Posts

Sixth Circuit: Work Restrictions Do Not Equate to a Disability Under the ADA

APPLIES TO

All Employers with MI, KY, OH, and TN Employees

EFFECTIVE

June 7, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Booth v. Nissan North America, Inc., the Sixth Circuit stated that just because an employee has physical work restrictions does not equate to being “disabled” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A person is disabled under the ADA if they have a (1) “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities,” (2) “a record of such impairment,” or (3) is “regarded as having such an impairment.”

Read more

Tennessee: Chooses the Former IRS 20-Factor Test to Determine Independent Contractor Status

APPLIES TO

All Employers with TN Independent Contractors

EFFECTIVE

January 1, 2020

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

HB 539 rejected the state appeals court adoption of the “ABC” test, and implemented the historical IRS 20-factor test to determine independent contractor status. The bill defines employment status where “the individual performs services for an employer for wages and the services performed by the individual qualify as an employer-employee relationship” based on the 20-factor test. Although the 20-factor test is no longer the official IRS test, several states still look to the standard when determining what employment status applies.

Generally, the 20-factor test looks at the behavioral control, financial control, and the type of relationship of the parties. None of the factors are determinative of an employment relationship and there is no presumption of employee status. Although the “ABC” test is largely more restrictive than the 20-factor test, employers should still review independent contractor relationships with legal counsel before the law goes into effect.

Action Items

  1. Have independent contractor status reviewed with legal counsel for compliance.
  2. 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.

© 2019 ManagEase

Tennessee: Employers Must Implement an Anti-Bullying Policy IMMEDIATELY

APPLIES TO

All Employers with TN Employees

EFFECTIVE

April 23, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

HB 856 amended the Healthy Workplace Act to allow private employers to shield themselves from abusive conduct claims. Specifically, if an employer adopts the model Abusive Conduct Prevention Policy, then the employer is immune from suit for any employee’s abusive conduct that results in negligent or intentional infliction of mental anguish. Employers should note that this immunity does not change the personal liability of an employee for any abusive conduct in the workplace.

Employers should immediately implement the model policy or equivalent to avoid potential exposure. However, note that this immunity only applies to abusive conduct claims made under Tennessee law; it does not shield employers from claims made pursuant to federal law.

Action Items

  1. Review the text of the bill here.
  2. Have employee handbooks and anti-bullying policies updated immediately.
  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.

© 2019 ManagEase

Sixth Circuit: Off-Duty Law Enforcement Misclassified as Independent Contractors

APPLIES TO

All Employers of KY, MI, OH, or TN Employees

EFFECTIVE

February 12, 2019

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Acosta v. Off Duty Policy Services, Inc., the Sixth Circuit applied the six-factor “economic reality” test to determine whether off-duty officers were misclassified as independent contractors for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). There, the employer provided private security services using off-duty, sworn police officers, as well as nonsworn workers. The workers were allowed to accept or reject work assignments, were provided basic equipment, but had to supply their own vehicles and uniforms. The sworn officers typically wore their officer uniforms and used their patrol vehicles, while the nonsworn workers had to use their own police-style vehicle.

Read more

Sixth Circuit: Full-Time Work is Not an Essential Job Function Under the ADA

APPLIES TO

Employers with KY, MI, OH, and TN Employees

EFFECTIVE

July 17, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Hostettler v. College of Wooster, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal recently determined that an employer could not make full-time work an essential function of a job so as to justify failing to accommodate an employee under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). There, the employee suffered from post-partum depression and, based on her physician’s instruction, obtained approval to work part-time. However, her supervisor felt that the employee’s part-time work schedule burdened others in the department. When the employee submitted an updated medical certification requiring continued part-time employment, the supervisor terminated her based on her inability to return full-time.

Sixth Circuit: Do Volunteers Have an Expectation of Compensation?

APPLIES TO

All Employers with KY, MI, OH, TN Volunteers

EFFECTIVE

April 16, 2018

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

In Acosta v. Cathedral Buffet, the Sixth Circuit recently clarified the definition of a volunteer. There, a buffet restaurant, a for-profit corporation operated by Grace Cathedral, used volunteers to service patrons in addition to regular employees. The faith leader at Grace Cathedral told church members that God was calling on them to volunteer at the buffet, and that failing to do so was tantamount to a sin under the church’s doctrine. As a result of the church’s strategies, many members did volunteer. Employees and volunteers performed the same restaurant-related tasks; however, volunteers were not paid for their time.