DOL Publishes Final Rule for FLSA Independent Contractor Classification

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Independent Contractors

EFFECTIVE

March 11, 2024

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • The Department of Labor published a final rule used to determine whether a worker qualifies as an independent contractor or an employee under the FLSA.
  • The new rule uses the six-factor economic realities test, focusing on whether a worker is economically dependent on the employer to determine independent contractor status.

Discussion

On January 10, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) published a final rule on how to determine whether a worker qualifies as an independent contractor or an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The DOL’s original proposed rule was published in July of 2023 and received over 55,000 comments. Absent any significant legal challenges, the final rule is set to take effect on March 11, 2024.

The rule returns to a six-factor, economic realities test that asks whether a worker is economically dependent on the employer to determine independent contractor status. The six factors are: (1) opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill; (2) investments by the worker and the potential employer; (3) degree of permanence of the work relationship; (4) the nature and degree of control exercised by each party over the work; (5) extent to which the work performed is an integral part of the potential employer’s business; and (6) skill and initiative. Each factor is briefly described below.

  1. Opportunity for Profit or Loss

This factor considers whether the worker has opportunities for profit or loss based on their opportunity to exercise managerial discretion. A worker who has no such opportunity is likely to be considered an employee. Notably, the final rule clarifies that the decision to work more hours or take more jobs when paid a fixed rate per hour or per job typically does not require the exercise of managerial skill/discretion that would be required for an independent contractor classification. Instead, the factor looks at whether, among other things, the individual can meaningfully negotiate the charge or pay for the work provided, whether the worker engages in marketing, advertising, or other efforts to expand their business or secure more work, and whether the worker makes the decision to hire others, purchase materials/equipment, and/or rent space.

  1. Investments by the Worker and the Potential Employer

This factor focuses on whether the worker’s investments are capital or entrepreneurial, meaning whether they “support an independent business and serve a business-like function.” Costs incurred by the worker for tools and equipment to perform a specific job, for specific labor, and that the potential employer imposes, unilaterally all favor a classification of employee, as opposed to independent contractor.

  1. Degree of Permanence of Work Relationship

The degree of permanence factor focuses on the duration and longevity of the working relationship. Relationships that are indefinite, continuous, or exclusive tend to favor more toward an employee classification, whereas relationships that are definite in duration, non-exclusive, or sporadic tend to lean in favor of an independent contractor classification. The final rule clarifies that the ultimate question under this factor is whether short periods of work are due to workers acting independently to obtain business opportunities or whether they are due to the operational characteristics of particular industries.

  1. Nature and Degree of Control

This factor focuses on the level of control that a prospective employer exercises over the worker. Under the final rule, “actions taken by the potential employer that go beyond compliance with a specific, applicable federal, state, tribal, or local law or regulation and instead serve the potential employer’s own compliance methods, safety, quality control, or contractual or customer service standards may be indicative of control.” Therefore, actions taken by a potential employer with the sole purpose of complying with a specific law or regulation would not, on its own, indicate an employer-employee relationship. However, if an employer asserts control over other aspects of the relationship such as, but not limited to, the worker’s schedule, work performance, worker discipline, or otherwise demands or restricts the worker in a way that prevents the worker from working for others, such aspects of the work relationship would tend to indicate an employee classification.

  1. Integral Part of Employer’s Business

To determine whether work is an “integral part” of the prospective employer’s business, employers must conduct an evaluation of whether the function the worker is performing is “critical, necessary, or central” to the employer’s primary business. This focuses on the work performed in relation to the business of the company, as opposed to whether the workers themselves are integral to the business. Where work performed is determined to be “critical, necessary, or central,” then this factor favors an employee classification under the final rule.

  1. Skill and Initiative

The last factor focuses on whether the worker uses specialized skills for the work performed, and where “those skills contribute to business-like initiatives,” this factor will favor classifying the individual as an independent contractor. That said, the DOL clarifies that the use of specialized skills is just part of the inquiry, and workers who lack specialized skills may nevertheless be classified as independent contractors. Therefore, the central question instead is whether the worker’s skills contribute to business-like initiatives. In situations where the worker relies on the employer to provide training to perform the work, this factor favors employee classification.

Moving Forward for Employers

Unlike the prior 2021 rule that held two “core” factors above another three “less probative” factors, no one factor in the economic reality test is intended to be determinative of the working relationship. Instead, all factors should be weighed equally to consider the totality of the circumstances in each case. Additional factors may be considered if they are relevant to the overall question of economic dependence.

Notably, the DOL has indicated that the new rule “is not intended to disrupt the business of independent contractors who are, as a matter of economic reality, in business for themselves.” The DOL has signaled that its early enforcement initiatives will be directed toward workers in low-income industries, as well as the construction and healthcare industries.

As employers begin to audit their existing independent contractor relationships in light of this final rule, they should keep in mind that this rule only applies to classifications under the FLSA, and not to other federal or state laws (e.g., those governed by the IRS, NLRB, state unemployment insurance, state wage and hour laws, etc.). If other laws impose different or stricter classifications tests, the employer should continue to abide by all applicable classification requirements.

Action Items

  1. Review independent contractor relationships with counsel to determine proper classification and re-classify workers if necessary.

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. © 2024 ManagEase

Industry-Specific Guidance for PUMP Act

APPLIES TO

All Employers

EFFECTIVE

January 8, 2024

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • The Department of Labor released additional guidance to assist the restaurant and retail, agriculture, care, transportation, and education industries in determining how to comply with the PUMP Act requirements.
  • Employers may create temporary or shared spaces for pumping, provided that each space and person is shielded from view and free from intrusion.
  • Employers cannot use lactation breaks against employees for purposes of determining quota or production requirements.
  • Employees cannot be interrupted during lactation breaks or be required to find someone to cover for them during their lactation breaks.

Discussion

The Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (PUMP Act) went into effect on April 28, 2023 and applies to all employers. It requires employers to provide nursing employees with reasonable break time and a private space to express breast milk. Now, the Department of Labor (DOL) has been releasing additional guidance to assist specific industries, like the restaurant and retail, agriculture, healthcare, and education industries, in determining how they should comply with these requirements. The guidance typically includes a recorded webinar, presentation slides, and FAQs with specific examples for that industry.

For the restaurant and retail industry, the DOL advises the following for employers who are restricted in options for providing a private space to express breast milk: “Employers can create temporary space for pumping by providing dividers and signs in a portion of a storage room, allowing the employee to block or turn off cameras to ensure the space is shielded from view and free from intrusion, and providing a chair and a table for the employee. Alternately, the employee could be allowed to use the manager’s office, allowing the employee to block or turn off any cameras and use the lock or signage to prevent intrusion, as long as the space is available each time the employee needs to pump.”

For employees that must meet productivity measures, the DOL clarifies that employers cannot hold the time that employees take for pump breaks against them when determining if a productivity measure or quota was met. Employees also cannot be required to make up time they took for the pump breaks. This means employers cannot add working time to an employee’s normal schedule to “make up” for the break time.

For those in the healthcare industry (e.g., hospitals, assisted living centers, medical facilities, etc.), employers cannot interrupt employees on pump breaks to ask them to respond to a resident’s needs. “When an employee is using break time at work to express breast milk, they either must be completely relieved from duty or must be paid for the break time.” Similarly, employers cannot require employees to find someone to cover for them when they take pump breaks. Employers may use strategies like using temporary staff or floating staff to fill-in for workers when they must be away from their duty station. The DOL also clarified that employers may choose to provide a shared space, such as a large room with privacy screens between employees, for multiple employees to simultaneously to pump; however, the employer must ensure that all employees are shielded from view and free from intrusion when pumping, including from co-workers who are also pumping.

Employers should continue to monitor the DOL’s website as more resources are released.

Action Items

  1. Review the additional guidance here.
  2. Review policies for appropriate administration of lactation break periods.
  3. Identify potential spaces for private lactation.
  4. Train appropriate personnel 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. © 2024 ManagEase

Proposed Pay Transparency Requirements for Federal Contractors and Subcontractors

APPLIES TO

As Indicated

EFFECTIVE

Pending

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council published the proposed rule “Prohibition on Compensation History Inquiries and Requirement for Compensation Disclosures by Contractors During Recruitment and Hiring.”
  • Federal contractors and subcontractors would have to disclose the salary or wage range the contractor in good faith believes it will pay for the advertised position in all job postings.
  • Federal contractors and subcontractors would be prohibited from inquiring about or relying on an applicant or employee’s prior salary history at any stage of the employment relationship.

Discussion

On January 30, 2024, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council published the proposed rule “Prohibition on Compensation History Inquiries and Requirement for Compensation Disclosures by Contractors During Recruitment and Hiring” (Proposed Rule). It would apply to federal contracts and subcontracts for commercial products or services valued in excess of $10,000 or more and to be performed within the United States. The Proposed Rule is limited to the recruitment and hiring of positions that will perform work on or in connection with a federal contract or subcontract. Like most pay transparency laws and salary history bans, the goal of the Proposed Rule is to promote pay equity. The specific requirements of the Proposed Rule are detailed below. Affected parties have until April 1, 2024 to comment on the Proposed Rule.

Pay Transparency

Federal contractors and subcontractors would have to disclose the salary or wage range the contractor in good faith believes it will pay for the advertised position in all job advertisements. The contractor’s pay scale, range of compensation for those currently working in similar jobs, or the amount budgeted for the position can be used to determine the salary range. There must also be a general description of benefits and other forms of compensation. Compensation includes “payments made to, or on behalf of, an employee or offered to an applicant as remuneration for employment, including but not limited to salary, wages, overtime pay, shift differentials, bonuses, commissions, vacation and holiday pay, allowances, insurance and other benefits, stock options and awards, profit sharing, and retirement.”

Salary History Ban

The salary history, or compensation history, inquiry prohibition is similar to state and local salary history bans. Federal contractors would be prohibited from:

  • Seeking an applicant’s compensation history, either orally or in writing, directly from any person, including the applicant or the applicant’s current or former employer or through an agent;
  • Requiring disclosure of compensation history as a condition of an applicant’s candidacy;
  • Retaliating against or refusing to interview or otherwise consider, hire, or employ any applicant for failing to respond to an inquiry regarding their compensation history; and
  • Relying on an applicant’s compensation history to screen or consider the applicant for employment or in determining the compensation for the applicant at any stage in the selection process.

Compensation history is defined as the compensation an applicant is currently receiving or the compensation the applicant has been paid in a previous job. The prohibition also applies to current employees moving to a new role within the company. Federal contractors are also prohibited from using salary history even if an employee voluntarily discloses it.

Additional Requirements

Federal contracts will need to include a specific contract clause detailing the requirements in all solicitations and subcontracts where the principal place of performance is within the United States. This includes flow down requirements.  Additionally, both the salary history ban and pay disclosure require a written notice to applicants as part of the job advertisement or application process. The language for the notice is contained in the required contract clause provisions and must: (1) notify applicants about the prohibitions under the Proposed Rule; (2) provide details on how to file a complaint; and (3) include instructions on how to file a discrimination complaint with the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).

Action Items

  1. Read the Proposed Rule here.
  2. Review contracts that may be affected by the Proposed Rule.
  3. Plan for potential compliance and review current pay transparency and salary history ban requirements in jurisdiction of business operations.

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. © 2024 ManagEase

Eleventh Circuit: Discrimination Test under Title VII

APPLIES TO

Employers with 15+ Employees in AL, FL, and GA

EFFECTIVE

December 12, 2023

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • McDonnell Douglas is only one method for proving a Title VII discrimination claim.
  • Plaintiffs may also prove a Title VII discrimination claim through a “convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence that would allow a jury to infer intentional discrimination by the decisionmaker.”

Discussion

In Tynes v. Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the McDonnell Douglas test for proving a discrimination violation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

To create a rebuttable presumption of intentional discrimination, McDonnell Douglas says that an individual must prove that they (1) belong to a protected class, (2) were subjected to an adverse employment action, (3) were qualified to perform the job, and (4) “similarly situated” employees outside their class were treated more favorably. If an employer can show that there was a non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action, then the individual must show that the employer’s justification was pretextual and the real reason for the adverse employment action was discrimination.

In Tynes, the court said that McDonnell Douglas is “procedural” focusing on use of evidence; it does not create the “standard of liability” under Title VII. There, the employer claimed that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of employees who were “similarly situated in all material respects” and treated more favorably; but the plaintiff still was found to have proven her discrimination case, in part, because there was circumstantial evidence of similarly situated employees that the jury could find to have established the discrimination claims. The appellate court said that a plaintiff who doesn’t necessarily meet the McDonnell Douglas requirements can still prove their case by presenting a “convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence that would allow a jury to infer intentional discrimination by the decisionmaker.”

The court said that “the ultimate question in a discrimination case is whether there is enough evidence to show that the reason for an adverse employment action was illegal discrimination. The prima facie case in the McDonnell Douglas framework can help answer that question—but it cannot replace it.” Although the McDonnell Douglas test remains applicable and relevant, employers should look at all facts in the situation when faced with Title VII claims.

Action Items

  1. Review discrimination claims with legal counsel to evaluate potential exposure and liability.

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. © 2024 ManagEase

Colorado: Updated Pay Transparency Requirements

APPLIES TO

All Employers with at least 1 Employee in CO

EFFECTIVE

January 1, 2024

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • Several amendments to Colorado’s Equal Pay for Equal Work Act (EPEWA) create additional requirements for employers.
  • Employers must announce, post, or otherwise make known a job opportunity to all Colorado employees on the same calendar day and prior to the date of a selection decision.
  • Once an employer selects a candidate, they must provide notice to existing Colorado employees who will work with the candidate regularly.

Discussion

Several amendments to Colorado’s Equal Pay for Equal Work Act (EPEWA) create additional requirements for employers. The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) issued final regulations and Interpretive Notice & Formal Opinion (INFO) #9A to clarify the amendments.

 

Job Opportunity Posting

Employers must announce, post, or otherwise make known a job opportunity to all Colorado employees on the same calendar day and prior to the date of a selection decision. A job opportunity is “a current or anticipated vacancy for which the employer is considering a candidate or candidates or interviewing a candidate or candidates or that the employer externally posts.” The job opportunity notice must be made available regardless of where the job is to be performed and regardless of whether a Colorado employee would qualify for the job opportunity. If the job opportunity is to be primarily performed or could be performed in Colorado, then the notice must include:

  • the hourly rate or salary compensation (or a range thereof) that the employer is offering for the position;
  • a general description of any bonuses, commissions, or other forms of compensation that are being offered for the job;
  • a general description of all employment benefits the employer is offering for the position, including healthcare benefits, retirement benefits, any benefits permitting paid days off (including sick leave, parental leave, and paid time off or vacation benefits), and any other benefits that must be reported for federal tax purposes, but not benefits in the form of minor perks;
  • the application deadline; and
  • how to apply for the job opportunity.

The notice requirements can be linked elsewhere, like to a website. Reasonable methods can be used for employees to access the notice so long as employees can access it within their regular workplace or are told where to find it. The amendments maintain pre-existing exceptions to the job opportunity notice requirements for confidential replacements of current employees unaware of their separation.

Post-Selection Notice

Once an employer selects a candidate, they must provide notice to existing Colorado employees who will work with the candidate regularly. The notice must contain: (1) the name of the selected candidate; (2) the employee’s former job title (if applicable); (3) the new job title; and (4) information on how employees may demonstrate interest in similar job opportunities. These notices must be provided within 30 days after the selected candidate begins work. Notices can be combined for several selections at once. Employers do not have to provide a post-selection notice when disclosing a selected candidate’s name and/or prior job title if doing so would violate a law or if a selected candidate voluntarily requests to be exempted from the notice. Reasonable methods can be used for employees to access the notice so long as employees can access it within their regular workplace or are told where to find it.

Exceptions

Small Employers. Employers outside of Colorado with 15 or less remote Colorado employees only have to provide remote job opportunity notices. This requirement sunsets on July 1, 2029, at which point all job opportunities available company-wide must be included in job opportunity notices.

Career Development. Career progression or development promotions are excluded as job opportunities, so they do not trigger job opportunity or post-selection notice requirements. Separately, a career progression promotion has its own notice requirement. A career progression is “a regular or automatic movement from one position to another based on time in a specific role or other objective metrics.” Such notices must include the requirements for career progression, in addition to each position’s terms of compensation, benefits, full-time or part-time status, duties, and access to further advancement.

Geographic Limitations. All notices are to be provided to Colorado employees only. This is even if the opportunity or selected candidate is outside Colorado.

AINT Positions. Acting, interim, or temporary positions (AINT) do not require an immediate job opportunity notice where the hiring is not expected to be permanent, and the position was not held any time in the preceding 12 months by another AINT hire which did not have a job opportunity posting.

Action Items

  1. Review the final regulations here.
  2. Revise job postings to include application deadlines.
  3. Draft post-selection notice templates and determine distribution method.
  4. Review promotion categories to see if they qualify as a career development or career progression.
  5. 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. © 2024 ManagEase

District of Columbia: New Pay Transparency Requirements

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees in the District of Columbia

EFFECTIVE

June 30, 2024

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • D.C. is set to join the growing list of jurisdictions requiring pay transparency in job postings and advertisements.
  • Employers must disclose the existence of healthcare benefits to prospective employees, prior to the first interview.
  • Employers are prohibited from seeking wage information of prospective employees or screening prospective employees based on their wage history.

Discussion

On January 12, 2024, the District of Columbia’s mayor signed D.C Act 25-367, amending the Wage Transparency Act of 2014 and requiring employers to provide the minimum and maximum projected salary or hourly pay in all job listings and position descriptions advertised. If the Act is not disapproved during a 30-day congressional review, it will go into effect on June 30, 2024.

In providing the minimum and maximum salary or hourly pay for the position, the range must extend from the lowest to the highest salary or hourly pay that the employer in good faith believes at the time of the posting it would pay for the advertised job, promotion, or transfer opportunity. Additionally, the Act requires that employers include information on the healthcare benefits offered to employees before the first interview.  The Act does not define “first interview,” nor does it specify whether a general description of the benefits is sufficient or if more detailed information may be required.  There is no requirement, however, to include the healthcare benefit information in the job posting for the open position.

In addition to pay transparency requirements, the Act limits an employer’s ability to seek or use a prospective employee’s wage history by prohibiting employers from screening prospective employees based on their “wage history,” or seeking the wage history of a prospective employee from a person who previously employed the individual. The term “wage history” is defined as “information related to compensation an employee has received from other or previous employment.”

Covered employers will be required to post a notice in a conspicuous place in the workplace notifying employees of their rights under the Wage Transparency Act. The notice must be posted in at least one location where employees congregate.

Action Items

  1. Update job descriptions for current accuracy.
  2. Have an equal pay audit conducted and make corrections, as appropriate.
  3. Identify pay rages based on applicable job descriptions.
  4. Review job posting templates to prepare for compliance.
  5. Have appropriate personnel trained on pay transparency requirements.
  6. Prepare to display required notice when available.

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. © 2024 ManagEase

Maine: Final Regulations for Mandatory Retirement Savings Program

APPLIES TO

Private Employers with 5+ Employees in ME

EFFECTIVE

January 1, 2024

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • Covered employers who do not offer a retirement savings plan must participate in the state-run mandatory requirement program.
  • Employers with 15+ employees must register by April 30, 2024.
  • Employers with 5+ employees must register by June 30, 2024.

Discussion

In 2021, An Act to Promote Individual Retirement Savings through a Public-Private Partnership, was enacted to implement a state-run mandatory retirement program, the Maine Retirement Investment Trust (MERIT). In 2023, the time for employers to register for MERIT was extended and a final rule was issued.

Covered employers who do not offer a retirement savings plan must automatically enroll employees in MERIT. Employees can adjust their contribution or opt out of enrollment. Employers facilitate payroll deductions of 5% of employee paychecks, which will be contributed to a Roth IRA. The IRA follows employees from job to job. Employers are not required to contribute to the plan.

A covered employer has 5 or more covered employees and has been in business during both the current and preceding calendar years. Covered employees are 18 or older who have taxable wages in Maine during a calendar year. This includes part-time and temporary employees, and seasonal employees who work more than 120 days.

  • Covered employers with 15 or more covered employees must register with the program by April 30, 2024.
  • Covered employers with five or more covered employees must register with the program by June 30, 2024.
  • After December 31, 2024, employers must register within 12 months of becoming covered employers.
  • After initial registration, new Covered Employees must be registered with the program by the individual’s 120th day of employment.

Covered employees who have participated in MERIT for at least six months will have their contributions automatically increased by 1% of their wages at the beginning of each subsequent calendar year, up to a maximum of 10%, unless they opt out of the automatic increases. Beginning in 2025, failure to register as required results in a $20 penalty per covered employee. Exempt employers must register in the portal and certify their exemption. Employees may still voluntarily elect to participate in MERIT.

Action Items

  1. Review the MERIT Saves website and register in the MERIT portal.
  2. Update payroll processes with required contributions.
  3. Implement automatic enrollment procedures for new hires.

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. © 2024 ManagEase

New York: New Requirements for Independent Contractor Arrangements

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Freelance Workers in NY

EFFECTIVE

May 20, 2024

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • New York’s new Freelance Isn’t Free Act imposes contract, payment, recordkeeping, and anti-discrimination requirements on companies that hire freelance workers.
  • New employer obligations apply to contracts with freelancers entered into on or after May 20, 2024.

Discussion

A new law in New York extends workplace protections to freelance workers. Titled the Freelance Isn’t Free Act, the law goes into effect on May 20, 2024 and imposes several requirements on employers who hire freelance workers in the state of New York (which is broader than New York City’s existing Freelance Isn’t Free Act). With a relatively broad scope, the law applies to almost all employers, defining a “hiring party” as any person who retains a freelance worker to provide any service. Notably, the law does not apply to federal, state, or local governments.

Under the law, a freelance worker is (1) any person or organization (of no more than one person), (2) that is hired or retained as an independent contractor, (3) to provide services valued at $800 or more (which can be met either through a single contract for service or the aggregate of all contracts between the parties). The law only provides for four narrow exemptions to the definition of freelance worker: (1) attorneys, (2) licensed medical professionals, (3) sales representatives, and (4) construction contractors (as defined under the law).

The four key employer requirements under the law include: (1) written contract requirements, (2) freelance workers compensation requirements, (3) recordkeeping requirements, and (4) anti-discrimination requirements.

Regarding the written contract requirement, any contract for service between a hiring party and a freelance worker must be reduced to writing and contain the following (at a minimum):

  • The parties’ name and mailing address;
  • An itemization of all services the freelance worker will provide to the hiring party;
  • The value of those services;
  • The rate and method of compensation for the services;
  • The date on which the hiring party will issue payment to the freelance worker or the mechanism by which such date will be determined; and
  • The date by which the freelance worker must submit to the hiring party a list of services rendered under the contract (for purposes of timely compensation).

All written contracts entered into with freelance workers must be maintained for a minimum of six years. A hiring party’s failure to maintain these documents creates a presumption that the terms the freelance worker presents as true and accurate are in fact the agreed-upon terms between the parties.

With respect to compensation of freelance workers, the law contains a specific provision requiring that the hiring party must pay freelance workers on or before the date specified in the contract (as discussed above) or—if the contract does not specify the timing of payment or the mechanism by which such date will be determined—no later than 30 days after the completion of the freelance worker’s services. The law prohibits the hiring party from requiring, as a condition of timely payment, that the freelance worker accept less compensation than the amount in the contract.

Lastly, the law prohibits any hiring party from harassing, discriminating, threatening, intimidating, disciplining, or denying work opportunities to a freelance worker for exercising, or attempting to exercise, any rights under the law.

Importantly, the law only applies prospectively to contracts for service entered into on or after May 20, 2024.

Action Items

  1. Consult with legal counsel on freelance worker contractual agreements.
  2. Have appropriate personnel trained on freelance workers 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. © 2024 ManagEase

Washington: Update to Paid Sick Leave Law

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees in WA

EFFECTIVE

January 1, 2024

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • Paid sick leave is used at the employee’s option.
  • PTO policies that combine with paid sick leave have updated notice and tracking requirements.
  • Construction workers’ paid sick leave must be paid out upon termination.

Discussion

SB 5111 amended the state paid sick leave law and regulations for all employees, as well as specifically for construction workers.

All Covered Employers

Paid sick leave is used at the employee’s option; employers cannot require employees to use paid sick leave for qualified purposes.

Employers who use paid time off (PTO) policies to combine mandated paid sick leave must meet the requirements of mandated paid sick leave, including payment at the greater of the applicable minimum wage or the normal hourly compensation. Employers must also provide employees notice that the PTO policy is meant to satisfy the paid sick leave requirements.

Additionally, if PTO policies provide a more generous benefit than what is statutorily required for paid sick leave, the paid sick leave balance must be tracked separately, and there can be no requirement to use the paid sick leave portion for more generous purposes (e.g., vacation leave) before accessing the more generous PTO leave for more generous purposes.

Covered Construction Workers

Following separation, employers must pay the balance of accrued and unused paid sick leave to construction workers classified under NAICS code 23 who have not reached the 90th calendar day of employment, except for those performing work only under NAICS code 236100. Paid sick leave is paid out at the greater of the applicable minimum wage or their normal hourly compensation. Previously paid out paid sick leave does not need to be reinstated upon rehire of construction workers. However, when a construction worker is rehired within 12 months of separation, the previous period of employment must be counted for purposes of determining the date upon which the employee is entitled to use paid sick leave. There are also additional recordkeeping requirements related to advanced paid sick leave, payment of paid sick leave following termination, and date of hire and termination.

Action Items

  1. Update paid sick leave and PTO policies, as appropriate.
  2. Update separation procedures regarding final pay.
  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. © 2024 ManagEase

February Updates

APPLIES TO

Varies

EFFECTIVE

Varies

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Federal Civil Penalties Increased for 2024 The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) published its final rule to adjust for inflation the civil monetary penalties assessed or enforced by the DOL in 2024. The civil penalties apply to violations under OSHA, Family and Medical Leave Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, and ERISA. The list also includes new immigration-related fines/penalties that went into effect on January 15, 2024. Typically, these violations involve H-1B, H-2A and H-2B visas, and cover a range of employer activity including, but not limited to, employer discrimination, retaliation, misrepresentation of fact, or non-compliance with established terms and conditions of employment. The increased monetary penalties apply to violations occurring after November 2, 2015, for which penalties were assessed after January 15, 2024. The full schedule of the increased penalties can be found here.

 

Arkansas: Updates to Uniform Attendance and Leave Policy Act Effective July 31, 2023, HB 1775 amends Arkansas’s Uniform Attendance and Leave Policy Act to allow sick leave to care for a child who is in the employee’s home through the foster care system. The amendments provide that eligible employees are entitled to up to 40 hours of foster care leave, with pay, for the following purposes: (1) bonding with the child and for adjustment purposes; (2) attending school placement meetings related to changes due to foster care placement; (3) attending individualized educations program meetings related to changes due to foster care placement; (4) attending required court hearings; and (5) attending required case-planning activities.

 

California: Trial Courts Cannot Dismiss PAGA Claims for Unmanageability

On January 18, 2024, in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., the California Supreme Court said that trial courts do not have authority to strike/dismiss claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) on the grounds that the claims are unmanageable. PAGA claims operate differently from class actions, which can be denied on manageability grounds, and they have a different purpose. Rather, courts can limit the types of evidence and use other tools to manage large PAGA cases. It remains to be seen whether an employer may strike/dismiss an unmanageable PAGA claim as a violation of the employer’s due process rights, but that would only have limited applicability to protect constitutional rights.

 

California: New Emergency Silica Safety Standard Effective December 29, 2023, Cal-OSHA approved an emergency temporary standard (ETS) to provide greater protections to workers exposed to respirable crystalline silica (RCS), primarily targeted to the engineered stone industry, but the ETS is applicable to all employers. It requires exposure protections, respiratory protections, training, reporting, and a written exposure control plan. The ETS will be in effect for one year.

 

REMINDER! Connecticut: Unemployment Benefits Reforms Passed in 2021, and effective January 1, 2024, HB 6633 states that receipt of severance pay results in disqualification for receipt of unemployment benefits for the period of time covered by the severance payment. It is not clear how lump sum severance payments affect this restriction. Employers should consult with legal counsel to review their severance agreements and its impact on unemployment eligibility.

 

Illinois: Amendments to Personnel Records Review Act The Illinois Personnel Records Review Act (IPRRA) was recently amended to make it easier for employees to obtain copies of their personnel records. As of January 1, 2024, employers must email or mail a copy

of the employee’s records to the employee upon their written request, regardless of whether the employee can show that they are unable to inspect the records in person prior to receiving a copy. However, employers can still charge for any actual cost of copying the requested materials.

 

Portland, ME: State of Emergency Triggers Hazard Pay On January 11, 2024, Maine Governor Janet Mills declared a state of civil emergency for coastal counties in Maine impacted by flooding caused by a storm earlier that week. The declaration triggers a hazard pay measure for nearly every employer in the city of Portland, pursuant to the city’s broad minimum wage ordinance. Therefore, effective 12:15 p.m. EST on January 11, 2024, to 12:15 p.m. EST on January 18, 2024 when Maine’s governor lifted the state of emergency, employees in Portland were entitled to the increased minimum wage of $22.50 per hour.

 

Massachusetts: Updated PFML Guidance

Effective November 1, 2023, employees with additional paid leave benefits provided by company policy could use those benefits to “top off” Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave benefits up to 100% of their wages. This was solely the employee’s choice. To resolve conflict which arose between paid leave policies that prohibited “top off,” the Department of Family and Medical Leave (DFML) released guidance that employees could top off PFML benefits subject to the accrual and use restrictions of their employer’s policies. Employers should review and update their policies to determine how employees can use existing paid leave policies to top off PFML.

 

Missouri: New Voluntary Retirement Plan Coming! SB 75 created the Missouri Show-Me MyRetirement Plan, a voluntary, state-run retirement plan for private employers with 50 or fewer employees. If an employer later employs more than 50 employees is allowed to remain in the program for five years. Employees who are 18 or older with taxable wages in Missouri are eligible to participate through payroll deductions to the plan. Employees may terminate their participation in the plan at any time. Employers may voluntarily provide contributions. Contributions may begin by September 1, 2025. Employers should continue to look for forthcoming regulations to implement the plan.

 

New Jersey: Unions to File Prevailing Wage Claims Effective January 8, 2024, S1438/A5794 amends New Jersey’s State Prevailing Wage Act to permit unions to file prevailing wage claim suits on behalf of workers on covered projects regardless of whether the workers belong to the union. The Prevailing Wage Act requires employers to pay certain minimum rates, as determined by the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (NJDOLWD), to workers working on public works projects. While the law previously permitted a union to represent unionized workers on a project in an action brought on their behalf, the amended law goes one step further, allowing the union to also represent non-union worker(s) employed on the project in a claim for any unpaid wages owed to such individuals. The only caveat is that a worker who is not a member of the union organization must consent in writing to such representation.

 

New York: Governor Vetoes Noncompete Ban On December 22, 2023, Governor Kathy Hochul vetoed a bill which proposed to ban nearly all types of noncompete agreements. The Governor explained the veto was due to the fact the ban was overly broad. Employers should note this is not the end of the road for this type of legislation in New York. The Governor requested modified legislation which would prohibit noncompetes for middle-class and low-wage workers but would allow employers to continue using noncompete agreement with highly compensated employees.

 

New York: Relief for “Frequency of Pay” Claims

Under New York Labor Law Section 191, manual workers must be paid on a weekly basis. Manual workers are those who spend 25% or more of their time engaged in physical labor. Section 191 claims could only be brought by the NY Department of Labor. In 2019, the New York Appellate Division, First Department ruled in Vega v. CM & Associates Construction Management, LLC that there was a private cause of action for employees. This led to class action litigation for late paid wages. This included for wages that were paid in full but were paid on a bi-weekly or semi-monthly basis. On January 17, 2024, the New York Appellate Division, Second Department broke with this decision and ruled in Grant v. Global Aircraft Dispatch Inc. that payment of full wages on the regular biweekly payday does not constitute nonpayment or underpayment. This comes on the heels of Governor Kathy Hochul’s 2025 Executive Budget Proposal which includes language to provide relief to employers faced with such “frequency of pay” litigation. The proposed budget includes language that Section 198 of the Labor Law would be amended to state “… liquidated damages shall not be applicable to violations of . . . section 191 of this article where the employee was paid in accordance with the agreed terms of employment, but not less frequently than semi-monthly.” It remains to be seen whether the legislature will agree and approve the State Budget language.

 

New York: Updated Model Lactation Policy

Since June 7, 2023, the Nursing Mothers in the Workplace Act requires employer accommodations for nursing employees. Employers must also provide a lactation policy upon hire, annually thereafter, and to employees returning to work following the birth of a child. The Act required the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) to develop a model policy regarding workplace lactation rights. The NYSDOL recently updated the model policy for use. Review the NYSDOL’s website for more information.

 

New York: Increased Statute of Limitations

Effective February 15, 2024, the statute of limitations for unlawful discriminatory practice claims filed with the New York State Division of Human Rights expands from one year to three years. Previously, only sexual harassment claims had a three-year statute of limitations.

 

New York, NY: Private Right of Action for Earned Safe and Sick Time Act Claims Effective March 20, 2024, Proposed Int. No. 563-A creates a private right of action for damages and other relief for violations of the Earned Safe and Sick Time Act (ESSTA). Employees who allege a violation of their rights under the ESSTA can take their employer to court under a civil action for compensatory damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, and other relief the court finds appropriate. The amendment also allows the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) to impose penalties per instance of violation and not just per violation. The DCWP also retains the right to conduct an investigation on its own initiative. Employers should update their leave policies and train appropriate personnel on the requirements of the law.

 

New York, NY: Expanded Domestic Violence Victim Protections

As of July 4, 2023, the New York City Human Rights Law definition of “victim of domestic violence” was expanded to include a victim subject to acts or threats of economic abuse.

 

Pennsylvania: Changes to Employer Criminal Background Screening Effective February 12, 2024, Pennsylvania’s HB 689 amends Pennsylvania law relating to the expungement of certain criminal record information and employer immunity when hiring individuals with expunged records. The amended law immunizes employers from liability for claims related to the effects of

expunged records or the lawful use of criminal record history information when an applicant voluntarily discloses an expunged conviction. The law also extends the availability of automatic expungements to pardons and expands eligibility for Pennsylvania’s pre-existing limited access statute for criminal records. Now, certain individuals who are free from conviction for seven years and otherwise meet requirements can petition for limited access; previously, the minimum threshold was 10 years. The law also clarifies categories of offenses that are and are not eligible for limited access petitions.

 

Philadelphia, PA: Amendments to Local Fair Criminal Records Screening Standards Ordinance Philadelphia amended its Fair Criminal Record Screening Standards Ordinance to specifically address an employer’s use of convictions subject to “exoneration.” Effective January 19, 2024, the Ordinance defines “exoneration” as reversing or vacating a conviction by pardon, acquittal, dismissal or other post-conviction re-examination of the case by the court or other government official, and generally prohibits employers from denying employment based on convictions subject to “exoneration” as so defined.

 

Pittsburgh, PA: Strict Enforcement of Paid Sick Days Act in Food Service Industry

On January 3, 2024, Pittsburgh’s Office of Equal Protection announced strict enforcement and compliance checks for local businesses, particularly the food services industry, for the Pittsburgh Paid Sick Days Act. Compliance investigations will begin early in 2024 starting with the 15201 and 15203 zip codes. The Act requires employers with at least 15 employees to provide employees up to 40 hours of paid sick leave per year. Employees accrue paid sick time at a rate of one hour of leave for every 35 hours worked in Pittsburgh. Employers with fewer than 15 employees must also provide paid sick leave at the same accrual rate, up to 24 hours per year. The Act applies to employees who work in the City even if the employer is not physically present there. Thirty-five hours of work performed in the City for the employer in a calendar year provides eligibility. Employers should review their policies and procedures to make sure they are ready for a compliance check.


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. © 2024 ManagEase