What are biggest legal questions facing employers?

Last week, Employment Law 360 ran a four-part series discussing the four biggest issues facing employment lawyers across four different categories: Discrimination, Wage and Hour, Labor, and Class Actions (sub. req.).

It’s hard to disagree with any of the articles’ assessments or conclusions. It got me thinking, though, if those are the biggest issues facing employment lawyers, what are the biggest issues facing employers?

I think these issues fall into two over-arching categories:

1. What is work?
2. Who is an employee?

“What is work” does not just fall under the wage-and-hour umbrella. Yes, it is important under the FLSA to understand the compensable nature of working time, and how technology, like off-the-clock emails and smartphone use, impacts this question. Equally, if not more important, however, is the issue of the location of work, and the flexible work schedules, telecommuting, and work-life-balance implications of this question. If technology has freed us from the shackles of a four-walled office and nine-to-five time clock, does it also mean that technology has stretched the workplace to anywhere and the workday to anytime? And, with this “freedom”, should not employers be more lenient with time off, paid or unpaid.

“Who is an employee” is equally important. I’m not just talking about the FLSA implications of employee vs. independent contractor, or employee vs. intern. I’m also talking about the potential for joint-employer liability under the NLRA, Title VII, OSHA, and other statues. And, don't forget the ongoing debate over whether Title VII protects LGBT workers.

So, readers, what say you? What are the most important workplace legal issues facing you and your businesses? Leave a comment below, or tweet me @jonhyman with the hashtag #BiggestEmployerIssue

Union organizing as a protected class? Worst … idea … EVER

Raise your hand if you think that it needs to be easier for workers to unionize? If I could look through my computer screen, I’d see very few of my readers’ hands raised.

Two hands that would be raised, though, are those of Washington Senator Patty Murray and Virginia Congressman Bobby Scott (both Dems), who, last week, introduced and sponsored the Workplace Action for a Growing Economy (WAGE) Act.

What would the WAGE Act do?

• Triple the back pay to employees fired or retaliated against for engaging in protected concerted activity.
• Provide employees with a private right of action to bring suit to recover monetary damages and attorneys’ fees in federal district court, in addition to injunctive relief.  
• Clarify that joint employers are jointly responsible for violations affecting workers supplied by another employer.
• Establish civil penalties up to $50,000 for employers that commit unfair labor practices, with double penalties for repeat violations.
• Impose individual liability for employer violators on officers and directors. 
• Allow the NLRB to issue a bargaining order upon finding that an employer prevented a free and fair election, provided that a majority of employees signed authorization cards within the previous 12 months.

What else do you need to know about the WAGE Act? It’s supported by the AFL-CIO, the Teamsters, the Communication Workers of America, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, The Century Foundation, and other worker-rights groups.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka described the legislation: 

The WAGE Act puts corporations who abuse working people on notice that there will be real penalties for lawbreaking. Penalties like triple back pay, strong civil penalties and preliminary reinstatement.

Teamsters General President James P. Hoffa added:

For too long employers have manipulated and abused the system under the NLRA. The WAGE Act offers real reform to our current laws and provides worker protections through significant penalties that will discourage employers from acting illegally. It is long past time to bring our labor laws into the 21st century.

The Act’s co-author, Senator Murray, continued:

Too often, as workers are underpaid, overworked and treated unfairly on the job, some companies are doing everything they can to prevent them from having a voice in the workplace. The WAGE Act would strengthen protections for all workers and it would finally crack down on employers who break the law when workers exercise their basic right to collective action.

This bill has no chance to become law. But that’s not the point. The labor movement is setting up the 2016 election to be a referendum on the American working class. This bill is a symptom of this problem, not the solution. Nevertheless, it illustrates the class divide that could lead to a greater resurgence of organized labor.

WIRTW #382 (the “bloodletting” edition)

This past weekend, my kids had their triannual School of Rock performances. Norah performed in the “Left of the Dial” show, singing and strumming the 80s pre-Nirvana alt groove. Not to be outdone, Donovan made his stage debut playing keyboards in the Rock 101 band (with Big Sis backing him on the drums).

A few observations.

1. I’m not sure where they came from, but Norah’s got a set of pipes and is quickly learning how to use them.
2. Donovan might not have music in his future, but, as you’ll see, the kid’s got stage presence.
3. Having never taken a drum lesson, Norah did herself proud behind the kit for two songs.

With that preface, let’s go to the tape.

Norah bringing down the house, singing Concrete Blonde’s “Bloodletting”

Donovan causing tears of joy with his dance moves and backing vocals

If you’re inclined, you can watch the entire 12-song Left of the Dial set here.

Here’s the rest of what I read this week:

Discrimination

• The Kim Davis Story: When Religion Clashes with Job Requirements — via ERC HR Insights Blog
• Court Rulings Reiterate that Employers Should Review and Revise Best Practices for Drug-Free Workplace Programs — via Laconic Law Blog
• Reassignment As A Reasonable Accommodation Under The ADA — via Employment Essentials
• And a happy #$%!&;!*! new year to you, too! — via Robin Shea’s Employment & Labor Insider
• “Drawing the Line Between Civil and Religious Rights” — via How Appealing

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Facebook is expanding its workplace social network to hundreds of companies — via The Verge
• Hackers Are Coming After Your Private Data — via Technologist

HR & Employee Relations

• How to Reinvent the Employee Handbook — via Evil HR Lady, Suzanne Lucas
• New Push in Congress to Pass a Nationwide Ban the Box Law — via TLNT
• The Caregiving Challenge — via U.S. Department of Labor Blog
• Work-Life Policies Payoff Isn’t Overnight — via Families and Work Institute Blog
• How to Raise Awareness About Mental Health in Your Workplace — via Blogging4Jobs
• Questions That Employers Should Avoid During The Hiring Process — via Minnesota Employer
• Your Employee’s Former Employer Just Sued You????? — via The Emplawyerologist

Wage & Hour

• The pesky FLSA implications of the Papal visit — via Eric Meyer’s Employer Handbook Blog
• USDOL Delays Its “Companionship”, “Live-In Domestic” Enforcement — via Wage and Hour Laws Blog
• DOL: Pay Discussions Protected Under Rules — via Joe’s HR and Benefits Blog
• Eighth Circuit Splits The Baby In Permitting FMLA Claims To Proceed — via The Employment Brief

Labor Relations

• National Labor Relations Board Asserts Jurisdiction over Religious Educational Institutions — via Matt Austin Labor Law
• DOL Pimping Unions — via Labor Relations Institute

Leave policies should apply equally across genders … but must they?

The New York Times reports that CNN has settled an EEOC charge brought by a former correspondent, who claimed that the company’s paid parental leave policy discriminated against biological fathers.

At the time Mr. Levs’s daughter was born, in October 2013, CNN offered 10 weeks of paid leave to biological mothers and the same amount to parents of either gender who adopted children or relied on surrogates. By contrast, the company offered two weeks of paid leave to biological fathers.

Mr. Levs, whose daughter was born five weeks prematurely, already had two young children. He said he felt he needed to spend more time at home sharing in caregiving responsibilities with his wife. He filed his charge when the company refused to grant him more paid time off.

Optically, there is a lot of appeal in a male employee claiming discrimination when a female employee receives more paid leave after the birth of a child. On its face, it certainly looks discriminatory. But, is such a policy really sex discrimination?

There is one key difference between women and men when they welcome a new-born child. Women give birth; men don’t. A women is not medically ready to return to work the day following childbirth; a man is. Indeed, current medical guidelines suggest that women take six weeks off from work following a vaginal delivery, and eight following a C-section. Adoptions also provide different challenges to a couple, including adjusting to new family member without the buffer of a nine-month pregnancy.

While employers should offer equal leave allotments to men and women, before we jump the legal gun we need to consider that there might be an explanation other than discrimination that justifies different treatment between the sexes.

Reminder: You cannot decide when a pregnant employee can and cannot work

The EEOC recently announced that it has filed suit against a Texas home healthcare company for terminating a pregnant employee. The EEOC describes the key allegations:

EEOC charges in its suit, that Zanna Clore was told to obtain a doctor’s note after the employer learned of her pregnancy. Shortly thereafter, Clore provided Your Health Team with a release from her physician stating Clore could perform all job duties with the only limitation being that she should not lift or pull more than 25 lbs. Despite the medical release to work, the employer terminated her employment just minutes after she furnished the required note.

EEOC regional attorney Robert A. Canino sums up everything that is (allegedly) wrong with this employer’s action:

As a society, we should have already evolved well beyond the old-school thinking that a pregnant worker must be excluded from the workplace. Fortunately, the highest court in the land, in Young v. UPS, recently emphasized the employer’s responsibility to accommodate pregnant employees and thereby avoid discrimination against working women.

When an employee informs you that she is pregnant, your decision is not whether to fire her, but instead whether she can perform the essential duties of her job during her pregnancy. If she has physical limitations because of her pregnancy, you must accommodate her on the same terms and conditions as others who are similar in their ability or inability to work. In other words, if a pregnant employee cannot perform an essential function of lifting more than 25 pounds, and you have previous accommodated other non-pregnant employees in that job with similar lifting restrictions, then you must offer the same accommodation to the pregnant employee. It is not up to you to decide whether your pregnant employee can, or cannot, continue working.

Is anyone still using unpaid interns?

I’ve cautioning about the use of unpaid interns almost as long as this blog as been a blog (here, here, and here, for example). Last week, the 11th Circuit, in Schumann v. Collier Anesthesia [pdf], became the third federal appellate court to cast aside the DOL’s six-factor internship analysis for a stricter “primary beneficiary” test (joining the 6th Circuit and 2nd Circuit).

In Schumann, the court questioned the employer’s use of unpaid student registered nurse anesthetists participating in a clinic program as part of their master’s degree curriculum. The court agreed with the 2nd Circuit that the DOL’s six-factor internship analysis is antiquated, instead balancing, via the following factors, who received the primary benefit of the relationship—the employer (in which case the intern is an employee who must be paid) or the employee (in which case the internship can be unpaid):

1. The extent to which the intern and the employer clearly understand that there is no expectation of compensation. Any promise of compensation, express or implied, suggests that the intern is an employee—and vice versa.
2. The extent to which the internship provides training that would be similar to that which would be given in an educational environment, including the clinical and other hands-on training provided by educational institutions.
3. The extent to which the internship is tied to the intern’s formal education program by integrated coursework or the receipt of academic credit.
4. The extent to which the internship accommodates the intern’s academic commitments by corresponding to the academic calendar.
5. The extent to which the internship’s duration is limited to the period in which the internship provides the intern with beneficial learning.
6. The extent to which the intern’s work complements, rather than displaces, the work of paid employees while providing significant educational benefits to the intern.
7. The extent to which the intern and the employer understand that the internship is conducted without entitlement to a paid job at the conclusion of the internship.

Notably, the Schumann court noted that the internship analysis is not necessarily all-or-nothing, and that one can be a bona fide intern for part of the engagement, but an employee for others:

That is, we can envision a scenario where a portion of the student’s efforts constitute a bona fide internship that primarily benefits the student, but the employer also takes unfair advantage of the student’s need to complete the internship by making continuation of the internship implicitly or explicitly contingent on the student’s performance of tasks or his working of hours well beyond the bounds of what could fairly be expected to be a part of the internship. For example, in the context of an internship required for an academic degree and professional licensure and certification in a medical field, consider an employer who requires an intern to paint the employer’s house in order for the student to complete an internship of which the student was otherwise the primary beneficiary. Under those circumstances, the student would not constitute an “employee” for work performed within the legitimate confines of the internship but could qualify as an “employee” for all hours expended in painting the house, a task so far beyond the pale of the contemplated internship that it clearly did not serve to further the goals of the internship.

Ultimately, the court took no position on whether these student nurses were (or were not) employees, instead sending the case back to the district court to make the necessary factual determinations under the primary beneficiary test. Assuming this case is not settled, this case will be very interesting to watch on remand, as the relationship in Schumann is much closer to the traditional unpaid internship—training in exchange for school credit as part of an educational curriculum. A judgment for the interns in this case would be pretty darn close to the final coffin nail for unpaid internships.

While we watch this case, employers should continue to assume that non-student interns are paid employees, and should consult with counsel on whether student interns should be paid.

Time off for religious holidays

Today is Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, which means that many Jewish employees are taking the day off. Is an employer obligated, however, to grant a request for time off when requested for a religious observance?

Title VII requires an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee whose sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance conflicts with a work requirement, unless doing so would pose an undue hardship. An accommodation would pose an undue hardship if it would cause more than de minimis cost on the operation of the employer’s business. Factors relevant to undue hardship may include the type of workplace, the nature of the employee’s duties, the identifiable cost of the accommodation in relation to the size and operating costs of the employer, and the number of employees who will in fact need a particular accommodation.

Scheduling changes, voluntary substitutions, and shift swaps are all common accommodations for employees who need time off from work for a religious practice. It is typically considered an undue hardship to impose these changes on employees involuntarily. However, the reasonable accommodation requirement can often be satisfied without undue hardship where a volunteer with substantially similar qualifications is available to cover, either for a single absence or for an extended period of time.

In other words, permitting Jewish employees a day off for Rosh Hashanah, and next week for Yom Kippur, may impose an undue hardship, depending on the nature of the work performed, the employee’s duties, and how many employees will need the time off. Employees can agree to move shifts around to cover for those who need the days off, but employers cannot force such scheduling changes.

In plain English, there might be ways around granting a day or two off for a Jewish employee to observe the holidays, but do you want to risk the inevitable lawsuit? For example, it will be difficult to assert that a day off creates an undue hardship if you have a history of permitting days off for medical or other reasons.

Legalities aside, however, this issue asks a larger question. What kind of employer do you want to be? Do you want to be a company that promotes tolerance or fosters exclusion? The former will help create the type of environment that not only mitigates against religious discrimination, but spills over into the type of behavior that helps prevent unlawful harassment and other liability issues.