New NLRB Joint Employer Rule Finalized!

APPLIES TO

All Employers

EFFECTIVE

December 26, 2023

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • Joint employer relationships occur if there is direct, indirect, or mere authority (even if not exercised) to control employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment.

Discussion

On October 26, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued its final rule on definition joint employer relationships. The final rule will be effective on December 26, 2023.

The new joint employer rule repeals and replaces the 2020 NLRB joint employer rule. The 2020 rule said that joint-employer status exists where a company exercises “substantial direct and immediate control” over the essential terms and conditions of another company’s employees. The 2020 rule was a rejection of the previous line of Browning-Ferris cases that indicated a joint employer relationship could be possible where a company had the authority to control another company’s employees, even where they did not exercise that authority.

The current 2023 joint employer final rule returns to the Browning-Ferris standard with some expansion. Specifically, joint employer status occurs:

  • Where one company directly exercises control over the second company’s employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment, OR
  • Where the first company’s control is indirect (even through an intermediary), OR
  • Where the first company’s control is reserved (i.e., authorized) but not ever actually exercised.

“Essential terms and conditions” of employment are defined to include wages, benefits, and other compensation; hours of work and scheduling; assignment of duties to be performed; supervision of the performance of duties; rules for performance and discipline; hiring and termination; and health and safety work conditions. The final rule notes that an entity’s control over matters that are not material to an employment relationship and that do not apply to the employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment is not relevant to the determination of whether the entity is a joint employer.

Joint employers of particular employees subject to a collective bargaining agreement must bargain collectively for the terms of employment that it controls or has authority to control, even where not “essential” to its joint-employer status. Those joint employers are not required to bargain with respect to any term and condition of employment that they do not possess the authority to control or exercise the power to control.

Joint employer status typically means joint and several liability for labor violations of those areas that the joint employer controls or has authority to control. Employers should have workforce and vendor agreements reviewed by legal counsel to assess and minimize potential exposure.

Action Items

  1. Review the final rule here.
  2. Have joint employer relationships reviewed by legal counsel.

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. © 2023 ManagEase

Executive Order on Artificial Intelligence

APPLIES TO

All Employers

EFFECTIVE

October 30, 2023

  

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • President Biden issued an “Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence” to address growing concerns surrounding the use of artificial intelligence in various areas, including labor and employment.
  • Federal agencies are called to create new guidance and training and to develop best practices to combat AI-related concerns.

Discussion

On October 30, 2023, President Biden issued  an “Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence” to address growing concerns surrounding the use of artificial intelligence in various areas, including labor and employment. The Executive Order calls to action many federal agencies, and tasks them with developing guidance, trainings, and best practices that can be implemented to minimize potential harms from the use of AI technology.

Key components of the Executive Order applicable to employers include:

  • The Secretary of Labor is ordered to develop principles and best practices to mitigate the harms and maximize the benefits of AI for workers by addressing job displacement, labor standards, workplace equity, health, and safety, and data collection. Once these best practices are identified, the agencies are expected to adopt these guidelines as part of their programs.
  • The Secretary of Labor is also responsible for issuing guidance emphasizing that employers must ensure that employees are appropriately compensated for all hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act when using AI tools to monitor or augment employees’ work.
  • The Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors is required to prepare a report outlining AI’s potential impacts on the labor market, and the Secretary of Labor must produce a report identifying options for strengthening federal support for workers facing labor disruptions caused by AI.
  • The U.S. Department of Justice is directed to increase coordination efforts with federal civil rights offices on AI and algorithmic discrimination issues.
  • The Federal Trade Commission is encouraged to use the agency’s rulemaking authority to “ensure fair competition in the AI marketplace and to ensure that consumers and workers are protected from harms that may be enabled by the use of AI.”

Most agencies have between 30 to 365 days to fulfill their respective requirements under the Executive Order. Even though the text of the document largely focuses on federal workers, private employers may be impacted by any developing guidance. Employers should continue to monitor developments related to AI in the workplace, and ensure that their policies and procedures for using such technologies are compliant with applicable federal, state and local laws.

Action Items

  1. Review workplace policies and procedures regarding the use of AI technology for compliance.

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. © 2023 ManagEase

DOL Guidance on “Hot Goods” and Child Labor Violations

APPLIES TO

All Employers

EFFECTIVE

August 31, 2023

  

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • The Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division issued Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2023-3 (Guidance) to instruct its field agents on the prohibition of “hot goods” as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
  • The FLSA prohibits the shipment or delivery for shipment of hot goods in interstate commerce if the goods were removed from a producing establishment within 30 days following a child labor violation.

Discussion

The Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division issued Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2023-3 (Guidance) to instruct its field agents on the prohibition of “hot goods” as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). “Hot goods” are those that are produced in a business that uses oppressive child labor. These goods can include “wares, products, commodities, merchandise, or articles or subjects of commerce of any character, or any part or ingredient thereof” and intangibles like ideas, intelligence, and news. If a portion of a good is the product of child labor and the rest of the good is not, the entire product is still considered a “hot good.” The FLSA prohibits the shipment or delivery of hot goods in interstate commerce if the goods were removed from a producing establishment within 30 days following a child labor violation.

The Guidance provides several clarifications to the language included in the FLSA prohibition. “Oppressive child labor” is any violation of the Department of Labor’s Child Labor Regulations and Orders. The act of being “produced” covers a broad range of activities: production, manufacturing, mining, handling of goods, sorting, storing, packing, and labeling. “In or about an establishment” includes performing occupational duties on the premises regardless of whether workers are employed by the owner, or performing work in close proximity if the work duties are directly related to the activities of the producing establishment.

The Guidance also clarifies the good-faith defense provided by the FLSA. Alleged violators can defend themselves by showing they acquired the goods in good faith and relied on written assurances that the goods were produced in compliance with FLSA child labor provisions. The Department of Labor has the authority to assess monetary penalties and file a civil action in federal court to enjoin the shipment of goods via a temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, or permanent injunction. The Guidance also provides examples to illustrate violations and compliance.

Action Items

  1. Review hiring procedures and working conditions of minors for compliance.
  2. Have appropriate personnel trained on control for hot goods.

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. © 2023 ManagEase

Second Circuit: EPA “Factor Other Than Sex” Affirmative Defense Need Not Be Job-Related

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees in CT, NY, and VT

EFFECTIVE

October 17, 2023

  

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • To establish an affirmative defense under the EPA, employers need only prove that a pay disparity results from a differential based on any factor except for sex.
  • The “any factor other than sex” does not need to be job-related.

Discussion

In Eisenhauer v. Culinary Institute of America, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals clarified that the federal Equal Pay Act (EPA) does not require employers to show that a “factor other than sex” defense must be job-related. Instead, a defendant must only prove that the pay disparity in question results from a differential based on any factor except for sex.

Here, a female professor from the Culinary Institute of America alleged that her employer violated the EPA and New York Labor Law by compensating her less than a male professor carrying a similar course load. In its defense, the employer pointed to its sex-neutral compensation plan, which incorporates a collective bargaining agreement and employee handbook, as justification for the pay disparity.

The EPA provides four affirmative defenses to its prohibition of pay disparities based on sex: “(i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex.” In reviewing “any factor other than sex,” the Circuit Court said it means every additional factor except for those based intentionally or unintentionally on sex. Therefore, to establish the EPA’s “factor other than sex” defense, a defendant must prove that the pay disparity in question results from a differential based on any factor except for sex. Notably, the Court found that there was nothing in the legislative history to suggest that the term must be job-related or limited in any way.

Action Items

  1. Conduct a wage audit for compliance with the EPA.
  2. Establish a compensation structure with parity.
  3. Have appropriate personnel trained on managing compensation.

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. © 2023 ManagEase

Seventh Circuit: Conditions on Non-Compensable Work Allowed

APPLIES TO

All Employers with IL, IN, and WI Employees

EFFECTIVE

October 5, 2023

  

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • Employers that provide pay for non-compensable pre- or post-shift activities can impose conditions on such pay.

Discussion

In Meadows v. NCR Corp., the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled employers that pay for otherwise non-compensable pre- or post-shift activities can impose conditions on that pay. Here, the plaintiff was a customer engineer servicing point-of-sale systems and ATMs. Off-the-clock work was prohibited and work done during regular shifts was to be recorded electronically. If overtime was performed outside this policy, then that time was paid as long as it was recorded in the timekeeping system. The plaintiff performed pre- and post-shift activities and other work during unpaid meal periods like reviewing email, mapping the service route, reviewing work orders, and responding to work calls. His unauthorized overtime was paid but work that was not recorded was not paid per policy. The plaintiff sued for payment of the unrecorded overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The court ultimately found the work the plaintiff performed that was unrecorded was not integral and indispensable to the principal activities of servicing the employer’s systems. Rather, they were incidental to the commute in a company vehicle. The time could be compensable, however, if the employer had a practice of paying for those activities through an express contractual provision or through a custom or practice. Adopting a custom of paying employees for non-compensable activities means the employer also has the discretion to place conditions on that custom.

Action Items

  1. Review overtime and non-compensable time pay practices for compliance.

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. © 2023 ManagEase

Eleventh Circuit: Clarification on “Qualified Individual” Under the ADA

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees in AL, FL, and GA

EFFECTIVE

October 11, 2023

  

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • Former employees cannot sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for post-employment disability discrimination, as they do not meet the definition of a “qualified individual.”
  • Under the ADA, a “qualified individual is someone who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.

Discussion

In Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated that a retiree does not constitute a “qualified individual” with a disability, because they do not hold or desire a position, as required under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Therefore, the court found that a former employee cannot sue under the ADA for post-employment disability discrimination.

Here, a firefighter for the City of Sanford, Florida was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in 2016. Two years later she took disability retirement and continued to receive health insurance through the City. At the time she joined the Department, disability retirees received free health insurance until age 65; however, unbeknownst to her, the City changed its policy in 2003, limiting the continuing health insurance subsidy to 24 months after retirement. Just before her two years was up, the former firefighter brought a claim against the City alleging that the decision to change the retiree health insurance subsidy was disability discrimination in violation of the ADA.

The court dismissed the former firefighter’s claim, finding that she was not a “qualified individual with a disability.” The court pointed out that, under the ADA, a “qualified individual is someone who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires. As a retiree, the former employee did not hold or desire an employment position with the City. Because of this, she could not bring a claim for disability discrimination under the ADA.

That said, the court distinguished between post-employment discrimination claims and retaliation claims under the ADA, noting that a retiree may be able to bring a claim against a former employer because it retaliated against the retiree for exercising rights under the ADA. A plaintiff in a retaliation claim does not have to be a “qualified individual with a disability,” they just have to show they exercised rights under the ADA. Here, the plaintiff did not qualify for a retaliation claim because the decision to change the insurance coverage was made in 2003 and her diagnosis occurred in 2016, so therefore, she did not exercise any rights under the ADA prior to the change.

Action Items

  1. Have appropriate personnel trained on accommodation requirements.

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. © 2023 ManagEase

Eleventh Circuit: FLSA Exemption Tests Clarified

APPLIES TO

All Employers with AL, FL, and GA Employees

EFFECTIVE

September 11, 2023

  

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • Overtime exemption may apply where an employee receives a salary meeting the minimum requirements plus additional compensation paid on any basis, or where an employee is paid on a quantified basis with a minimum salary guarantee if there is a reasonable relationship between the guaranteed amount and the amount actually earned.

Discussion

In Wilson v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp., the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals clarified how the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime exemption applies. The FLSA regulations provide two options for an employer to prove that an employee is exempt from receiving overtime pay: (1) the employee receives the minimum weekly salary basis and may receive additional compensation paid on any basis; and (2) the employee’s earnings may be computed on an hourly, daily, or shift basis if they are guaranteed at least the minimum weekly required amount paid on a salary basis regardless of the number of hours, days or shifts worked, and a reasonable relationship exists between the guaranteed amount and the amount actually earned.

Here, an employee received a guaranteed base meeting the minimum exempt salary threshold regardless of the number of hours, days, or shifts worked, in addition to other hourly rates and bonuses depending on the situation. However, his hourly and bonus pay significantly exceeded the salary pay. The question became whether the first or second exemption test applied.

Ultimately, the court said that the first test applies when an employee receives a base salary and additional compensation, and the second test applies when an employee is merely guaranteed a minimum salary but is typically paid on an hourly, daily, or shift basis. Because the employee here received a fixed base salary and additional compensation in the form of hourly rates and other bonuses, the first test applied.

Action Items

  1. Have overtime exemptions reviewed for compliance.

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. © 2023 ManagEase

Eleventh Circuit: EEO Form Data Does Not Evidence Discrimination

APPLIES TO

All Employers with AL, FL, and GA Employees

EFFECTIVE

September 8, 2023

  

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • Use of EEO data as part of a termination decision is not enough to show evidence of racial discrimination on its own.

Discussion

In Ossmann v. Meredith Corp., the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals said EEO form data does not contain the evidence necessary to show a termination was a pretext for racial discrimination. Here, the plaintiff was a long-time meteorologist for a CBS television station in Georgia. During his employment, several female co-workers repeatedly complained that he engaged in sexual harassment. The complaints included explicit comments about sexual dreams involving the female coworkers, requests for nude photos, inappropriate sexual Facebook messages, descriptions of sexual acts, and unwanted comments about their physical appearance. During the course of these complaints, the HR Director and direct supervisor met with the plaintiff to remind him of the company’s zero-tolerance policy on workplace harassment and provided him with written warnings. This process continued until his suspension and ultimate termination. The plaintiff sued the television station alleging he was terminated not for sexual harassment violations but for race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

The plaintiff pointed to an EEO Analysis that was required by the television station for any discharge, job elimination, restructuring or reorganization as evidence of discrimination. The document contained space to record the complaints made and the company’s response and listed the plaintiff’s race, sex, and age. There was also space to include comparisons with employees who had been in similar situations and the result. The demographics of those employees was also recorded. The plaintiff alleged the listing of his demographic information “tainted the decisionmaking process.”

The court ultimately concluded that this documentation does not “remotely approach the amount of evidence necessary for a reasonable jury to conclude that [the plaintiff] was fired because of his race.” The form, in actuality, documented the specific incidents of sexual harassment. A termination is not race-based just because racial data is included in the documentation. The documentation did not require engaging in “racial balancing” to determine an outcome. There was no evidence of intentional discrimination against the plaintiff based on race.

Action Items

  1. Review termination documentation processes for compliance.

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. © 2023 ManagEase

California: Demographic Reporting by Venture Capital Companies

APPLIES TO

Applies to Venture Capital Companies with Invested Companies in CA

EFFECTIVE

January 1, 2024

  

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • Venture capital companies must start collecting demographic data of founding members of invested companies in 2024, and reporting begins in 2025.
  • Data can only be collected when the venture capital company has executed an investment agreement with the business and made the first transfer of funds.
  • Founding members only disclose their information on a voluntary basis and the venture capital company cannot retaliate against them for refusing to disclose.

Discussion

SB 54, Fair Investment Practices by Investment Advisers, requires venture capital companies to collect and report data on the demographic composition of the founding teams of the companies in which they invest.

“Venture capital company” is defined as an entity that satisfies one or more of the following conditions: (1) on at least one occasion during the annual period commencing with the date of its initial capitalization, and on at least one occasion during each annual period thereafter, at least 50% of its assets (other than short-term investments pending long-term commitment or distribution to investors), valued at cost, are venture capital investments; (2) the entity is a “venture capital firm” under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940; or (3) the entity is a “venture capital operating company” under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. This may include companies such as private equity firms, accelerators, or investor groups.

Venture capital companies must comply with the reporting obligations if they (1) either primarily engage in the business of investing in, or providing financing to, startup, early-stage, or emerging growth companies, or manage assets on behalf of third-party investors; and (2) either are headquartered in California, have a significant presence or operational office in California, make venture capital investments in businesses that are located in or have significant operations in California, or solicit or receive investments from a person who is a resident of California.

Venture capital companies must report to the Civil Rights Department (CRD) information relating to aggregate demographic information about the founding team of companies in which investments were made (i.e., gender identity, race, ethnicity, disability status, sexual orientation, veteran status, California residency status, and whether information was declined to be provided); the number and amount of investments; and the principal place of each company in which an investment was made. The CRD will provide a survey form to use for this purpose. Surveys can only be provided to founding members when the venture capital company has executed an investment agreement with the business and made the first transfer of funds. Founding members respond to the surveyed information on a voluntary basis and the venture capital company cannot take retaliatory action against them for refusing to provide the data.

The first reporting deadline will be March 1, 2025 for data obtained in 2024. The aggregated data will be published on the CRD’s website. Records must be kept for at least four years following reporting to the CRD. Failure to comply with the requirements may result in court enforcement, penalties, attorneys’ fees, and other relief. Although the bill was signed by the governor, he committed to proposing language in the next proposed budget to clarify the requirements.

Action Items

  1. Review the bill here.
  2. Implement a voluntary survey for data collection.
  3. Prepare for reporting in 2025.
  4. Update data privacy notices regarding data collection as applicable.

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. © 2023 ManagEase

California: Newly Permitted Electronic Notices

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees in CA

EFFECTIVE

January 1, 2024

  

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • Mandatory EITC and UI notices may be provided electronically to employees if they opt into electronic receipt in wiring or by electronic acknowledgment.

Discussion

Employers must provide employees with notice regarding the availability of federal and state Earned Income Tax Credits (EITC) as well as unemployment insurance (UI) benefits. AB 1355 permits those notices to be provided to employees via email if an employee affirmatively, and in writing or by electronic acknowledgment, opts into receipt of electronic statements or materials. In the case of UI benefit notices, the electronic acknowledgment must fully explain that the employee is agreeing to electronic delivery of the notice, provide the employee with information about how they can revoke consent to electronic receipt, and create a record of the employee’s agreement to electronic delivery of the notice.

An employer cannot discriminate, retaliate, or take any adverse action against an employee who does not opt into receipt of electronic statements or materials. These permissions remain in effect until January 1, 2029.

The EITC notice must be provided within one week before or after, or at the same time, that the employer provides an annual wage summary, including, but not limited to, a Form W-2 or a Form 1099, to any employee. The notice must be provided a second time in March, but has been permitted to be delivered electronically. The UI benefits notice must be provided at the time of termination.

Action Items

  1. Review the bill here.
  2. Implement electronic receipt authorization forms.
  3. Have appropriate personnel trained on the requirements.

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. © 2023 ManagEase