U.S. DOL Issues New Opinion Letters on Voluntary Delay or Extension of FMLA Leave, Volunteer Working Hours

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees Subject to FMLA and FLSA

EFFECTIVE

March 14, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

On March 14, 2019, the United States Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (WHD) issued two new opinion letters.  The first letter addresses whether or not employers may extend or delay designating paid leave as FMLA time off.  The second letter addresses whether an employee’s time participating in an optional volunteer program qualifies as hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  These opinion letters are responses from the WHD to submitted queries, are primarily informative in nature, and are published by the WHD to clarify or interpret existing regulations.

Read more

Second Circuit: ADA Protects Against a Hostile Work Environment

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees in CT, NY, VT

EFFECTIVE

March 6, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Fox v. Costco Wholesale Corp., the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated that hostile work environment claims may be brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). There, an employee who had Tourette’s Syndrome and OCD claimed he was subject to a hostile work environment because of his medical conditions, including mocking his disability over a significant period of time and with the employer’s knowledge. Specifically, the court stated that the prohibition of discrimination under the ADA includes prohibiting workplace harassment, similar as with Title VII claims. The court indicated that there was sufficient information alleged that would allow the case to proceed. Employers should take care to consistently enforce anti-discrimination and harassment policies.

Action Item

  1. Review the decision here.
  2. Have discrimination and harassment policies reviewed for compliance.
  3. Have employees regularly trained on discrimination and harassment prevention.
  4. 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

Eleventh Circuit: Discrimination Defined When Compared to Similar Employees

APPLIES TO

All Employers with AL, FL, GA employees

EFFECTIVE

March 21, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

When making a discrimination claim under federal law, an employee must show she was treated differently than a “similarly situated” individual. In Lewis v. Union City, the Eleventh Circuit en banc defined what it means to be similarly situated. Specifically, only employees who are “similarly situated in all material respects” may be compared for purposes of finding discrimination. Although the analysis of similarity of “all material respects” will be determined on a case-by-case basis, the court gave “guideposts” of what to consider. For example, such individuals will have (1) engaged in the same basic conduct, (2) been subject to the same employment policy or rule, (3) ordinarily have the same supervisor, and (4) a shared employment or disciplinary history.

Read more

Georgia: “Key Employee” Clarified Under Restrictive Covenants Act

APPLIES TO

All Employers with GA Employees

EFFECTIVE

March 5, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

The Georgia Restrictive Covenants Act (GRCA) prohibits noncompete agreements with employees unless they “customarily and regularly” solicit customers or make sales, or are a “key employee.” In Blair v. Pantera Enters., Inc., the Georgia Court of Appeals provided clarity on what a key employee is. There, an employee left to work for a competitor and a client followed because of its relationship with the employee. The employee did not solicit customers or make sales, and the employer attempted to enforce the noncompete on the basis of being a key employee.

Read more

Kentucky: Mandatory Arbitration is Again Permissible

APPLIES TO

All Employers with KY Employees

EFFECTIVE

March 25, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In September 2018, the Kentucky Supreme Court stated that mandatory arbitration agreements violate state law. Recently, the Kentucky legislature enacted SB 7 to change that ruling. The Bill specifically states that employers may require an employee or applicant to execute an arbitration agreement as a condition of employment. The arbitration agreement must state a reasonable location for the arbitration, apply to both parties, ensure procedural fairness, provide at least one channel for pursuing a legal claim (e.g., individual arbitration), and allow an arbitrator to award the same type of relief as would be available through a court of law.

The Bill applies prospectively and retroactively so as to eliminate the effects of the prior court case. Notably, this permission for mandatory arbitration agreements does not apply to collective bargaining agreements.

Action Items

  1. Have arbitration agreements reviewed by legal counsel for compliance with the new law.
  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

Maryland: Minimum Wage to Increase to $15 per Hour by 2025

APPLIES TO

All Employers with MD Employees

EFFECTIVE

June 1, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

The Maryland legislature recently overrode Governor Hogan’s veto of a minimum wage bill that will increase minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2025, and by 2026 for employers with 14 or less employees. HB 166/SB 280 raises minimum wage to $11 per hour on January 1, 2020, and then by $0.75 each year thereafter until it reaches $15 on January 1, 2025. Small employers will see annual increases of $0.60 each year until July 1, 2026. Workers under 18 years old, down from 20 years, are required to be paid at least 85% of the state minimum wage.

Additionally, employers who take a tip credit for tipped employees must provide employees with a wage statement each pay period showing their effective hourly tip rate “as derived from employer-paid cash wages plus all reported tips for tip credit hours worked each workweek of the pay period.”

Action Items

  1. Update projected budgets to account for increases in minimum wage.
  2. Update payroll processes to account for minimum wage increases.
  3. Update tipped employee wage statements as required.
  4. Look for forthcoming tip credit wage statement regulations from the Commissioner.
  5. 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

New Hampshire: Medical Marijuana May Be a Reimbursable Workers’ Compensation Expense

APPLIES TO

All Employers with NH Employees

EFFECTIVE

March 7, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

The New Hampshire Supreme Court recently stated that a workers’ compensation carrier could not deny an employee’s request for reimbursement of medical marijuana to treat a work-related injury.  In the Appeal of Andrew Panaggio, an employee suffered a lower back injury that resulted in permanent impairment and ongoing pain.  He was prescribed opioids to treat the pain, but due to negative side effects, he was later issued a cannabis registration card authorizing medical marijuana use.  However, the workers’ compensation carrier denied payment of the medical marijuana, alleging that it was not “reasonable/necessary or causally related” to the work injury.

Read more

New Jersey: Update Arbitration and Non-Disclosure Agreements Immediately!

APPLIES TO

All Employers with NJ Employees

EFFECTIVE

March 18, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Recently enacted Senate Bill 121 prohibits nondisclosure agreements from concealing claims of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Interestingly, such terms are not enforceable against current or former employees, but they are enforceable against the employer, unless the employee discloses enough information to make the employer “reasonably identifiable.”

Read more

New Jersey: Equal Pay Act Reporting Requirements Revised for Public Works Employers

APPLIES TO

All Employers with NJ Employees Who Perform Public Works for NJ

EFFECTIVE

March 31, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

A recent revision made by the New Jersey Department of Labor (NJ DOL) clarified Equal Pay Act data reporting requirements.  According to the NJ DOL, employers that provide services to public works for the state of New Jersey do not need to report equal pay data for all employees—just employees who perform the public work or provide qualifying services.

Read more

New Jersey: Medical Marijuana Protected from Workplace Discrimination

APPLIES TO

All Employers with NJ Employees

EFFECTIVE

March 27, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Wild v. Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc., the New Jersey Court of Appeal stated that although the Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act does not prohibit discrimination for use of medical marijuana, the Law Against Discrimination (LAD) may. There, an employee used medical marijuana as part of his cancer treatment. While driving for work, the employee was struck by another vehicle that ran a stop sign. Although the emergency room treating physician did not observe the employee to be under the influence and did not perform a blood test noting that the employee had a medical marijuana card, the employer required a blood test before the employee could return to work and ultimately terminated him.

Read more