|
APPLIES TO All Employers of MA Tipped Employees |
EFFECTIVE January 1, 2019 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
The “Grand Bargain” added a clause to the service rate statute stating that an employer shall calculate the “amount required by clause (2) at the completion of each shift worked by the employee.” The Massachusetts Attorney General’s office recently released additional guidance on what this means.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with NY Employees |
EFFECTIVE February 24, 2019 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
While New York City expands protections for sexual and reproductive health decisions, New York State also made a move to expand the list of protected categories set forth in the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). Specifically, the state legislature passed the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA), which adds “gender identity or expression” to the list of protected classes under the NYSHRL. Discrimination, including workplace discrimination, based on a person’s actual or perceived gender-related identity, appearance, behavior, expression, or other gender-related characteristics are prohibited.
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
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with 4 or more New York City, NY Employees |
EFFECTIVE May 20, 2019 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
The New York City Council recently voted to amend the NYC Human Rights Law to include “sexual and other reproductive health decisions” to its list of protected classes. The amendment prohibits discrimination against applicants or employees based on their sexual and reproductive health decisions, defined as “any decision by an individual to receive services, which are arranged for or offered or provided to individuals relating to sexual and reproductive health, including the reproductive system and its functions.” Examples of such services include, but are not limited to, fertility-related procedures; STD prevention, testing, or treatment; family planning services or counseling; birth control drugs or sterilization treatments; emergency contraception; pregnancy testing; or abortion.
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
|
APPLIES TO Employers of 250+ Employees and 30+ Locations Worldwide |
EFFECTIVE January 1, 2020 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Effective January 1, 2020, Philadelphia employers in the retail, fast food, and hospitality industries will have new requirements imposed on their scheduling and pay practices. The Fair Workweek Employment Standards Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) applies to large employers of 250 or more employees, inclusive of full-time, part-time, temporary, and seasonal employees. Key provisions of the Ordinance require covered employers to:
|
APPLIES TO Varies |
EFFECTIVE Varies |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call (888) 378-2456 |
|
APPLIES TO All Employers |
EFFECTIVE October 11, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
On October 11, 2018, OSHA issued a memorandum of interpretation clarifying its position on workplace safety incentive programs and post-incident drug testing. Originally, OSHA issued a Final Rule on May 11, 2016 that sought to increase anti-retaliation protections by requiring employers to inform employees of their right to report work-related injuries and illness without fear of adverse employment actions. The Rule stated that the existing requirement that an employer’s procedure for reporting work-related injury or illness must be (1) reasonably laid out in a manner that does not discourage/deter employees from reporting; and (2) incorporates existing statutory whistleblower protections. Moreover, “drug testing policies should limit post-incident testing to situations in which employee drug use is likely to have contributed to the incident, and for which the drug test can accurately identify impairment caused by drug use.” (Emphasis added.)
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with CT, NY, and VT Employees |
EFFECTIVE September 19, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
In Flood v. Just Energy Mktg. Corp., the Second Circuit Court of Appeal recently addressed what qualifies an employee for the outside sales exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Generally, the outside sales exemption is based on an employee’s primary duties – making sales or obtaining orders for contracts or services, while customarily and regularly engaged away from the employer’s place of business.
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with CT, NY, VT Employees |
EFFECTIVE October 1, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
In Tapia v. BLCH 3rd Ave. LLC, the Second Circuit Court of Appeal clarified that there is no double recovery of liquidated damages under the FLSA where damages are also awarded under state law. Additionally, the court reviewed direct shareholder liability under the FLSA by looking at the operational control of the alleged employer, including whether the individual has the power to: (1) hire and fire employees, (2) supervise and control employee work schedules or conditions of employment, (3) determine the rate and method of payment, and (4) maintain employment records.
There, the court found evidence that the shareholder only partially satisfied the fourth criteria of operational control. Ultimately, the court stated that status as a significant shareholder was not alone enough to show that the employer exercised or possessed financial control over the company to be held personally liable.
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.
© 2018 ManagEase
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with AL, FL, and GA Employees |
EFFECTIVE September 24, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
In Gogel v. Kia Motors Mfg. of Georgia, Inc. the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit recently stated that a human resources employee’s actions in assisting another employee to file discrimination charges “in a reasonable manner” were protected activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Andrea Gogel, an employee in Kia Motors Manufacturing of Georgia, Inc.’s HR department, claimed to have personally experienced and heard a myriad of complaints from employees who felt discriminated against based on their gender and national origin. Gogel attempted to use her employer’s internal reporting process for years without success. It was at this stage that she provided a co-worker with assistance in contacting an attorney to assist her with filing an EEOC charge. This action would later lead to her termination from Kia Motors. Gogel sued Kia Motors for gender and national origin discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. Although a district court granted summary judgment in favor of Kia Motors, Gogel appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.
The Eleventh Circuit stated that when a human resource employee helps another employee file a discrimination charge in a reasonable manner, the human resource employee is entitled to protection under Title VII. To determine reasonableness, the court uses a case-by-case balancing test that reviews the manner in which the employee opposes the policy. There, the court stated that Gogel’s attempt to use the internal reporting process prior to assisting her co-worker with filing a discrimination charge with the EEOC was a reasonable display of opposition to an allegedly discriminatory practice. Employers are well advised to be mindful of any employee expressing their hostility to a purportedly discriminatory employment practice, as they may be protected from retaliation under Title VII.
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.
© 2018 ManagEase
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with AL, FL, and GA Employees |
EFFECTIVE October 9, 2018 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
In United States v. Mar-Jac Poultry, Inc., the Eleventh Circuit reviewed an inspection warrant sought by OSHA after a poultry facility declined a full-site inspection. OSHA was present at the facility following an employee injury, and was permitted to inspect the area related to the accident. When the employer declined to allow OSHA to expand its search to the full facility, it sought to obtain an inspection warrant.
To obtain an inspection warrant, OSHA must demonstrate probable cause, which “may consist of either (1) a showing of specific evidence of an existing violation, or (2) a showing that ‘reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting an … inspection are satisfied with respect to a particular [establishment].’” OSHA’s required probable cause is different than what is required in a criminal matter. The court noted “the evidence of a specific violation required to establish administrative probable cause … must at least show that the proposed inspection is based upon a reasonable belief that a violation has been or is being committed and not upon a desire to harass the target of the inspection.”
There, OSHA relied on past employer OSHA logs as evidence that a full-scale inspection was warranted. However, the court stated that while OSHA logs may indicate “hazards”, it does not necessarily show “violations”, which is what is required in the standard of proof. Moreover, the content in this employer’s logs did not constitute enough evidence to indicate OSHA violations, and OSHA’s investigation warrant was quashed. However, the court noted that there may be circumstances where the content of an employer’s OSHA logs, a specific violation plus historical violations, or a specific complaint that permeates the workplace may be sufficient evidence of violations justifying issuing an inspection warrant.
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.
© 2018 ManagEase