February Updates

APPLIES TO

Varies

EFFECTIVE

Varies

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

This Short List addresses the following topics:
  1. DOL Extends Exception Qualifying Telemedicine Visits for FMLA Purposes
  2. DOL Raises Penalties for Employer Violations
  3. Executive Order for Federal Contractor Diversity and Inclusion Training Revoked
  4. Fifth Circuit: Daily Rate May Be Used for Exempt Employees
  5. Sixth Circuit: Employee Statute of Limitations Periods are Unwaivable
  6. California: Local Emergency Paid Sick Leave Laws Updated
  7. California: Certain Truckers Follow Federal Meal and Rest Rules
  8. New York: Single-Occupancy Restrooms Must be Gender Neutral
  9. New York: New COVID-19 Paid Sick Leave Guidance
  10. New York, NY: Fast Food Worker Protections Coming!
  11. North Carolina: A Wave of Local Anti-Discrimination Laws
  12. Seattle, WA: Hazard Pay for Grocery Employees

Read more

URGENT! COVID-19: EEOC Issues New Vaccine Guidance for Employers

APPLIES TO

All Employers

EFFECTIVE

December 16, 2020

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

With the first COVID-19 vaccines arriving, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) finally issued guidance for employers on how to navigate the issue with employees. It added section “K – Vaccinations” to its “What You Should Know” publication to provide perspective on how vaccines intersect with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, GINA, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The guidance largely focused on vaccine pre-screen questions, mandatory vaccination, and required accommodations.

Read more

URGENT! California: Emergency Cal/OSHA Standard Requires IMMEDIATE Employer Action

APPLIES TO

All Employers with CA Employees

EFFECTIVE

November 30, 2020

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

On November 30, 2020, a COVID-19 emergency safety regulation went into effect for the next 180 days, which can be extended further. All employers of in-person workers must take immediate action to comply (excluding workplaces with one employee who does not have contact with other individuals, or employees already covered by the aerosol transmission standard).

Read more

COVID-19: CDC Updates Definition of Close Contact

APPLIES TO

All Employers

EFFECTIVE

October 21, 2020

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

The CDC recently changed the definition of “close contact” for purposes of determining possible exposure to COVID-19 and contact tracing. “Close contact” now means “[s]omeone who was within 6 feet of an infected person for a cumulative total of 15 minutes or more over a 24-hour period starting from 2 days before illness onset (or, for asymptomatic patients, 2 days prior to test specimen collection) until the time the patient is isolated.” (Emphasis added.) Instead of ongoing contact for a period of 15 minutes, employers should be looking at individual exposures added together over a 24-hour period (e.g., three 5-minute exposures for a total of 15 minutes).

The CDC also gave factors to consider when defining close contact: proximity, the duration of exposure, whether the infected individual has symptoms, if the infected person was likely to generate respiratory aerosols (e.g., was coughing, singing, shouting), and other environmental factors (e.g., crowding, adequacy of ventilation, whether exposure was indoors or outdoors). Additionally, because the general public has not received training on proper selection and use of respiratory personal protective equipment (PPE), the CDC says not to take into account whether individuals were wearing respiratory PPE. Similarly, it does not recommend differentiating analysis for individuals using fabric face coverings. Employers should update applicable procedures with these new guidelines.

Action Items

  1. Review the CDC’s website here.
  2. Have managers and contact tracers trained on the current guidance.
  3. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

DHS and DOL Narrow Pathway for H-1B Nonimmigrant Visas

APPLIES TO

All Employers with H-1B Visa Employees

EFFECTIVE

As Indicated

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

The current administration recently issued two interim final rules (IFR) largely impacting H-1B nonimmigrant visas, making it more difficult for individuals to obtain them.

Effective December 7, 2020, the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) IFR revises certain definitions, updates application requirements, and provides USCIS with broader authority to verify an application. In part, it lists specific factors USCIS will consider when determining whether a valid employment relationship exists, including supervision, location of supervision, right to control work on a day-to-day basis, provision of tools/instrumentalities, hire/pay/fire relationship, evaluation of work product, provision of employee benefits, use of proprietary information to perform work, end product linked to line of business, and control of manner and means in which work is performed. It also narrowed the definitions of specialty occupation and third-party worksite. Notably, a third-party worksite cannot be a residence, and visas for workers at third-party worksites are only valid for one year at a time. The IFR also provides specific instructions for documentation that must be submitted with the visa application.

Effective October 8, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) IFR increased required wage levels for labor condition applications (LCAs) for H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3 visas, and PERM labor certifications as follows:

  • Level 1 wages from the 17th percentile to the 45th percentile.
  • Level 2 wages from the 34th percentile to the 62nd percentile.
  • Level 3 wages from the 50th percentile to the 78th percentile.
  • Level 4 wages from the 67th percentile to the 95th percentile.

These rules apply to petitions and LCAs filed on or after their effective dates, so they will impact 2022 visas since the deadline for 2021 visa applications passed earlier this year. However, there is already pending litigation challenging these IFR’s. Continue to look for updates on this changing subject.

Action Items

  1. Review visa applications with legal counsel for compliance.
  2. Review fiscal budget for increased wage requirements.
  3. Assess workforce planning for 2022 in light of changes.
  4. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

DOL Opines on Pay for Voluntary Training

APPLIES TO

All Employers subject to FLSA

EFFECTIVE

November 3, 2020

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued opinion letters discussing employee pay for voluntary training and travel time under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

FLSA2020-15 reviews when employers must pay for voluntary training, discussing different examples. If the training is sponsored by the employer but voluntary for an employee to attend, the time spent taking the training during off-duty work hours is not considered working time. However, employee participation during regular work hours in a training program that directly relates to the employee’s job is work time for FLSA purposes. Employers may have a policy prohibiting employees from attending voluntary trainings during regular working hours.

FLSA2020-16 discusses travel time between a central location and another worksite. Where an employer requires a foreman to get a company truck from a central location, drive it carrying required tools and materials to a worksite, and return it to the central location at the end of the day for security purposes, the time spent traveling between the central location and the worksite is compensable work time. Conversely, a laborer’s time to travel to and from a local worksite is not compensable, even if they voluntarily choose to ride with the foreman in the company truck. For remote travel (e.g., overnight stay in lodging), an employee must be compensated for their time if their travel cuts across their normal work hours, even if they are traveling on a nonwork day. If the employer offers laborers the option to travel in a Company vehicle or drive themselves to the remote work location, the employer must pay for either the time that accrues riding in the company vehicle or the time the laborers actually take to travel to the remote worksite.

Action Items

  1. Review the opinion letters and have policies and pay processes updated accordingly.
  2. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

Second Circuit: H-1B Employer Wage Obligations Clarified

APPLIES TO

All Employers with CT, NY, and VT Employees

EFFECTIVE

September 22, 2020

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Aleutian Capital Partners, LLC v. Scalia, the Second Circuit Court of Appeal stated that even though an employer of an H-1B visa employee paid more income than promised in the Labor Condition Application (LCA), the employer violated U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) regulations requiring wage payments that were predictive in amount and timing. The court also said that the DOL was authorized to investigate the terms of employment even though the employee did not file a complaint with the DOL.

There, the employer paid a monthly salary amount below H-1B Program standards in some months and overpaid the employee in other months, resulting in overall wages that were higher than promised. Nonetheless, the employer was obligated to pay back wages for those months that were underpaid, regardless of any bonuses or overpayments that it made in other months. DOL regulations require H-1B employers to make wage payments “when due” in “prorated installments,” “no less often than monthly.”

In the course of a DOL investigation into one employee’s claim, the DOL investigated treatment of another H-1B employee finding wage and hour errors. The court said that “where an investigation into a timely filed complaint reveals that an employer’s failure to conform to an LCA has resulted in a pattern of underpayment that extends earlier than the statute of limitations cut-off, DOL may assess back wages that remedy the full scope of that failure.” More specifically, “it is reasonable … for DOL to seek information from the employer to ensure that it is not applying the same unlawful practices to other H-1B Program employees.” Ultimately, employers risk greater exposure than the claim at issue for failing to follow statutory requirements.

Action Items

  1. Review wage payments of H-1B employees for compliance.
  2. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

Tenth Circuit: ADA Accommodation Violation Does Not Require Adverse Employment Action

APPLIES TO

All Employers with CO, KS, NM, OK, UT, WY Employees

EFFECTIVE

October 28, 2020

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Exby-Stolley v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeal stated that failing to accommodate a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is in and of itself grounds for a cause of action and does not require an “adverse employment action.” This is distinguishable from a disparate treatment claim under the ADA requiring that an employer take adverse employment action because of an individual’s disability.

There, an employee broke her arm while on the job and claimed she was not appropriately accommodated in order to do her job. As a result, her performance suffered which led to her separation of employment. However, the focus of the claim was the failure to accommodate her disability, which the ADA states is unlawful discrimination.

This case reinforces employer requirements to engage in the interactive process with employees in good faith to accommodate qualifying disabilities in accordance with the ADA. This ruling further widens the split among the circuit courts on this topic, which may eventually lead to U.S. Supreme Court review.

Action Items

  1. Review interactive process procedures for compliance.
  2. Have appropriate personnel trained on the interactive process requirements.
  3. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

California: Computer Professionals and Licensed Physician/Surgeon Exemption Rates for 2021 Increase

APPLIES TO

All Employers with CA-Based Computer Professionals and Licensed Physician/Surgeons

EFFECTIVE

January 1, 2021

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

The California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) announced the 2021 exemption rates for certain types of employees.  To qualify as exempt from minimum wage and overtime requirements, employees in these professions must meet certain requirements, one of which includes a compensation threshold.

For computer software employees, the compensation threshold is as follows:

  • Minimum hourly rate of $47.48 (increased from $46.55);
  • Minimum monthly salary increased to $8,242.32 (increased from $8,080.71); and
  • Minimum annual salary increased to $98,907.70 (increased from $96,968.33).

In addition to the compensation threshold, computer software employees must also perform certain job duties to be considered exempt, such as applying highly specialized information to computer analysis, programming, and software engineering.

For licensed physicians and surgeons, the 2021 compensation threshold is a minimum of $86.49 per hour (increased from $84.79).

California’s statewide minimum wage will also increase on January 1, 2021, impacting the compensation threshold for the more general professional, executive, and administrative exemptions.  Employees in these categories must be paid at least two times the state minimum wage, in addition to other requirements.

Action Items

  1. Review compensation rates for applicable employees to ensure exemption salary threshold is met.
  2. Have pay rates and payroll processes updated accordingly.
  3. 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.

© 2020 ManagEase

California: New Guidance on Reporting Requirements for COVID-19 Outbreaks

APPLIES TO

All Employers with CA Employees

EFFECTIVE

October 16, 2020

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) released additional guidance documents containing instructions on how employers should report outbreaks to local public health agencies.  The guidance documents supplement AB 685, a recent bill that implements COVID-19 reporting requirements effective January 1, 2021.  The new guidance documents provide information on how outbreaks should be reported right now, which closely follows the requirements of AB 685.

The first document, AB 685 Definitions, clarifies some ambiguities in the bill. It defines “outbreak” in a non-healthcare workplace as at least three COVID-19 cases among workers, not customers, at the same worksite within a 14-day period. It also sets forth definitions of the infectious period and laboratory-confirmed case of COVID-19.

The second document, Employer Questions About AB 685, contains an FAQ. It provides further details on what information employers must give to employees who have been potentially exposed to COVID-19, when to report COVID-19 cases to a local health department, and which employers must follow AB 685, among other things.  While AB 685 does not go into effect until January 1, 2021, it is important to note that the current CDPH guidance already requires employers to report outbreaks to local health departments.

Action Items

  1. Review the CDPH guidance documents and implement procedures for reporting COVID-19 cases.
  2. Have applicable personnel trained on reporting and notice requirements.
  3. 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.

© 2020 ManagEase