|
APPLIES TO
All Employers subject to NLRA
|
EFFECTIVE
March 18, 2021 |
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
|
In Dish Network, LLC, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) stated that a mandatory arbitration agreement violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) where it required all employment disputes be subject to arbitration. Specifically, by making a generalization of all disputes, the agreement implicitly restricted employee access to the NLRB. The NLRB has historically identified these types of agreements as falling under Category 3 (prohibited) of the Boeing rules.
The NLRB also approved of language in the arbitration agreement that keeps arbitration proceedings, hearings, discovery, and awards confidential. However, it stated that requiring settlements of any arbitrated disputes to be confidential falls under Boeing Category 3. Specifically, settlements are separate from arbitration proceedings, and restricting settlement terms in this context could restrict NLRA rights to discuss employment terms and conditions or seek NLRA remedies from the NLRB. The NLRB indicated that a savings clause preserving NLRA rights could ameliorate this issue. Also, there is nothing that would prohibit parties in the settlement process itself to agree to confidentiality terms at that time.
Employers should continue to scrutinize their arbitration agreements to ensure compliance with federal and state laws. Similar to employee policies, including language that maintains NLRA rights can help avoid some of the pitfalls at issue in this ruling.
- Have arbitration agreements reviewed by legal counsel.
- 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.
© 2021 ManagEase
New York: HERO Act Implements New Employer Safety Requirements
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
Certain Private Employers with NY Employees; As Indicated
EFFECTIVE
As Indicated
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
The New York Health and Essential Rights Act (HERO Act) adds new occupational safety and health rules that set minimum safety standards for the private sector. The Act covers all workers, including independent contractors. The state Commissioner of Labor together with the State Department of Health must prepare model airborne infectious disease exposure prevention standards. As of June 4, 2021, employers may either adopt the model standards or create their own safety plan that meets or exceeds the minimum standards established by the Labor Commissioner. Employers must distribute the plan to employees in English and the employee’s primary language if other than English, post the plan in the workplace, and incorporate it into the employee handbook.
Read more
Philadelphia, PA: New Recall and Retention Requirements for Hotel, Hospitality, and Event Centers
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
As Indicated
EFFECTIVE
January 7, 2021
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Philadelphia employers in the hotel, airport hospitality, and event center industries will need to pay attention to new recall and retention requirements imposed by a number of recently passed ordinances.
Read more
Virginia: Expands Human Rights Act to Include Disabilities
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with VA Employees
EFFECTIVE
July 1, 2021
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
The Virginia Human Rights Act (VHRA) has been expanded to prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability. Employers must provide a reasonable accommodation to qualified employees, unless the accommodation would cause an undue hardship. To do this, employers must engage in a timely, good faith interactive process to determine if the requested accommodation is reasonable or discuss alternative accommodations. Employers also cannot retaliate against an employee who requests or uses a reasonable accommodation, deny employment opportunities because the employer is required to provide a reasonable accommodation, or require the employee take a leave of absence if another reasonable accommodation can be provided.
Before denying an accommodation request because of an undue hardship, the employer must consider the hardship on the employer’s business, size of the applicable facility, nature and costs of the accommodations needed, the possibility that the same accommodations may be used by another employee, and safety and health considerations of the person with a disability.
Employers must include language in employee handbooks to include information about employee rights to reasonable accommodation based on disability. A required poster must also be displayed in a conspicuous place in the workplace. Additionally, employers must provide notice of employee rights upon hire and within 10 days following receipt of notice that an individual has a disability.
Action Items
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.
© 2021 ManagEase
West Virginia: Clarifies Independent Contractor Status
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with WV Employees
EFFECTIVE
June 9, 2021
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
SB 272 provides the definition of independent contractor for purposes of workers’ compensation, unemployment compensation benefits, Human Rights Act rights, and wage payment and collection laws. There must be a written agreement between the business and individual stating their intent to have an independent contractor relationship. The individual must also acknowledge in the writing that (1) they are providing services as an independent contractor; (2) they will not be treated as an employee; (3) they will not be provided with either workers’ compensation or unemployment benefits; (4) they are required to pay all applicable federal and state income taxes and that no tax withholdings from payments will be made by the business; and (5) they are responsible for the majority of the supplies and expenses incurred in connection with the contracted services unless the expenses are for non-local travel, the expenses are reimbursed under an express provision of the contract, or they are commonly reimbursed under industry practice.
Read more
May Updates
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
Varies
EFFECTIVE
Varies
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Read more
NLRB Weighs in Again on Mandatory Arbitration
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers subject to NLRA
EFFECTIVE
March 18, 2021
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Dish Network, LLC, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) stated that a mandatory arbitration agreement violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) where it required all employment disputes be subject to arbitration. Specifically, by making a generalization of all disputes, the agreement implicitly restricted employee access to the NLRB. The NLRB has historically identified these types of agreements as falling under Category 3 (prohibited) of the Boeing rules.
The NLRB also approved of language in the arbitration agreement that keeps arbitration proceedings, hearings, discovery, and awards confidential. However, it stated that requiring settlements of any arbitrated disputes to be confidential falls under Boeing Category 3. Specifically, settlements are separate from arbitration proceedings, and restricting settlement terms in this context could restrict NLRA rights to discuss employment terms and conditions or seek NLRA remedies from the NLRB. The NLRB indicated that a savings clause preserving NLRA rights could ameliorate this issue. Also, there is nothing that would prohibit parties in the settlement process itself to agree to confidentiality terms at that time.
Employers should continue to scrutinize their arbitration agreements to ensure compliance with federal and state laws. Similar to employee policies, including language that maintains NLRA rights can help avoid some of the pitfalls at issue in this ruling.
Action Items
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.
© 2021 ManagEase
Fifth Circuit: FLSA Preempts State Tort Claims
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with LA, MI, TX Employees
EFFECTIVE
March 9, 2021
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Aldridge v. Mississippi Dept. of Corrections, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal stated that employees must pursue their claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) rather than state tort law (e.g., negligence) where the state does not independently provide for minimum wage or overtime compensation requirements. Specifically, FLSA requirements cannot be circumvented by state laws, because they conflict with executing the “purposes and objectives of Congress.” The FLSA was designed to give specific minimum protections to individual workers “from substandard wages and oppressive working hours.”
There, employees claimed wage and hour violations under the FLSA, and negligence causes of action under state law for the FLSA violations. Mississippi does not have its own minimum wage and overtime laws, so the state claims were actually based on alleged violations of the federal claims. Under those circumstances, the state claims do not stand on their own and the court said that the state claims were preempted by the federal claims.
The court distinguished this idea by acknowledging that the FLSA requires employers to also comply with state or local wage and hour laws where they exist. The court’s position “only means that [employees] may not sue simultaneously under both state law and the FLSA for these violations if state law does not independently provide for such a cause of action.” The court also acknowledged that some state tort claims may stand if they are independent of the federal claims. Employers must take care to ensure compliance with both federal and state laws where they apply.
Action Items
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.
© 2021 ManagEase
California: Employers Allowed to Require Vaccines
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with CA Employees
EFFECTIVE
March 4, 2021
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) recently updated its COVID-19 Guidance page to address vaccine-related questions. The latest update, as of March 4, 2021, answers one of the biggest questions for many employers: can we require employees to get vaccinated?
Read more
Illinois: New Criminal History Check Requirements for Employers
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with IL Employees
EFFECTIVE
March 23, 2021
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
SB 1480 amends the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) to impose additional requirements on employers who perform criminal history checks on employees. The new provisions require employers to follow an interactive adverse action procedure before making any employment decisions based on an individuals’ criminal history or conviction record.
Read more
Illinois: New State EEO-1 Filing and Equal Pay Registration Requirements
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with 100+ IL Employees
EFFECTIVE
As Indicated
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
SB 1480 requires Illinois employers who are required to complete the federal EEO-1 report, to provide similar information to the state who will publicly publish the information. Specifically, employers with 100 or more employees (or 50 or more employees with a government contract of $50,000 or more) are required to file the federal EEO-1 report. Those same employers will be required to report similar race, ethnicity, and gender data in a format that will be approved by the Secretary of State. Like California, Illinois employers will also be required to submit corresponding pay data. The new requirements will go into effect on or after January 1, 2023.
Read more