Requirements for the timing and length of an employee’s meal break may vary from state to state. In Washington, an employee who works five or more consecutive hours must be provided a minimum 30-minute meal period, unless the employee chooses to waive the meal break period. The Washington Supreme Court recently clarified the standard to determine an employer’s liability for a missed meal break.
Specifically, the state supreme court stated that a when an employee provides evidence that he or she did not receive a timely meal break, a greater burden exists on employers to prove that no violation of the Washington Administrative Code § 296-126-092 truly occurred. An employer merely providing an employee the opportunity to take a meal break may not be sufficient to resolve employer liability. Rather, the employer must demonstrate either that no violation occurred and that the employee was actually provided a meal break, or that a valid meal waiver exists.
New York, NY: Final Regulations for “Ban the Box” Go into Effect, Expand Employee Rights
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
All Employers with NY Employees
EFFECTIVE
August 5, 2017
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
New York City “banned the box” nearly two years ago with the implementation of the Fair Chance Act (the “Act”). Recently, the NYC Commission on Human Rights published final regulations that expand upon the enforcement guidance implementing the Fair Chance Act. These regulations clarify existing obligations and impose additional obligations on employers performing background checks on potential and existing employees.
Washington: Supreme Court Clarifies Meal Break Requirements
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
All Employers with WA Employees
EFFECTIVE
August 10, 2017
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Requirements for the timing and length of an employee’s meal break may vary from state to state. In Washington, an employee who works five or more consecutive hours must be provided a minimum 30-minute meal period, unless the employee chooses to waive the meal break period. The Washington Supreme Court recently clarified the standard to determine an employer’s liability for a missed meal break.
Specifically, the state supreme court stated that a when an employee provides evidence that he or she did not receive a timely meal break, a greater burden exists on employers to prove that no violation of the Washington Administrative Code § 296-126-092 truly occurred. An employer merely providing an employee the opportunity to take a meal break may not be sufficient to resolve employer liability. Rather, the employer must demonstrate either that no violation occurred and that the employee was actually provided a meal break, or that a valid meal waiver exists.
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.
© 2017 ManagEase, Incorporated.
Washington: Pregnant Employees Must be Accommodated Regardless of Disability
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
All Employers with WA Employees
EFFECTIVE
July 23, 2017
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Washington’s Health Starts Act (the “Act”) imposes new obligations on employers with pregnant employees. In a departure from the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Act requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant employees regardless of whether or not the employee is disabled by their pregnancy. The Act provides a list of reasonable accommodations employers may need to provide, and includes other important restrictions on medical certification and the “undue hardship” exemption.
West Virginia: New Civil Air Patrol Leave, Anti-Discrimination Provisions
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
All Employers with 15+ WV Employees
EFFECTIVE
July 1, 2017
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Originally passed in April, Senate Bill 280—which implements an unpaid Civil Air Patrol Leave, among other new protections for members of the Patrol—went into effect as of July 1, 2017. Employers should take note of the bill’s new leave and anti-discrimination provisions, and incorporate requirements into workplace policies and procedures accordingly.
September Updates
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
Varies
EFFECTIVE
Varies
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Read more
U.S. DOL Announces Intent to Repeal Rule Restricting an Employer’s Use of Tips Where No Tip Credit is Taken
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
All Employers
EFFECTIVE
July 20, 2017
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
On July 20, 2017, the Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) of the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) announced its intention to repeal a 2011 rule stating that customer tips are always the property of an employee, regardless of whether or not the employer takes a tip credit, and that employers were prohibited from using tip pooling to subsidize the hourly wages of untipped employees. Further, a DOL spokesperson reportedly told Bloomberg BNA that DOL investigators are forbidden from enforcing the 2011 regulation ahead of the proposed rule. Once the rule is rescinded, employers who do not apply a tip credit against a tipped employees’ wages will be able to keep or distribute gratuities in any way the employer sees fit.
Second Circuit: Court of Appeals Further Defines Who is Subject to the “Ministerial Exception”
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
All Employers with CT, NY, or VT Employees in Religious Organizations
EFFECTIVE
June 30, 2017
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Fratello v. Archdiocese of New York, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals provided important guidance on determining whether or not an employee may be classified under the “ministerial exception.” The “exception” precludes employees who may be classified as a “minister” from making employment discrimination claims against the religious entities that employ them. A “minister” is determined by evaluating, among other things, the employee’s formal title, the substance reflected in the title, the employee’s use of the title, and the important religious functions performed.
Eighth Circuit: Appeals Court Clarifies When Employees Forfeit NLRA Protections Based on Disloyal and Disparaging Activities
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
All Employers with AR, IA, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD Employees
EFFECTIVE
July 3, 2017
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In MikLin Enterprises, Inc., v. NLRB, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed, in part, a National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) ruling, stating that certain employee activity was disloyal, reckless, and maliciously untrue, losing union-related protection under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).
Ninth Circuit: An Employer’s Attorney is Subject to FLSA Anti-Retaliation Rules
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
All Employers with AK, AZ, CA, GU, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR and WA Employees
EFFECTIVE
June 22, 2017
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Arias v. Raimondo, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that the anti-retaliation provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) apply not only to employers, but to “any person,” including an employer’s attorney.
Tenth Circuit: Employers Who Take Tip Credits May Keep Customer Gratuities
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
All Employers with CO, KA, NM, OK, UT, and WY Employees
EFFECTIVE
July 3, 2017
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Marlow v. New Food Guy, the Tenth Circuit stated that employers of tipped employees may keep customer gratuities, as long as the employee is already paid the required minimum wage. An employer’s retention of tips under this circumstance does not violate the tip credit provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).