New District of New Jersey Case Shows Importance of Requiring Drivers to Form Corporate Entities in Misclassification Cases

Late last month, District of New Jersey Judge Robert B. Kugler partially granted FedEx Ground Package Systems Inc. (“FedEx”)’s Motion to Dismiss in a trucking misclassification case.  The court dismissed several claims but preserved the plaintiff’s wage claim.  One key in getting several of the claims dismissed for FedEx was that it had required the plaintiffs to form LLCs or corporations prior to contracting with them.

In Carrow v. FedEx Group Package Systems, Inc., No.: 16-3026, plaintiffs brought claims against FedEx arising under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”), misrepresentation, rescission, New Jersey Wage Payment Law (“NJWPL”), and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The contract between the driver plaintiffs and FedEx classified the drivers as independent contractors and, for some agreements, first required the drivers to create a limited liability company or corporation and sign the agreement through the business entity.  Plaintiffs argued that despite language in the operating agreements, they were treated as employees as the agreements regulated the vehicle appearance, vehicle maintenance, liability insurance, driver reports, driver uniforms, and driver service areas.  FedEx was also responsible for determining the prices charged for services, route schedules, electronic equipment used, forms for paperwork, and approval of substitutes and assistants. It also actively monitored how drivers operated their vehicles, carry packages, and completed paperwork to ensure adherence to company policies.

Based on the fact that the name plaintiffs had formed corporate entities at FedEx’s request and therefore as individuals were not direct parties to the operating agreements with FedEx, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims of breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and rescission.  The court also dismissed the plaintiff’s NJCFA claim because the plaintiffs’ theory was that the fraud related to FedEx’s employment of the plaintiffs which is not a basis for a NJCFA claim.  Further, the court held that plaintiffs could not state a cognizable claim under the NJCFA because business opportunities are not covered by the NJCFA.  The court did, however, allow several claims to proceed, most importantly, the plaintiff’s NJWPL wage claim finding that the fact that the plaintiffs were not parties to the operating agreements was not in and of itself enough on a motion to dismiss to determine if an employment relationship existed between the plaintiffs and FedEx.

For our clients in the transportation, trucking, and logistics industries, requiring that drivers form LLCs or corporations before entering into contracts with them helps to defeat misclassification claims.  However, as this case shows, corporate status is not enough by itself to definitively defeat a misclassification claim as it is one of many factors that a court will consider.

For questions about employment issues involving the trucking and logistics industries, please contact John Vreeland, Esq., Chair of the Transportation, Trucking & Logistics Group and Partner in the Labor Law Practice Group at jvreeland@nullgenovaburns.com or (973) 535-7118, or, Harris S. Freier, Esq., Partner in the Firm’s Employment Law and Appellate Practice Groups, at hfreier@nullgenovaburns.com or (973) 533-0777.  Please also sign-up for our free Labor & Employment Law Blog at www.labor-law-blog.com to keep up-to-date on the latest news and legal developments effecting your workforce.

Second, Eleventh and Seventh Circuits Disagree Whether Title VII Extends to Claims of Sexual Orientation Discrimination

On March 27 the Second Circuit held that Title VII does not provide protection against workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. In Christiansen v. Omnicom Group Inc., the plaintiff alleged that his employer discharged him because of his sexual orientation and his nonconformity to gender stereotypes.  On appeal to the Second Circuit, the employer sought dismissal of the claims, and argued that claims of sexual orientation discrimination cannot be brought under Title VII.  Plaintiff urged the court to expand Title VII’s scope to reach these claims and, alternatively, that his suit claimed sexual stereotyping, as opposed to sexual orientation discrimination.  The Second Circuit held that it was bound by Second Circuit precedent in this regard and the plaintiff could not state a cognizable claim for sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII.  The Christensen court relied heavily on the Second Circuit’s 2000 decision in Simonton v. Runyon where the court held that Title VII does not prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.

The Christensen court observed that the landscape of sexual orientation and the law have changed significantly since Simonton.  Most notably, in 2013, the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act and in 2015, held that same-sex couples have the right to marry.  However, the Christensen court found that neither of these decisions relates to Title VII protections, but instead they reflect a change in social and judicial perceptions regarding protections for same-sex couples.

The Eleventh Circuit is in agreement with the Second Circuit.  However, on April 4 the Seventh Circuit en banc held that sexual orientation discrimination is cognizable under Title VII. Hively v. Ivy Tech Comm. College. The Seventh Circuit reversed a Circuit panel that found for the employer with reasoning consistent with the Christiansen decision. The EEOC’s enforcement position during the Obama Administration was that discrimination based on sexual orientation is prohibited by Title VII, although it remains to be seen whether this will change under the current administration.

Given the split in the Circuits and the rapid development of the law in this area, employers cannot ignore discrimination or harassment claims based on sexual orientation.  Several jurisdictions already have state and local laws that prohibit these workplace behaviors, including New Jersey, New York, and New York City.  Employers must review their anti-harassment and discrimination policies to ensure compliance not only with Title VII but also with state and local laws, and promptly and effectively respond to complaints of unlawful harassment and discrimination.

For more information on this decision, on the applicability of Title VII to your organization, or to ensure compliant employment practices, please contact John C. Petrella, Esq., Chair of the firm’s Employment Litigation Practice Group, at jpetrella@nullgenovaburns.com, or Dina M. Mastellone, Esq., Chair of the firm’s Human Resources Practice Group, at dmastellone@nullgenovaburns.com, or 973-533-0777.

The D.C. Circuit Vacates NLRB Ruling on Driver Status in FedEx Case

In early March 2017, the D.C. Circuit in FedEx Home Delivery v. NLRB, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3826 (D.C. Cir. 2017) vacated a National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “the Board”) ruling that Connecticut FedEx drivers constitute employees under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). The D.C. court said that the case was indistinguishable from a 2009 case before the panel involving a group of Massachusetts drivers.

In 2007, single-route FedEx drivers based in Hartford, CT elected Teamsters Local 671 (“Union”) to represent them which lead to FedEx filing subsequent objections to the NLRB. While the appeal was pending, the D.C. Circuit decided FedEx Home Delivery v. NLRB (FedEx I), 563 F.3d 492 (D.C. Cir. 2009), finding that FedEx drivers based out of the company’s Wilmington, MA terminal constituted independent contractors under the NLRA. In its holding, the court vacated the NLRB’s order to engage with the union and denied the Board’s cross-motion for enforcement. The court held that the NLRB was bound to apply the common-law ten factor agency test as set forth in the Restatement (Second of Agency), but explained that rather than a control inquiry, that the emphasis of these factors should be on  “entrepreneurial opportunity” for gain or for loss as it relates to the determination of a worker’s status.  FedEx identified three specific entrepreneurial opportunities available to the drivers: (1) drivers’ ability to hire other drivers; (2) drivers’ ability to sell routes; and (3) drivers’ ability to operate multiple routes.  Persuaded by these arguments, the court held that the FedEx drivers were independent contractors.

In 2014, the NLRB issued a revised decision in FedEx Home Delivery, 361 N.L.R.B. No. 55 (Sept. 30, 2014) which found that the facts pertaining to the Hartford drivers and those discussed in FedEx I were “virtually identical.” Still, however, the NLRB declined to adopt the D.C. Circuit’s 2009 interpretation of the NLRA because it disagreed with the court’s emphasis on “entrepreneurial opportunity” as the key factor in determining a worker’s status. Specifically, it said that the Board should give weight to actual, not merely theoretical, entrepreneurial opportunity, and it should evaluate the constraints imposed by a company on the individual’s ability to pursue that opportunity. Moreover, it noted that FedEx unilaterally drafts, promulgates, and changes the terms of its agreements with drivers, a feature that weighs “heavily in favor of employee status” along with the Board’s view that the drivers lacked independence and were disallowed the initiative and decision-making authority normally associated with an independent contractor   The Board also found that FedEx engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce under the NLRA by refusing to recognize and bargain with the union.

In the present case, FedEx argued that the question had already been argued before the D.C. Circuit in FedEx I and involved the same parties, thus the same result should follow. The court agreed and denied the Board’s cross-application for enforcement, granted FedEx’s petitions for review, and vacated the Board’s orders. The D.C. Circuit noted that in FedEx I, the Board considered all common-law factors and was still persuaded that the drivers were independent contractors. The court also noted that the U.S. Supreme Court previously held that that the question whether a worker is an “employee” or “independent contractor” under the NLRA is a question of “pure” common-law agency principles that a court can review and does not require special administrative expertise.

The takeaway for employers is that in determining whether workers are employees or independent contractors, employers must remember that despite significant overlap, there are in fact different tests as related to the NLRA, federal taxes, the Fair Labor Standards Act, state wage and hour law, ERISA, the Affordable Care Act, and various other circumstances.  While the D.C. Circuit has for the moment clarified (or rather reinforced) its view as to the proper test under the NLRA, employers should always focus on where their greatest liability is and attempt to cater to the relevant test as much as possible.

For questions about independent contractors or trucking and logistics, please contact John Vreeland, Esq., Chair of the Transportation, Trucking & Logistics Group and a Partner in the Labor Law Practice Group at jvreeland@nullgenovaburns.com or (973) 535-7118, or, Harris S. Freier, Esq., a Partner in the Firm’s Employment Law and Appellate Practice Groups, at hfreier@nullgenovaburns.com or (973) 533-0777. Please also sign-up our free Labor & Employment Blog at www.labor-law-blog.com to keep up-to-date on the latest news and legal developments effecting your workforce.

How to Avoid Disney’s Not-So-Fairy Tale $3.8 Million Payment of Employee Back Wages

On Friday, March 17, 2017, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) and two subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Co. (“Disney”), the Disney Vacation Club Management Corp., and the Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S. Inc., reached an agreement to resolve claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), requiring the payment of back wages of over $3.8 million to more than 16,000 employees of the two Florida-based Disney companies.

According to the DOL, Disney deducted a uniform (or “costume”) expense from employee pay, which lead some employees’ hourly rate to fall below the federal minimum wage rate of $7.25 per hour. The subsidiaries also did not compensate the employees for performing pre- and post-shift duties while additionally failing to maintain required time and payroll records.

As part of the agreement, Disney agreed to start training all Florida-based managers, supervisors, and non-exempt employees on what constitutes compensable worktime and emphasizing the need to record all records pertaining to time accurately.

There are certain steps that employers can do to avoid the significant damages Disney incurred including:

  • Maintain accurate payroll, time, and schedule related records. This is particularly important to our hospitality and restaurant clients where record keeping can be especially difficult.  Also, remember that under the FLSA, the records must be  maintained for a minimum of three years for payroll records and six years under New Jersey and New York law.
  • Deductions are an easy target for the plaintiffs’ bar. Employers must make sure that any deductions are legal under state law and that the deductions if permissible do not bring the affected employee below the state or federal minimum wage;
  • Perform a wage and hour self-audit every two years to avoid misclassification issues and to ensure your recordkeeping and pay practices are consistent with the law;
  • To avoid donning and duffing claims (claims involving changing into and out of uniforms, costumes, and protective equipment for example), employers must take care to distinguish between non-compensable time when changing into and out of the uniform is merely for the employees’ convenience as opposed to compensable time when the job cannot be accomplished without wearing the designated uniform or costume or safety equipment and it is impractical to arrive at work wearing same.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss best practices in complying with federal wage regulations, please contact John R. Vreeland, Esq., Partner & Chair of the  Wage and Hour Compliance Practice Group at jvreeland@nullgenovaburns.com or call 973-533-0777 or Harris S. Freier, Esq., a Partner in the Employment Law and Appellate practice groups, at hfreier@nullgenovaburns.com, or call 973-533-0777.  Mr. Vreeland and Mr. Freier routinely work together in defending wage and hour class actions.  Please visit our free Labor & Employment Blog at www.labor-law-blog.com to stay up-to-date on the latest news and legal developments affecting your workforce.

What Pretext? The Tenth Circuit Shows the Value in Trucking & Transportation Employers Citing to Safety and Customer Complaints to Justify Discharge

On March 10, 2017, the Tenth Circuit in Henson v. AmeriGas Propane, Inc., no.: 16-7057, declined to revive a discrimination and wrongful discharge lawsuit in finding that the lower court was correct in its holding that that the former AmeriGas Propane, Inc. delivery driver who brought the claims had not shown that his termination was pretextual.  While this case originated out of Oklahoma, it provides beneficial guidance for our transportation trucking, and logistic clients.

In his initial complaint, filed in May 2015, Plaintiff Isaac Henson alleged that AmeriGas Propane, Inc. (“AmeriGas”) violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (and subsequent Amendment) as well as Oklahoma’s Retaliatory Discharge Act for terminating his employment because his disabilities and/or because AmeriGas regarded him as disabled. Henson also asserted that he was terminated because he engaged in statutorily protected activity under Oklahoma’s workers’ compensation law.

Henson began working as a delivery driver for AmeriGas in May 2011. His responsibilities included filling and delivering propane tanks to commercial and residential customers. While executing those tasks in August 2012, he injured the middle finger of his right hand. AmeriGas attempted to accommodate him by assigning light work duties as needed. Despite this, Henson still required over sixty medical and occupational-therapy appointments and underwent hand surgery in April 2013. In September 2013, he advised AmeriGas that his doctors recommended a second surgery. During this time, Henson’s performance declined, though his initial performance appraisal was generally positive. There were repeated safety violations, including three separate incidents of Henson driving too fast and running a stop sign. In November 2012, he received a formal written warning in an employee disciplinary report for the safety violations. Also in April 2013, Henson received a second written warning and a four-day suspension for insubordination, a negative attitude, and customer service deficiencies. In May 2013, his performance appraisal reiterated AmeriGas’s safety concerns and advised him to be more positive toward the company. Ultimately, Henson was terminated in October 2013, with AmeriGas citing insubordination along with another safety violation: leaving the gauge open on a customer’s propane tank.

Dissatisfied with the termination, Henson filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and with the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission. He exhausted his administrative remedies but secured a right-to-sue letter, prompting him to file suit asserting that (1) AmeriGas violated the federal law when it fired him because of his hand impairment; and (2) AmeriGas violated the Oklahoma state law when it fired him in retaliation for engaging in statutorily protected activity. The district court found that Henson established a prima facie claim of discrimination under both federal and state law, however, it also found that AmeriGas established a legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason for termination. Moreover, the court said that AmeriGas was aware of Henson’s injury and its impact on his ability to perform his duties well before the need to go for a second surgery.

On appeal, the Tenth Circuit rejected Henson’s pretext argument using a standard similar to the Third Circuit and found that Henson’s performance history outweighed any timing issues as to the discharge being close to Henson’s workplace injury. The court also found that Henson’s self-assessment of his performance was not enough to show pretext. Rather, it noted that it is the manager’s perception of the employee’s performance, as opposed to a subjective self-evaluation, that is relevant to review of legitimate and nondiscriminatory termination practices carried out in good faith by a company.

This case is useful for our clients in the transportation, trucking, and logistics industries because it shows that when an employer effectively uses written discipline and can cite to safety and/or customer complaints, this can provide a powerful counter to a plaintiff’s claims of pretext.  Employers in any industry should always try to ensure that there is a written and comprehensive record of discipline and/or performance reviews of employees to negate a plaintiff’s pretext argument.

For questions about employment issues involving the trucking and logistics industries, please contact John Vreeland, Esq., Chair of the Transportation, Trucking & Logistics Group and Partner in the Labor Law Practice Group at jvreeland@nullgenovaburns.com or (973) 535-7118, or, Harris S. Freier, Esq., Partner in the Firm’s Employment Law and Appellate Practice Groups, at hfreier@nullgenovaburns.com or (973) 533-0777.  Please also sign-up for our free Labor & Employment Law Blog at www.labor-law-blog.com to keep up-to-date on the latest news and legal developments effecting your workforce.

Philadelphia Becomes First U.S. City to Prohibit Inquiries into Applicants’ Wage Histories

On January 23, 2017, Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney signed into law the “Wage History Ordinance,” which bans all employers doing business in Philadelphia from asking job applicants about their wage histories, subject to a few exceptions. The Ordinance, unanimously passed by the Philadelphia City Council on December 8, 2016, amends Chapter 9-1100 of the Philadelphia Code, the “Fair Practices Ordinance.” The new law, the first for a U.S. city, will take effect on Tuesday, May 23, 2017.

The Wage History Ordinance specifically prohibits employers from the following:

  • To inquire about, require disclosure of, or condition employment or consideration for an interview on the disclosure of a potential employee’s wage history, unless done pursuant to a “federal, state or local law that specifically authorizes the disclosure or verification of wage history for employment purposes;”
  • Determine a potential employee’s wages based upon his/her wage history provided by his/her current or former employer, unless the potential employee “knowingly and willingly” disclosed such information to the prospective employer; and/or
  • Take any adverse action against a potential employee who does not comply with a wage history inquiry (anti-retaliation provision).

For purposes of this Section 9-1131, “to inquire” shall mean to “ask a job applicant in writing or otherwise,” and “wages” shall mean “all earnings of an employee, regardless of whether determined on time, task, piece, commission or other method of calculation and including fringe benefits, wage supplements, or other compensation whether payable by the employer from employer funds or from amounts withheld from the employee’s pay by the employer.”

Notably, the exception allowing wage history inquiries where a law “specifically authorizes” such applies not only when the inquiry is required by law, but when it is merely permitted by law.

The new law also requires a prospective employee who alleges a violation of the Ordinance to file a complaint with the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act before he/she may file a civil action in court. Violations of the Ordinance can result in an award of injunctive or other equitable relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages (not to exceed $2,000 per violation), reasonable attorneys’ fees and hearing costs.

Advocates of the legislation, like Philadelphia Councilman Bill Greenlee, have suggested that the Ordinance is aimed at reducing the gender wage gap.  According to the “Findings” section of the Ordinance, women in Pennsylvania are paid 79 cents for every dollar that a man earns.  Amongst minorities, it claims that African-American women are paid 68 cents, Latinas are paid 56 cents, and Asian women are paid 81 cents for every dollar paid to men.  The belief is that, since women have historically been paid less than men, an employer’s knowledge of applicants’ wage histories can perpetuate a cycle of lower salaries.  Advocates profess that the Ordinance forces prospective employers to, instead, set salaries based on an applicant’s experience and the value of the position to the company.

Opponents of the Ordinance, like Rob Wonderling, CEO of the Chamber of Commerce for Greater Philadelphia, denounce it as an unnecessary “hassle” driving businesses away from Philadelphia.  Corporations like Comcast have also threatened costly lawsuits contesting the legality of the Ordinance.

It is recommended that employers review their hiring practices and applications for employment in advance of the Wage History Ordinance’s effective date of May 23, 2017.  Moreover, anyone involved in the hiring and interview process must be trained to ensure compliance with the new law prohibiting inquiries into an applicant’s salary history.

For more information on the Wage History Ordinance, how it may affect your business, or ways to ensure that your company’s hiring documents and policies comply with the Ordinance, please contact John C. Petrella, Esq., Chair of the firm’s Employment Litigation Practice Group, at jpetrella@nullgenovaburns.com, or Dina M. Mastellone, Esq., Chair of the firm’s Human Resources Practice Group, at dmastellone@nullgenovaburns.com, or 973-533-0777.

Morristown Becomes New Jersey’s 13th Municipality to Mandate Paid Sick Leave

On January 11, 2017, Morristown will join the growing list of municipalities in New Jersey requiring private sector employers to provide paid sick leave to employees.  The Morristown ordinance, initially passed by a 6-1 vote in September 2016 and opposed only by Councilwoman Alison Deeb, is anticipated to impact approximately 4,600 workers. Morristown Mayor Timothy P. Dougherty issued an Executive Order on September 27, 2016 delaying implantation until January 11, 2017 explaining that more time was needed to prepare the required posters and for employers to prepare for compliance. The new law does not replace more generous sick time policies offered by employers.

Amount of Required Paid Sick Time – Covered employees will be entitled to 1 hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked.  Employers with 10 or more employees need only give employees 40 hours (5 days) of paid sick time per year, and those with less than 10 employees need only give employees 24 hours (3 days) of paid sick time per year.   All child care workers, home health care workers and food service workers are entitled to earn up to 40 hours (5 days) per year regardless of the size of the workforce, for public health reasons.

Who is Covered – The ordinance applies to all full-time, part-time and temporary employees of private employers in Morristown.  However, it does not apply to employees currently covered by a collective bargaining agreement until that CBA expires, unless the paid sick leave terms of the expired CBA are more generous than the town ordinance, in which case the expired CBA’s paid sick leave terms will apply.

Accrual of Paid Sick Time – Under the new ordinance, paid sick time begins accruing on an employee’s first day of the job.  Unused, accrued leave time may be carried over to the next year, but an employer will not be required to provide more than 40 hours of paid leave time in one calendar year.  Moreover, an employee will not be entitled to payment for any accrued, unused sick time at the time of his/her separation from employment.

Use of Paid Sick Time – An employee will be able to use the accrued time beginning on the 90th calendar day of his/her employment.  Qualifying reasons include personal health reasons or to care for sick children, spouse (including domestic partners and civil union partners), siblings, parents, grandparents, or grandchildren.

Anti-Retaliation – An employee may not be retaliated against for requesting to use paid sick time. Retaliation may include threats, discharge, discipline, demotion, hour reduction, demotion, or related adverse action.

Notice & Recordkeeping Requirements – Employers may require that employees provide advance notice of the intention to use sick time, but may not require that a requesting employee find a replacement before taking the sick time.  Employers will be required to provide written notice to all employees of the new mandatory paid sick time. Employer must also display a poster (in English and in any language that at least 10 percent of the workforce speaks) containing sick leave entitlement in a conspicuous place. Posters will be provided by Morristown’s Department of Administration.

Employers must ensure adequate maintenance of records as failure to do so creates a presumption that they have violated the ordinance.  The Department of Administration will be free to assert its rights to access records in order to ensure compliance.  There is no distinction amongst exempt and non-exempt employees under the ordinance in terms of record-keeping requirements.

Consequences for Non-Compliance – Employers who violate the Morristown ordinance will be subject to a fine of up to $2,000.00 per violation, plus payment of the value of sick time that was unlawfully withheld.

How Morristown Compares to Other NJ Municipalities – Though Morristown is the first town in Morris County to mandate paid sick days for private-sector employees, it is New Jersey’s thirteenth municipality to enact such a law.  The idea of federally-mandated paid sick leave backed by the Obama administration did not gain much momentum, and there are only a handful of states, often limited to a few cities, that require employers to provide paid sick leave.  New Jersey does not have a statewide mandate, but it has the highest number of local paid leave laws (including now Morristown).  The following provides a glimpse of the states and cities with similar laws:

  • Arizona
  • California (statewide & the following municipalities: Berkeley, Emeryville, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Monica)
  • Connecticut
  • Washington D.C.
  • Illinois (statewide & local laws in Chicago and Cook County)
  • Louisiana (statewide & local law in New Orleans)
  • Montgomery County, Maryland
  • Massachusetts
  • Minneapolis, Minnesota
  • Paul, Minnesota
  • Bloomfield, New Jersey
  • East Orange, New Jersey
  • Elizabeth, New Jersey
  • Irvington, New Jersey
  • Jersey City, New Jersey
  • Montclair, New Jersey
  • Morristown, New Jersey
  • Newark, New Jersey
  • New Brunswick, New Jersey
  • Passaic, New Jersey
  • Paterson, New Jersey
  • Plainfield, New Jersey
  • Trenton, New Jersey
  • New York City, New York
  • Oregon
  • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • Puerto Rico
  • Vermont
  • Washington (statewide & the following municipalities: SeaTac, Seattle, Spokane, Tacoma)

There is a counter-trend across the nation aiming to eliminate the hodgepodge of local laws and foster statewide uniformity in mandatory paid sick leave.  Some states have passed laws affirmatively banning local governments from mandating paid sick leave for private employers, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.  Similar legislation prohibiting local laws has been introduced in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Advocates of mandatory paid sick leave laws told the Morristown Town Council that providing paid sick time is good for businesses, as it will create a happier, healthier and more productive workforce, resulting in less worker turnover and leading to reduced costs incurred for potential new hiring.  However, opponents of the new law argue that small business owners will face cost-issues in order to remain in compliance.  Morristown Councilwoman Deeb, who provided the lone dissenting vote, believes the law will drive small businesses out of Morristown.

For more information on the ordinance and how the new sick leave requirements will affect your business, please contact John C. Petrella, Esq., Chair of the firm’s Employment Litigation Practice Group at jpetrella@nullgenovaburns.com, or Dina M. Mastellone, Esq., Chair of the firm’s Human Resources Practice Group, at dmastellone@nullgenovaburns.com, or 973-533-0777.

NYC Joins the Pre-Trump Push for Employee Work Schedule Protections

New York City has joined several other cities, including San Francisco and Seattle, introducing legislation that offers more predictable, stable work schedules for employees in low-wage occupations. The legislation generally offers employees more notice of schedules, more access to extra hours, additional pay for last-minute schedule changes, and a mandated period of rest between certain back-to-back shifts. If passed, the legislation would take effect 180 days after being signed into law by Mayor Bill de Blasio.

More specifically, New York City has proposed a package of five bills that would offer the following protections related to employee work schedules:

  • Employees would have the right to request a change in their work arrangements (e.g., schedule changes, location reassignments) without fear of retaliation and employers would be required to engage in an “interactive process” and provide a good faith response within two weeks of the request.
  • Employees would be afforded a right to receive certain changes to work arrangements in emergency situations, like a childcare emergency or personal health emergency.
  • Employers would be prohibited from engaging in on-call scheduling of retail employees.
  • Employers would be prohibited from providing a retail employee with less than 20 hours of work during any 14-day period.
  • Employers of fast food restaurants would be required to provide employees with an estimate of their work schedule upon hire and notice of work schedules 14 days in advance, subject to penalties for untimely notice.
  • Employers would be prohibited from making fast food employees work consecutive shifts when the first shift closes the establishment and the second shift opens it the next day (nicknamed “cloepening” shifts). Employers would be required to give fast food workers at least eleven hours off between such shifts and would pay a $100 premium to an employee every time he or she was made to work such consecutive cloepening shifts.
  • Employers of fast-food establishments would be required to offer available hours to existing employees up until the point that they would have to pay those existing employees overtime, or until all current employees have rejected such available hours, before they could hire new employees.

New York City’s efforts appear to be an attempt to prevent what many fear will be backlash against workers’ rights from the incoming Trump administration. The goal of these legislative measures is to lessen the wage gap in big cities, where the cost of living is typically higher, by offering low-wage workers the opportunity to budget in advance, plan for education or family care, and secure a second job, among other things. Those who oppose the initiatives raise several concerns. According to many business officials, the implementation of scheduling mandates on employers would result in rising costs and decreased efficiency because scheduling changes are typically initiated by employees. Another critic accused the New York City Council of acting as labor organizers, particularly in light of the penalties imposed, which are similar to collective bargaining provisions.

For more information on the pending New York City legislation and how the new requirements will affect your business, please contact John Vreeland, Esq., Chair of the firm’s Wage and Hour Compliance Group, at (973) 535-7118 or jvreeland@nullgenovaburns.com, or Dina M. Mastellone, Esq., Chair of the firm’s Human Resources Practices Group, at dmastellone@nullgenovaburns.com, or 973-533-0777.

Regulations Require Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors

On September 29, 2016, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued a final rule requiring federal contractors to provide employees with at least seven days of paid sick leave each year. This requirement applies to all new contracts.

What contracts must comply with the paid sick leave requirement?  Four types of contracts fall within the new sick leave requirement.  They are: 1) procurement contracts for construction covered by the Davis-Bacon Act; 2) service contracts covered by the Service Contract Act; 3) concession contracts; and 4) contracts in connection with Federal property or lands related to services for Federal employees and the general public.

What is a new contract?  The rule applies to new contracts, which is defined as a contract awarded or resulting from solicitations on or after January 1, 2017.  A contract prior to January 1, 2017 will also be considered a new contract if: 1) the contract is renewed; 2) the contract is extended, unless the extension arises from a term for a short term extension in the original contract; or 3) the contract is amended as a result of a modification outside the scope of the original contract.

How much paid sick leave must a federal contractor provide?  Employees working on covered, new contracts accrue one hour of paid sick leave for every thirty hours worked. Employers may also limit paid sick leave to 56 hours per year.  For administrative ease, an employer may “front-load” or provide the 56 hours at the beginning of the accrual year.  Special rules apply for carrying-over any unused paid sick leave to the following year.  The regulations also allow employers to implement a policy allowing forfeiture of any accrued, unused paid sick leave upon separation from employment.  However, if an employee is rehired within 12 months, the employer must reinstate accrued, unused paid sick leave.

What uses of paid sick leave are permitted?  The regulations provide that an employee may use paid sick leave for the following reasons:

  1. for the employee’s own physical or mental injury, injury, or condition
  2. for the employee to obtain diagnosis, care, or preventative care
  3. for the employee to care for a child, parent, spouse, domestic partner, or person in a family relationship for reasons relating to that person’s medical condition
  4. for reasons related to domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault

For more information on the Final Rule and implementing best practices with these regulations, please contact Brigette N. Eagan, Esq., Counsel in the firm’s Human Resources Practice Group at beagan@nullgenovaburns.com or 973-533-0777.

Your Credit is No Good Here: Philadelphia Becomes Latest Jurisdiction to Make It Unlawful to Use Credit Information in Employment

On June 7, 2016, Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney signed into law Philadelphia Bill No. 160072, which amends Philadelphia’s “Fair Practices Ordinance: Protections Against Unlawful Discrimination,” Chapter 9-1100, et seq. of the Philadelphia Code.  Employers comprised of one or more people are covered by the Ordinance, which, as amended, prohibits an employer from procuring, or seeking a person’s cooperation or consent to procure, credit information regarding an employee or applicant in connection with hiring, discharge, tenure, promotion, discipline or consideration of any other term, condition or privilege of employment.  Philadelphia’s Ordinance follows other several other jurisdictions, including New York City, which have enacted similar laws.

The ordinance does provide some exceptions to its anti-discrimination provisions, which guide businesses seeking to utilize credit information in lawful ways.  These exceptions include allowing business to seek credit information if the information must be obtained pursuant to state or federal law, or if the specific job the employer seeks employee credit information for:

  • requires the employee to be bonded under City, state, or federal law;
  • is supervisory or managerial in nature and involves setting the direction or policies of a business or a division, unit or similar part of a business;
  • involves significant financial responsibility to the employer, including the authority to make payments, transfer money, collect debts, or enter into contracts, but not including handling transactions in a retail setting;
  • requires access to financial information pertaining to customers, other employees, or the employer, other than information customarily provided in a retail transaction; or
  • requires access to confidential or proprietary information that derives substantial value from secrecy.

However, if an employer relies on the credit information either in whole or in part when considering adverse action in these instances, it must disclose its reliance thereon and provide the particular information upon which it relied. Employers are also required to give the employee or applicant a chance to explain the circumstances prior to making an adverse decision.

Employer Takeaways: 

  • Employers should evaluate their hiring and internal employment processes to ensure it complies with the new ordinance and with the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (and local iterations).
  • If a credit check is done in certain circumstances, the employer should disclose its reliance and should allow for any explanation or clarification on behalf of the employee or applicant.

For more information regarding the potential impacts of this legislation or how your business can prepare to develop a compliant credit-check policy, please contact Dina M. Mastellone, Esq., Chair of the firm’s Human Resources Practice Group, at dmastellone@nullgenovaburns.com or 973-533-0777.