DOL Issues Final Rule on Changes to Overtime Exemptions

APPLIES TO

All Employers Subject to the FLSA

EFFECTIVE

January 1, 2020

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued the final rule updating the salary requirements for overtime exempt classifications. For executive, administrative, professional, and computer professional exemptions, the salary threshold will increase from $455 to $684 per week (equivalent to $35,568 per year). Where state overtime exemptions are more strict, the federal rule will not impact those jurisdictions.

Read more

DOL Issues Opinion Letter on Using FMLA Leave for Child IEP Management

APPLIES TO

All Employers Subject to FMLA

EFFECTIVE

August 8, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently announced a new opinion letter from the Department’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) on whether or not leave may be taken under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in order to attend a Committee on Special Education (CSE) meeting to discuss the Individualized Education Program (IEP) of the employee’s child.

Read more

Expanded Moral Exemptions to ACA’s Contraception Mandate Struck Down Again

APPLIES TO

All Employers Subject to the ACA

EFFECTIVE

July 12, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. President of the United States, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal stated that the Trump administration’s rules expanding employer exemptions to the contraceptive mandate for religious or moral objections were not enforceable. Specifically, the final rules failed to follow the proper administrative procedures for enacting rules, because no public comment period was offered. Additionally, the court stated that the rules were not authorized by law, making them arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.

Read more

8th Circuit: Arbitration Agreements Must Be Enforceable Contracts

APPLIES TO

All Employers with AR, IA, MN, MO, NE, ND, and SD Employees

EFFECTIVE

July 15, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Shockley v. PrimeLending, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeal reminded employers that arbitration agreements must be enforceable contracts. There, the employer’s mandatory arbitration agreement and delegation clause existed only in its Handbook Addendum. The employee had received the Addendum electronically, which only required her to click on the Addendum link to generate an automatic acknowledgement that it was reviewed.  There was no evidence that the employee had actually ever opened the Handbook or Addendum and reviewed the arbitration policy.

Read more

9th Circuit: De Minimis Rule Does Not Apply to Regular Work Activity Regardless of How Little Time is Spent

APPLIES TO

All Employers with CA Employees

EFFECTIVE

June 28, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Rodriguez v. Nike Retail Servs., Inc., the Ninth Circuit refused to apply the de minimis rule to time employees spent participating in security checks after clocking out, even though the time spent could have been less than a minute. The de minimis rule allows employers to forego paying employees for short, uncertain and indefinite periods of time that are irregularly worked off the clock.

Read more

IMPORTANT! California: Harassment Training Requirement Extended One Year

APPLIES TO

All Employers with CA Employees

EFFECTIVE

August 30, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

On August 30, 2019, Governor Newsom signed SB 778 which extends the current harassment training deadline for employers from January 1, 2020 to January 1, 2021. This basically gives employers an extra year to train supervisors and employees in order to meet SB 1343’s requirements. Don’t panic! If you already did your training this year, your organization gets credit for it with the extended deadline, and will only need to re-train two years from now (i.e., by the end of 2021) as previously planned.  Similarly, if your already-established, two-year training schedule means you are required to provide training by the end of this year, the amended rules do not give you an extension of time, but allow this year’s training to count toward the new requirement and you will just remain on your set two-year training schedule.

Essentially, this bill does not change the timeline for those who have already completed their training this year, and gives extra time to those who completed training last year and have not yet done the next round of required training. Employers should note they must also still provide harassment training to employees within 6 months of hire, and to supervisors within 6 months of attaining the position.

Action Items

  1. Track harassment training compliance.
  2. Have harassment training scheduled within the required time periods.
  3. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.

© 2019 ManagEase

California: State Supreme Court Takes a Heavy-Handed Look at Unconscionability in Arbitration Agreements

APPLIES TO

All Employers with CA Employees

EFFECTIVE

August 29, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Oto, LLC v. Kho, the California Supreme Court again pushed back on arbitration agreements in employment. The U.S. Supreme Court historically has said that states cannot discriminate against arbitration as a forum for resolving disputes or in favor of some disputes over others. Here, the California Supreme Court attacked the unconscionability of the agreement, meaning that the agreement was unfair in how it was presented to the employee.

Read more

California: AB 5 Cements the Dynamex Independent Contractor Test

APPLIES TO

All Employers with CA Employees

EFFECTIVE

January 1, 2020

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In 2018, in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (Lee), the California Supreme Court set forth an ABC test for determining when an individual is an independent contractor rather than an employee for wage and hour-related claims. Specifically, the Court stated that a workers is presumed to be an employee unless the business proves: (A) the worker is free from control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, based in contract and in fact; (B) the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity. The previous Borello standard was left in place for determining independent contractor status for non-wage and hour claims.

Read more

Colorado: Employer Policy Controls Vacation Payout on Termination

APPLIES TO

All Employers with CO Employees

EFFECTIVE

June 27, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Nieto v. Clark’s Market, Inc., the Colorado Court of Appeal stated that the employer and employee’s agreement determines how accrued vacation time is handled at termination. Specifically, the state Wage Claim Act, which states in part that the employer must pay all earned vacation upon termination “in accordance with the terms of any agreement between the employer and the employee,” does not create an independent right of employees to receive vacation payout upon termination.

There, the employer’s vacation policy provided for payout of earned vacation time upon termination if the employee provided at least two weeks’ advance notice of leaving employment; however, vacation benefits are forfeited if insufficient notice was provided or the employee is terminated. The court stated that the employer’s policy controlled, and the employee did not meet the requirements. Employers should have vacation policies reviewed accordingly, and should seek legal counsel before refusing to pay out earned vacation upon termination where a vacation policy is silent on those terms.

Action Items

  1. Have vacation policies and termination procedures reviewed for compliance.
  2. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.

© 2019 ManagEase

Chicago, IL: Predictive Scheduling Law Coming Next Summer

APPLIES TO

Certain Employers with Chicago, IL Employees

EFFECTIVE

July 1, 2020

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

The Chicago Fair Workweek Ordinance was recently passed by the City Council, which will require employers to provide advance notice of work schedules to lower income employees in certain industries. Specifically, the Ordinance applies to employers with 100 or more employees globally (250 employees for non-profit organizations), 50 of which meet the eligibility requirements. Employees are eligible for protection under the Ordinance if they primarily work in Chicago, earn no more than $50,000 per year in salary or $26 per hour as an hourly worker, and work in building services, healthcare, hotel, manufacturing, restaurant, retail, or warehouse services industries.

Read more