an equivalent contribution to an IRA or another qualified plan, but this must be done within 60 days of the date of the offset.
- Beginning in 2018, the period to roll over a loan offset is extended to the individual’s due date for the tax return for the year in which the offset occurred (including extensions).
Repealed: Employer deduction for qualified transportation fringe benefits, including commuting expenses.
- Currently, an employer can deduct the cost of certain transportation fringe benefit provided to employees (i.e., parking, transit passes, and vanpool benefits), even though such benefits are excluded from the employee’s income.
- Beginning in 2018, the employer deduction for qualified transportation fringe benefits is fully disallowed. In addition, except as necessary for ensuring the safety of an employee, the employer deduction for providing transportation or any payment or reimbursement for commuting to work is disallowed.
- These changes do not appear to prevent employers from sponsoring a qualified transportation plan to allow employees to elect to have certain transportation costs paid on a pre-tax basis.
Repealed: Employee exclusion of bicycle commuting reimbursements.
- Currently, an employee can exclude from income qualified bicycle commuting reimbursements of up to $20 per qualifying bicycle commuting month. These amounts are also excluded from wages for employment tax purposes.
- Beginning in 2018, the qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement exclusion is fully disallowed.
- Going forward, employers can still maintain a program for bicycle commuting, however, reimbursements under such program will be taxable to the employee.
Repealed: Employer deduction for entertainment, amusement and recreation provided to employees.
- Currently, an employer can fully deduct expenses for recreational, social, or similar activities primarily for the benefit of non-highly compensated employees, provided such activities directly relate to the active conduct of the employer’s business.
- Beginning in 2018, this deduction is fully disallowed. The employee exclusion remains unchanged.
Partially Repealed: Employer deduction for meals, food and beverages provided to employees.
- Currently, an employer can fully deduct any food and beverage expense that can be excluded from an employee’s income as a de minimis fringe benefit.
- Beginning in 2018, there will be a 50% limitation on the deduction for food and beverages that can be excluded from an employee’s income as a de minimis fringe benefit, including expenses for the operation of an employee cafeteria located on or near the employer’s premises. The employee exclusion remains unchanged.
Partially Repealed: Employee exclusion of value of certain types of employee achievement awards and the employer’s related deduction.
- Currently, an employer can deduct up to $400 (or up to $1,600 in the case of certain written nondiscriminatory achievement plans) of the value of certain employee achievement awards for length of service or safety. The employee receiving such award can exclude the award from income to the extent that the value of the award does not exceed the employer’s deduction.
- Beginning in 2018, the employee’s exclusion and employer’s deduction for employee achievement awards will not apply to cash, gift coupons/certificates, vacations, meals, lodging, tickets to sporting or theater events, securities, and “other similar items.” However, an employee can still exclude (and an employer can still deduct) the value of other tangible property and gift certificates that allow the recipient to select tangible property from a limited range of items pre-selected by the employer.
Repealed: Employee exclusion from income of employer-provided qualified moving expense reimbursements.
- Currently, an employee can exclude qualified moving expense reimbursements paid by his or her employer for the reasonable expenses of moving. These amounts are also excluded from wages for employment tax purposes.
- Beginning in 2018, the qualifying moving expense reimbursement is fully taxable to the employee, except for members of the Armed Forces on active duty who move pursuant to a military order.
Enacted: Employer tax credit for employers providing paid family and medical leave.
- Beginning in 2018, an employer that offers at least two weeks of annual paid family and medical leave, as described by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), to all “qualifying” full-time employees (and a proportionate amount of leave for non-full-time employees) will be entitled to a tax credit. The paid leave must provide for at least 50% of the wages normally paid to the employee. “Family and medical leave” does not include leave provided as vacation, personal leave, or other medical or sick leave.
- A “qualifying employee” is an employee who has been employed by the employer for at least one year, and whose compensation for the preceding year did not exceed 60% of the compensation threshold for highly compensated employees (i.e., compensation did not exceed $72,000).
- The credit will be equal to 12.5% of the amount of wages paid to a qualifying employee during such employee’s leave, increased by .25% for each percentage point the employee’s rate of pay on leave exceeds 50% of the wages normally paid to the employee (but not to exceed 25% of the wages paid).

In addition, employers should be aware that the tax bill eliminates the Affordable Care Act’s (“ACA”) individual mandate penalty starting in 2019. The individual mandate requires most individuals (other than those who qualify for a hardship exemption) to carry a minimum level of health coverage. Currently, individuals who do not enroll in health coverage can incur a tax penalty. Beginning in 2019, individuals will still technically be required to carry health coverage, but will no longer be penalized for failing to do so. This change to the ACA’s individual mandate could indirectly impact employers. For example, if fewer employees avail themselves of Exchange coverage and the related subsidies, an employer’s penalty risk under the ACA’s employer mandate will decrease. The lack of individual penalty could also destabilize the Exchange, resulting in more individuals looking to their employers for coverage.

Although earlier drafts of the tax bill called for repeal or modification, the following benefit provisions remain unchanged by the final tax bill:

The hardship distribution safe harbor rules incorporated into many retirement plans (proposals would have eased hardship rules);
The employer-provided child care credit;
Dependent Care Assistance Programs (DCAPs);
Adoption assistance programs;
Employer-provided housing; and
Educational assistance programs.

Takeaways for Employers:

In light of changes to employer-provided benefits under the final tax bill, employers should take the following actions:

Determine whether any changes are needed to retirement plan loan distribution paperwork regarding tax and rollover consequences.
Review qualified transportation plan(s) in light of the changes to qualified transportation fringe benefits and bicycle commuting reimbursements.
Review any company policies that involve recreational, social, or similar activities for employees, employee meals, employee achievement awards, and/or employee moving expenses.
Adjust payroll reporting as necessary and determine whether any taxable amounts are now eligible compensation for retirement plan deferrals and employer contributions.
Consider utilizing the new tax credit for paid family and medical leave.

August 10, 2017

New Nevada Employment Laws – Part 2: Non-competes and Domestic Violence Leave

by Dora Lane

In addition to the pregnancy accommodation law and nursing mothers law we reported on here, the Nevada legislature recently enacted changes to Nevada’s non-compete law and created a new obligation for employers to provide domestic violence leave. Here are the specifics of these new laws that Nevada employers need to know.

Non-Compete Agreements – Changes To Enforceability (AB 276) – effective June 3, 2017

Governor Sandoval recently signed into law AB 276 which enacts some important changes to existing Nevada non-compete law, requiring careful review.

To begin, AB 276 amends NRS Chapter 613 to require that a non-compete covenant: (a) be supported by valuable consideration; (b) not impose any restraint that is greater than necessary for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed; (c) not impose any undue hardship on the employee; and (d) impose restrictions that are appropriate in relation to the valuable consideration supporting the non-compete covenant.

Many questions are raised by the new requirement that the restrictions be in relation to the consideration offered to the employee to support the non-compete agreement. One key question is whether continued employment of an at-will employee will be sufficient consideration to support a non-compete. We will have to see how that language plays out in future enforcement actions.

Restructuring or Reductions In Force. The new amendments state that, if an employee’s termination is the result of a reduction in force, reorganization, or “similar restructuring,” a non-compete covenant is only enforceable during the period in which the employer is paying the employee’s “salary, benefits or equivalent compensation,” such as severance pay. This restriction may vastly reduce the ability of Nevada employers to use non-compete agreements when executives, managers, or other employees are let go due to downsizing or other restructuring.

Restrictions Related to Customers. These new amendments further provide that a non-compete covenant may not restrict a former employee from providing service to a former client or customer of the employer if: (a) the former employee did not solicit the former client or customer; (b) the client or customer voluntarily chose to leave and seek services from the former employee; and (c) the former employee is otherwise complying with the limitations in the covenant as to time, geographical area, and scope of activity to be restricted, other than any limitation on providing services to a former customer or client who seeks the services of the former employee without any contact instigated by the former employee.

Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreements. AB 276 additionally states that it does not prohibit agreements to protect an employer’s confidential and trade secret information if the agreement is supported by valuable consideration and is otherwise reasonable in scope and duration.

Judicial Revision Required. Notably, the new provisions state that if, during a non-compete enforcement action, a court determines that the non-compete covenant is supported by valuable consideration, but otherwise contains limitations that are unreasonable, or impose greater restraint than necessary and create undue hardship on the employee, the court “shall revise the covenant to the extent necessary and enforce the covenant as revised.” Any judicial revisions must be made to cause the limitations contained in the non-compete agreement as to time, geographical area and scope of activity to be restrained to be reasonable and to impose a restraint that is not greater than is necessary for the protection of the employer for whose benefit the restraint is imposed.

Domestic Violence Leave (SB 361) – effective January 1, 2018

Beginning in 2018, Nevada employers must provide an employee who has been employed for least 90 days and who is a victim of domestic violence, or whose family or household member is a victim of domestic violence, up to 160 hours of leave in one 12-month period, assuming the employee is not the alleged perpetrator. A “family or household member” means a spouse, domestic partner, minor child, or parent or another adult who is related within the first degree of consanguinity or affinity to the employee, or other adult person who is or was actually residing with the employee at the time the act of domestic violence was committed.

The leave allowed under this new law may be paid or unpaid, and may be used intermittently or in a single block of time. The leave must be used within 12 months after the date when the act of domestic violence occurred. If used for FMLA-qualifying purposes, the domestic violence leave will run concurrently with FMLA leave and both leave balances will be reduced accordingly.

Reasons For Leave. Eligible employees may take domestic violence leave for the following reasons:

For the diagnosis, care, or treatment of a health condition related to an act of domestic violence committed against the employee or the employee’s family or household member;
To obtain counseling or assistance related to an act of domestic violence committed against the employee or the employee’s family or household member;
To participate in court proceedings related to an act of domestic violence committed against the employee or the employee’s family or household member; or
To establish a safety plan, including any action to increase the safety of the employee or the employee’s family or household member from a future act of domestic violence.

Notice Requirements. This new leave law requires an employee who has used any leave allowed under the bill to give his or her employer at least 48 hours notice if the employee needs to use additional leave for any of the purposes outlined above.

Reasonable Accommodations. Employers are obligated to make reasonable accommodations that will not create undue hardship for an employee who is a victim of domestic violence (or whose family or household member is such a victim). These accommodations may include: (a) a transfer or reassignment; (b) a modified schedule; (c) a new telephone number for work; or (d) any other reasonable accommodation which will not create an undue hardship deemed necessary to ensure the safety of the employee, the workplace, the employer, and other employees.

Documentation. Employers may require employees to present documentation substantiating the need for leave, such as a police report, a copy of an application for a protective order, an affidavit from an organization that provides assistance to victims of domestic violence, or documentation from a physician. Any substantiating documentation provided to the employer must be treated confidentially and must be retained in a manner consistent with the FMLA requirements. In addition, employers may require an employee to provide documentation that confirms or supports the need for a reasonable accommodation under this new law.

Recordkeeping. Employers are required to keep a record of the hours taken for domestic violence leave for a 2-year period following the entry of the information in the record and make these records available to inspection by the Nevada Labor Commissioner upon request. When producing records pursuant to an inspection request, employee names must be redacted, unless a request for a record is made for investigation purposes.

Notice. Pursuant to SB 361, the Nevada Labor Commissioner has provided a bulletin setting forth the rights conferred to employees under the domestic violence leave law, available on its website. Employers must post the bulletin in a conspicuous location in the employer’s workplace. The bulletin may be included in the posting already required by NRS 608.013.

Additional Protections. The domestic violence leave law states that an otherwise eligible employee may not be denied unemployment benefits if the employee left employment to protect himself or herself (or a family or household member) from an act of domestic violence, and the person actively engaged in an effort to preserve employment.

The new law also prohibits employers from denying an employee’s right to use domestic violence leave, requiring an employee to find a replacement as a condition to using this leave, or retaliating against an employee for using such leave. It is also unlawful for employers to discharge, discipline, discriminate in any manner or deny employment or promotion to, or threaten to take any such action against an employee because:

The employee sought leave under SB 361;
The employee participated as a witness or interested party in court proceedings related to domestic violence, which triggered the use of leave under SB 361;
The employee requested an accommodation pursuant to SB 361; or
The employee was subjected to an act of domestic violence at the workplace.

Update Your Policies and Practices

Take time now to review and update your employee handbook, supervisor manuals, and other personnel policies to reflect these new Nevada laws. If you use non-compete agreements, be sure to review future agreements for compliance with the amended statute. Also, be sure to train your managers, supervisors, team leads, and human resources personnel on the requirements and restrictions imposed on employers by these laws. As always, if you have questions or need assistance, contact your Nevada employment attorney.

May 3, 2017

Is Comp Time Coming To The Private Sector?

By Mark Wiletsky

Employees in the private sector may have the option of earning compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week. The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2017, H.B. 1180, which would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to permit employees in the private sector to receive compensatory time off at a rate of not less than one and one-half hours for each hour of overtime worked. The bill now heads to the Senate for consideration.

Eligibility For Comp Time

Under the FLSA, compensatory time in lieu of overtime pay has long been permitted for public sector government employees. But non-government, private sector employees have not had the option of accruing comp time as the FLSA requires that private sector employers compensate overtime only through pay. Under this bill, private sector employees who have worked at least 1,000 hours for their employer during a period of continuous employment with the employer in the previous 12-month period may agree to accrue comp time instead of being paid overtime pay.

Employee Agreement For Comp Time

Under the bill, an employer may provide comp time to employees either (a) in accordance with the provisions of an applicable collective bargaining agreement for union employees, or (b) in accordance with an agreement between a non-union employee and the employer. In the case of non-union employees, the agreement between the employee and the employer must be reached before the overtime work is performed and the agreement must be affirmed by a written or otherwise verifiable record maintained by the employer.

The agreement must specify that the employer has offered and the employee has chosen to receive compensatory time in lieu of monetary overtime compensation. It must also specify that it was entered into knowingly and voluntarily by such employee. Requiring comp time in lieu of overtime pay cannot be a condition of employment.

Limits On And Pay-Out Of Accrued Comp Time

The bill specifies that an employee may not accrue more than 160 hours of comp time. No later than January 31 of each calendar year, the employer must pay out any unused comp time accrued but not used during the previous calendar year (or such other 12-month period as the employer specifies to employees). In addition, at the employer’s option, it may pay out an employee’s unused comp time in excess of 80 hours at any time as long as it provides the employee at least 30-days’ advance notice. An employer may also discontinue offering comp time if it provides employees 30-days’ notice of the discontinuation.

The bill provides that an employee may terminate his or her agreement to accrue comp time instead of receiving overtime pay at any time. In addition, an employee may request in writing that all unused, accrued comp time be paid out to him or her at any time. Upon receipt of the pay-out request, an employer has 30 days to pay out the comp time balance. Upon termination of employment, the employer must pay out any unused comp time to the departing employee. The rate of pay during pay-out shall be the regular rate earned by the employee at the time the comp time was accrued, or the regular rate at the time the employee received payment, whichever is higher.

Employee Use of Comp Time

Under the bill, employers must honor employee requests to use accrued comp time within a reasonable period after the request is made. Employers need not honor a request if the use of comp time would unduly disrupt the operations of the employer. Employers are prohibited from threatening, intimidating, or coercing employees either in their choice in whether to select comp time or overtime pay, or in their use of accrued comp time.

Will It Pass?

The bill passed the House 229-197, largely along party lines with all Democrats and six Republicans voting against it. Reports suggest that although Republicans hold 52 seats in the Senate, they will need at least eight Democrats to vote in favor of the bill to avoid a filibuster. Supporters of the bill urge that it offers workers more flexibility and control over their time off. Those who oppose the bill say it could weaken work protections as it offers a promise of future time off at the expense of working overtime hours for free. This is not the first time that federal comp time legislation has been proposed, so we will have to see if the Senate can line up sufficient votes to pass it this time around. Stay tuned.

February 23, 2017

Nevada Non-Compete Agreements Under Attack in Legislature

By Dora Lane

Non-compete provisions in employment contracts will be vastly limited if a new bill recently introduced in the Nevada Assembly is enacted into law. AB 149 would make a non-compete restriction void and unenforceable if it prohibits an employee “from pursuing a similar vocation in competition with or becoming employed by a competitor of his or her employer for a period of more than 3 months after the termination of the employment of the employee.” (emphasis added.)

Reasonableness Restricted To Three Months

Under current Nevada law, an employer may enter into an agreement with an employee that prohibits the employee from competing with the employer or becoming employed with a competitor for a specified period of time. (NRS 613.200). The Nevada Supreme Court has held that such restraints of trade must be reasonable to be enforceable. According to the Court, a non-compete agreement is reasonable if the restraint is not “greater than is required for the protection of the person for whose benefit the restraint is imposed” and does not impose an undue hardship on the person restricted by the non-compete. In determining whether a specific non-compete restriction is reasonable, Nevada courts look at the duration of the restriction, the territory in which the employee is restrained from employment, and the type of employment that the employee is restrained from pursuing.

The new bill would set a concrete limit on the reasonableness of post-employment competitive restrictions by limiting the duration to three months or less. Any non-compete seeking to restrict competitive activity by a former employee for more than three months would be against public policy, void, and unenforceable. The bill states that a longer restriction necessarily imposes a restraint greater than necessary for the protection of the employer and creates an undue burden for the employee.

Fines and Penalties For Longer Non-Competes

AB 149 would impose penalties on persons, associations, companies, corporations, agents, or officers who negotiate, execute, and enforce agreements that are not compliant with the bill’s mandates. In other words, if an employer willfully enters into a non-compete agreement that restricts post-employment competition for longer than three months, it may be subject to fines and penalties. Parties who willfully prevent a former employee from obtaining employment elsewhere beyond the three-month restriction would be guilty of a gross misdemeanor and subject to a fine of up to $5,000. In addition, the Labor Commissioner could impose against each responsible party an administrative penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation as well as investigative costs and attorney’s fees incurred in any associated proceeding.

Stay Tuned

As proposed, the non-compete limitation would become effective July 1, 2017. The bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor after its introduction by Assemblyman Richard Carrillo. We will continue to follow this bill as it is considered by the Nevada legislature.

February 3, 2017

Wyoming Legislature Convenes And Employment Bills Are On Deck

By Brad Cave

The Wyoming Legislature convened its general session on January 10, 2017. A bunch of interesting employment-related measures have been filed for the Legislature’s consideration. Some make good sense; others not so much. Employers can follow the progress of these proposals through the Legislature’s website at legisweb.state.wy.us, and we will update you as the session progresses.

Unemployment and Workers Compensation

House Bill 71 would permit the Unemployment Insurance Division to establish an Internet-based communication system to transmit determinations, decisions or notices when the claimant or the employer agree to receive those documents through the system. The bill would establish rules for determining when documents are delivered using such a system and acknowledgement of delivery under the system. No action has been taken on this proposal.

House Bill 84 would authorize the Department to enter into installment payment agreements with employers who are delinquent on the payment of workers compensation premiums, lowers the interest rate on delinquencies to 1%, and gives the Department some discretion on whether to sue or shut down an employer who is delinquent in paying premiums. The House Labor, Health and Social Services Committee unanimously adopted a “do pass” recommendation for this bill.

Similarly, House Bill 85 authorizes the Department of Workforce Services to enter into agreements with employers for the repayment of delinquent unemployment contributions of up to twelve months in duration. The bill would also reduce the interest rate for delinquent contributions from 2% to 1%. This bill has been referred to the House Labor, Health and Social Services Committee for consideration, but no action has been taken by the committee.

Senate File 101 would exempt seasonal employment from unemployment benefits and premiums. The measure would define seasonal employment as employment limited to 20 weeks in any 12 month period, and exclude seasonal employment and wages earned from such employment from unemployment insurance purposes. This proposal has been referred to the Senate Labor, Health and Social Services Committee.

Wages

In 2015, the Legislature changed Wyoming law to permit employers to make final wage payments to employees on the employer’s regular payroll schedule, regardless of the reason for termination. House Bill 92 amends that schedule to require employers to comply with any time specified under a collective bargaining agreement between the employer and its employees’ union. The bill passed the House without opposition, and is presently awaiting action by the Senate.

House Bill 140 is a perennial offering to raise the minimum wage. The amount of the proposed increase has changed from year to year. This year’s bill calls for a minimum wage of not less than $9.50 per hour, and a training wage for the first six month’s of employment of $7.50. Under the measure, tipped employees would receive a minimum wage of $5.50, not considering tips, and at least $9.50 per hour with tips. Tipped employees would also be able to file a claim for three times the amount the employer owes if the employer fails to make up the difference between the general minimum wage and the tipped employee minimum wage, when the employee’s tips do not cover the difference. The bill is awaiting action by the House Labor, Health and Social Services Committee.

House Bill 209 would require the Department of Workforce Services to update a 2002 study about gender wage disparity in Wyoming. The bill would require the study to analyze disparities on the basis of county and occupation, and to opine on the causes, impacts, solutions and benefits of resolving any such disparities. This proposal has been introduced, but no action or committee assignment has been made.

Veterans, Military Service and Military and Veterans Spouses

The Joint Transportation, Highways and Military Affairs Interim Committee proposed a trio of veterans’ preference measures:

Senate File 53 would require that all public employers, and all private employers hiring for public works projects, give veterans a “preference prior to the interview process.” The measure would amend current law to direct that, if a public employer uses a numerical scoring system for applicants, veterans shall be granted a 5% advantage over any nonveteran, and, if the veteran has a service-connected disability, a 10% advantage. If no scoring system is used, a qualified veteran shall be given preference over any equally qualified nonveteran candidate. This file would define veteran as any honorably discharged service member or a serving spouse of any deceased service member. After several attempts to amend the proposal, it passed the Senate by a large majority and is awaiting action in the House.

Senate File 54 would create a preference for the hiring of military spouses by all public entities and private employers with contracts on public works projects. A military-spouse applicant would be preferred for appointment if the applicant possesses the business capacity, competency, education or other qualifications for the position. If a public entity uses a numeric scoring system, the military spouse shall be allowed a 5% advantage over any competitor-applicant. If no numeric scoring system is used for a position with a public entity, the military spouse shall be given preference over equally qualified candidates. This file passed the Senate by a narrow five-vote majority, and is waiting for consideration by the House.

Senate File 55 would have amended the Wyoming Fair Employment Practices Act to prohibit discrimination against an applicant or employee because that person is a military spouse. A military spouse is an individual married to an active uniformed military member or member of the national guard or any guard reserve or auxiliary component. The Senate defeated this measure by a vote of 11 to 19.

Finally, House Bill 101 would permit, but not require, school district boards to create a hiring preference for veterans and surviving spouses of veterans. This bill would also clarify that the current law requiring veterans’ preferences does not apply to school districts. The House Education Committee gave this bill a unanimous “do pass” recommendation, and it is working its way through the process on the House floor.

Franchisor Protection

Senate File 94 appears to be a reaction to the National Labor Relations Board’s efforts to treat the employees of franchisees, most notably the employees of various McDonald’s franchisees around the country, as employees of the franchiser corporation. The measure declares that franchisee employees could not be deemed an employee of a franchiser for any purpose under Title 27 of the Wyoming Statutes, which would include unemployment, workers’ compensation, fair employment, and the wage payment statutes. The measure has been assigned to the Senate Corporations Committee for consideration.

Waiver of Governmental Immunity for Health Care Whistleblower Claims

Wyoming law currently prohibits discrimination against employees of licensed health care providers who report any violation of state or federal law to the Wyoming Department of Health. However, most hospitals in Wyoming are operated by governmental entities which are immune from liability under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act for any claim unless the claim is specified as an exception under that Act. House Bill 142 would amend the Governmental Claims Act to create an exception for discrimination against whistleblowers who are employed by public hospitals. This bill passed the House with a strong majority, and is waiting for action in the Senate.

Early Retirement for State Employees

Senate File 95 would create a one-time early retirement program for eligible state employees. The program will apply only to employees who elect to accept the benefit between April 1 through June 30, 2017. Eligible employees would be defined as those between 52 and 55 years of age, with 15 to 18 years of services, such that their age and years of service total at least 70. Eligible employees who accept the offer will receive an enhanced monthly retirement benefit until age 65, and other insurance related benefits. The measure would also restrict the ability of the various state agencies to fill any position vacated by an eligible employee who accepts the early retirement benefit. The measure is currently waiting for consideration by the Senate Revenue Committee.

Resistance to Federal Workplace Safety Regulations

House Bill 70 is an effort to resist efforts by the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to regulate in certain areas. The measure contends that OSHA has “expanded its regulations of highly hazardous chemicals on questionable authority.” This measure would authorize the Governor and the Attorney General to defend the interests of Wyoming citizens against regulations proposed by federal OSHA in areas of “questionable” federal authority. The measure does not specify those areas. The House passed this bill with a strong majority, and it is waiting for consideration in the Senate.

Civil Rights

House Bill 135 would create the Government Nondiscrimination Act, which would prohibit any government employer from discriminating against any person because the person believes or acts based on a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is a union of one man and one woman, and that gender is a person’s biological sex as determined by anatomy and genetics at the time of birth. The measure would have far-reaching implications in various areas of state law beyond employment protections, and would also prohibit any employment-related actions for those prohibited reasons. The measure would create a legal claim for violation of the statute, with broad remedies including compensatory damages, and would eliminate the immunity of governmental entities for violations of the proposed statute. This bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration.

Joint Resolution SJ0001 has been proposed to create an individual right of privacy in the Wyoming Constitution. The amendment would read that the “right of individual privacy . . . shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest.” The resolution does not explain how the amendment would apply to the relationship between governmental entities and their employees with respect to internal investigations, drug testing or other aspects of the public employment relationship. This resolution was received for introduction in the Senate, but no action has been taken on it since introduction.

Joint Resolution SJ004 has been proposed before the Senate to put a resolution before Wyoming voters to amend the Wyoming Constitution. The constitutional amendment would prohibit discrimination or preferences in public employment, contracting, education and a variety of other public services and activities on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. The amendment would apply to all public entities. This resolution was received for introduction in the Senate, but no action has been taken on it since introduction.

Bottom Line

We encourage Wyoming employers to keep tabs on these bills, and contact your Senator or Representative if these impact your organization or industry. The legislative session adjourns in early March, so additional measures may be introduced. We will continue to update you as the session continues over the next month.

January 24, 2017

New Mexico Legislature Considers Significant Employment Bills

By Little V. West

The New Mexico Legislature is one week into its 60-day session, which ends on March 18, 2017. Legislators have introduced a number of bills that, if enacted, would affect employment laws for private employers in New Mexico. Here are the highlights of the most significant employment-related bills presently being considered.

Increasing the Minimum Wage

HB 27, introduced by Rep. Patricia Roybal Caballero (D-Bernalillo), would increase the state minimum wage from $7.50 to $15.00 per hour effective January 1, 2018. On January 1 of each successive year, the state minimum wage would automatically increase to account for a cost of living increase using a percentage set by the United States Department of Labor’s consumer price index for all urban customers (CPI-U). The bill also would eliminate the lower minimum wage provision for employees who customarily and regularly receive more than $30 per month in tips.HB 27 has been sent to the House Business and Industry Committee, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee and the House Business and Industry Committee.

HB 67, introduced by Rep. Miguel P. Garcia (D-Bernalillo), would increase the state minimum wage from $7.50 to $8.40 per hour on January 1, 2018, to $9.20 per hour on January 1, 2019, and to $10.10 per hour on January 1, 2020. In a provision that apparently conflicts with this schedule of set rates for each year, HB 67 also calls for a cost of living increase of the previous year’s minimum wage rate using the percentage tied to the CPI-U. HB 67 would modify the lower minimum wage provision for tipped employees from $2.13 per hour to a rate that is forty percent of the state minimum wage for non-tipped employees.HB 67 has been sent to the House Labor and Economic Development Committee, and referred to the House Business and Industry Committee and the House Labor and Economic Development Committee.

SB 36, introduced by Sen. William P. Soules (D-Doña Ana), would increase the state minimum wage to $8.45 per hour, effective July 1, 2017, with an annual cost of living increase on January 1 of each successive year, to be set by the New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions based upon the CPI-U, and rounded to the nearest multiple of five cents. SB 36 would provide for an exception for small businesses, allowing employers with ten or fewer employees to continue to pay the current $7.50 hourly minimum wage, adjusted annually on January 1 of each following year, if there is a cost of living increase. SB 36 also includes a trainee exception which would permit employers with ten or more employees to pay trainees a minimum wage of $7.50 per hour for the first six months of employment, again with that rate subject to a cost of living increase on January 1 of each following year, if any. SB 36 would also increase the minimum wage for tipped employees to $2.65 per hour, to be adjusted annually. SB 36 has been sent to the Senate Public Affairs Committee, and referred to the Senate Corporations and Transportation Committee and the Senate Public Affairs Committee.

Employee Leave

Caregiver Leave Act: HB 86, introduced by Reps. Deborah A. Armstrong (D-Bernailillo), and Michael Padilla (D-Bernalillo), would require employers that offer sick leave for an employee’s own illness, to allow accrued sick time to be used by employees to care for sick family members under the same terms and procedures that the employer imposes for any other use of sick leave by the employee. Family members would be defined as a person related within a third degree of consanguity or affinity to the employee. The bill would prohibit retaliation against an employee for requesting or using caregiver leave, filing a complaint with the Department of Workforce Solutions for violation of the Caregiver Leave Act, cooperating in an investigation or prosecution of an alleged violation of the Act, or opposing any policy, practice or act prohibited by the Act. HB 86 has been sent to the House Health & Human Services Committee, where it is set for hearing on January 25, 2017, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee and the House Health and Human Services Committee.

Military Reemployment Amendment: HB 83, introduced by Rep. Debbie Rodella (D-Rio Arriba, Santa Fe and Taos), would extend New Mexico’s existing law protecting the reemployment of persons in the armed forces to those that have served in the national guard of any other state or territory of the United States, clarifying that the protections are not limited only to members of the New Mexico national guard.HB 83 has been sent to the House State Government, Indian & Veterans’ Affairs Committee and referred to the House Judiciary Committee and the House State Government, Indian & Veterans’ Affairs Committee.

Pregnancy Discrimination and Accommodation Bill

Pregnant Worker Accommodation Act: HB 179, introduced by Reps. Gail Chasey (D-Bernalillo), Deborah A. Armstrong (D-Bernalillo), and Joanne J. Ferrary (D-Doña Ana), would require employers of four or more employees to reasonably accommodate a known limitation arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, and related conditions. Reasonable accommodations would include modifying or adapting an employee’s work environment, work rules, or job responsibilities for as long as necessary to enable an employee with limitations due to pregnancy or childbirth or a related condition to perform the job, absent an undue hardship on the employer. The proposed law sets forth a number of factors to determine what may constitute an undue hardship.

December 22, 2016

Small Employers Permitted To Reinstate Health Premium Reimbursement Arrangements

By Kevin Selzer

With the health and welfare benefit plan industry eyeing potential regulatory changes under a Trump administration, President Barack Obama signed into law a new rule that partially restores health plan flexibility restricted by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The 21st Century Cures Act (Act) allows small employers to establish arrangements that reimburse employees for premiums on health coverage that is not maintained by the employer (e.g., coverage obtained by an employee on a state exchange/marketplace).

Background On HRAs and the ACA

In 2013, the IRS released guidance stating that an employer arrangement designed to reimburse premiums for non-employer maintained health coverage (on a pre-tax or after-tax basis) is a group health plan that violates certain ACA reforms. This guidance was widely viewed to prevent employers from using a health reimbursement arrangement (HRA), integrated with non-employer maintained health coverage, as a way of circumventing the ACA employer mandate (for large employers). However, the guidance applied to all employers, much to the ire of small employers, many of whom relied on these arrangements to provide a pre-tax cost-effective health benefit. Certain transition relief was provided for small employers, but the relief ended in mid-2015. As a result, many small employers were left out in the cold.

Small employers responded in different ways. Some adopted stipend or similar programs, whereby employees would be paid additional taxable compensation without strings attached (i.e., the employee could decide to use the amounts for health coverage or not). The end-result, however, was that tax-favored health benefits were generally limited to employers capable of sponsoring a major medical health plan.

21st Century Cures Act Permits Certain HRAs

The Act permits certain small employers to sponsor arrangements that will reimburse employees on a pre-tax basis (if certain conditions are met) for amounts incurred for independent (non-employer maintained) health coverage, including health insurance premiums. These arrangements, called qualified small employer health reimbursement arrangements (QSEHRAs), must meet the following requirements:

permitted only for small employers, defined as those who did not have an average of 50 full-time employees, including full-time equivalents, in the prior year;
the employer may not otherwise offer a group health plan to any employees;
the employer must offer the QSEHRA to all employees (with certain limited exceptions);
the maximum annual benefit is $4,950 for reimbursements of employee-only coverage and $10,000 for reimbursements of family coverage;
the reimbursement will be nontaxable if the eligible employee demonstrates that he or she has minimum essential coverage; and
the employer must provide eligible employees with notice containing required disclosures.

The rule changes are intended to be effective January 1, 2017.

October 4, 2016

Employment Contracts with California Employees Require California Law

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:

Require the employee to adjudicate outside of California a claim arising in California.
Deprive the employee of the substantive protection of California law with respect to a controversy arising in California.”

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 >>

June 6, 2016

Colorado’s New Pregnancy Accommodation Law

Effective August 10, 2016, Colorado employers will commit an unfair employment practice if they fail to provide a reasonable accommodation for an employee, or an applicant for employment, for health conditions related to pregnancy or physical recovery from childbirth, absent an undue hardship. Last week, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper signed into law House Bill 16-1438 which requires Colorado employers to engage in an interactive process to assess potential reasonable accommodations for applicants and employees for conditions related to pregnancy and childbirth. The new law, section 24-34-402.3 of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, also prohibits employers from denying employment opportunities based on the need to make a pregnancy-related reasonable accommodation and from retaliating against employees and applicants that request or use a pregnancy-related accommodation.

Posting and Notification Requirements

The new law imposes posting and notification requirements on Colorado employers. By December 8, 2016 (120 days from the effective date), employers must provide current employees with written notice of their rights under this provision. Thereafter, employers also must provide written notice of the right to be free from discriminatory or unfair employment practices under this law to every new hire at the start of their employment. Employers in Colorado also must post a written notice of rights in a conspicuous place at their business in an area accessible to employees.

For more information on this new law, read our full post about its requirements here.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

June 2, 2016

Colorado Bill Will Give Employees Right to Review Their Personnel Files

By Brad Williams

Most employees in Colorado currently have no legal right to review or copy their personnel files. But that is about to change. A bill awaiting signature by Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper will require private employers to allow employees to inspect and copy their personnel files at least annually upon request. If enacted, House Bill 16-1432 will also grant former employees the right to inspect their personnel files one time after termination of employment. Once signed, the bill will become effective on January 1, 2017.

Employers Must Allow Access to Pre-Existing Personnel Files

Under the bill, employers are not required to create or keep personnel files for current or former employees. They are also not required to retain any particular documents that are – or were – in an employee’s personnel file for any particular period of time. However, if a personnel file exists when an employee asks to inspect it, the employer must allow access.

The inspection should take place at the employer’s office and at a time convenient for both parties. Employers may have a manager of personnel data, or another employee of their choosing, present during the inspection. If an employee asks to copy some or all of his or her file, the employer may require payment of reasonable copying costs. Because the bill is silent regarding whether employees may bring others (such as their lawyers) to inspections, employers should likely limit inspections to only the requesting employees.

What Constitutes a “Personnel File”?

The bill defines a “personnel file” as an employee’s personnel records which are used to determine his or her qualifications for employment, promotion, additional compensation, employment termination, or other disciplinary action. This encompasses both records kept in an actual file, and those employers may collect through reasonable efforts. Put differently, employers cannot avoid the bill’s mandates by simply scattering employee records amongst multiple file cabinets.

The bill provides numerous exceptions to the documents that must be made available for inspection. The following are not included in the definition of “personnel files” and need not be made available:

documents required to be placed or maintained in a separate file from the regular personnel file by federal or state law;
records pertaining to confidential reports from previous employers;
an active criminal or disciplinary investigation, or an active investigation by a regulatory agency; and
information which identifies another person who made a confidential accusation against the requesting employee.