Fourth and Ninth Circuits Sink Trump Travel Ban as Prelude to High Court Review

In the most recent judicial setbacks to President Trump’s Executive Order earlier this year suspending the U.S. entry of aliens from six Muslim-majority countries (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen), reducing the number of refugees allowed entry in 2017 to 50,000, indefinitely and then temporarily barring the admission of Syrian refugees, and suspending the Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days, on May 25 the Fourth Circuit en banc enjoined nationally enforcement of the Executive Order. Although the Justice Department argued that the Order’s primary purpose is advancing national security, the court, with three of the 14 judges dissenting, remained unconvinced that the travel ban had “more to do with national security than it does with effectuating the President’s promised Muslim ban.” The Fourth Circuit found that the Order “speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.” The opinion referenced statements that President Trump made in 2016 while on the campaign trail, which the court found supported its finding that the Executive Order was religiously motivated and violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause. However, the court vacated the lower court’s injunction to the extent it enjoined the President. International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump.

On June 12 the Ninth Circuit in a per curiam decision by a three-judge panel, also upheld a lower court’s nationwide injunction against enforcement of the travel ban, but on the separate grounds that the Executive Order violated U.S. immigration law. The court stated that the revised travel ban “exceeded the scope of authority delegated to [the President] by Congress.” The panel held that by broadly prohibiting entry by all persons from the listed countries, the Executive Order is too broad and ignores important factors, such as the alien’s working arrangements, family matters and access to U.S. medical care. The Ninth Circuit did not address Establishment Clause issues, as the Fourth Circuit did. Instead, its major concern was that “the order does not provide a rationale explaining why permitting entry of nationals from the six designated countries under current protocols would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” However, the court vacated the injunction against the President and against the Government’s conducting internal reviews of security risks posed by nationals of the listed countries and the refugee program. Hawaii v. Trump.

The Supreme Court must now decide whether to hear the Administration’s appeal from the Courts of Appeals decisions this term. Most recently, in view of the current non-enforcement of the travel ban, on June 14 the President revised the 90-day ban on travelers and the 120-day ban on refugees to ensure they do not expire in the interim and will take effect 72 hours if and after the Administration prevails in having the injunctions lifted.

If you would like to discuss the implications of the Executive Order and these court decisions for your employees, your hiring plans, and your business, please contact Patrick W. McGovern, Esq., Partner in the Firm’s Immigration Law Practice at 973-535-7129 or at pmcgovern@nulllgenovaburns.com.

Third Circuit Stymies Employer’s Attempt to Force FLSA Overtime and Meal Break Pay Claims into Collectively Bargained Arbitration

Earlier this month, in a 2-1 decision, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that certified nursing assistants covered by a collective bargaining agreement are not required to arbitrate their FLSA claims before seeking court relief despite a mandatory arbitration clause in their labor agreement. The assistants claimed that their shift differentials should be included in the calculation of their overtime pay and challenged the deductions from their pay for meal breaks they did not take. The Third Circuit held that resolution of the assistants’ FLSA claims did not depend on an interpretation of language in the labor agreement and, therefore, the assistants were not required to arbitrate their claims. Jones v. SCO Silver Care Operations LLC (May 18, 2017).

The Court of Appeals explained that a court may compel arbitration of an FLSA claim when (1) the arbitration provision clearly and unmistakably waives the employee’s ability to vindicate federal statutory rights in court; and (2) the statute does not exclude arbitration as an appropriate forum. Here, the labor agreement’s grievance-arbitration provision did not expressly refer to FLSA or wage-hour claims, so there was no effective waiver of the right to go to court. Nonetheless, the Third Circuit recognized that even where a labor agreement’s arbitration clause fails to refer to the FLSA, the FLSA claimant may be forced to arbitrate disputes over an interpretation of a labor agreement if the FLSA claims are “inevitably intertwined with the interpretation or application” of the labor agreement.

On the issue of shift differentials, SCO Silver Care argued that the FLSA claim alleging miscalculation of the overtime rate consisted of a dispute over an implicit term of the labor agreement and whether shift differentials already include an overtime pay component. The Court rejected this argument and held that the overtime claim was governed by the FLSA, no analysis of the labor agreement’s treatment of shift differentials was required, and the Court should determine only whether the shift differentials at issue are remuneration that the FLSA requires to be included in the calculation of an employee’s regular hourly pay rate.

On the question whether the assistants’ meal breaks must be treated as hours worked, the employer argued that resolution of this issue depends on determining various meal break practices that occurred while the labor agreement was in effect and that this determination should be made by an arbitrator. The Court rejected this argument as well and found that the alleged meal break practices raised factual issues as to what work was performed during meal breaks and did not require a review of language in the labor agreement. The Court stated that the employer could not “transform these factual disputes inherent to any FLSA claim into disputes over provisions of the CBA subject to arbitration.”

If you would like to discuss how the Third Circuit’s decision affects your pay policies, arbitration clauses, wage and hour compliance program, and your business, please contact Patrick W. McGovern, Esq., Partner in the Firm’s Wage and Hour Compliance Practice Group at 973-535-7129 or at pmcgovern@nullgenovaburns.com.

 

 

 

Fate Uncertain for HHS’s Extension of ACA Discrimination Protections to Abortion & Gender Transition

In May 2016 HHS issued a final rule implementing the Affordable Care Act’s Section 1557 nondiscrimination provision, which applies to recipients of funding from HHS. The rule prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity and termination of pregnancy, as well as race, color, national origin, sex, age, and disability. The new rule has been interpreted to require covered entities to perform and provide insurance coverage for gender transitions and abortions, regardless of their contrary religious beliefs or medical judgment.

The HHS rule has been challenged in court at least twice. On December 31, 2016, the U.S. District Court in Wichita Falls, Texas enjoined nationally the portions of the rule prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity and termination of pregnancy. Franciscan Alliance, Inc. v. Burwell, Civil Action No. 16-cv-00108. The Order was appealed by the ACLU and the River City Gender Alliance and the appeals remain pending.

The Trump Administration has not indicated whether it will challenge the Court’s injunction and enforce the rule. The current Administration position favoring repeal of ACA in its entirety is consistent with the policy changes already made by the Trump administration. On February 22 the Departments of Education and Justice withdrew agency guidance that mandated transgender student access to restrooms consistent with gender identity. In late March President Trump appointed Roger Severino to head HHS’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) which is charged with enforcing the HHS rule. Although Severino’s appointment has been controversial, as yet there is no indication from the OCR as to its enforcement position under new HHS leadership.

In the only other reported case brought under the rule’s prohibition of discrimination based on gender identity, on December 6, 2016 the U.S. District Court in Oakland, California stayed further proceedings in a case challenging an employer’s denial of gender transition health coverage. Robinson v. Dignity Health, Civil Action No. 16-cv-3035. The stay was granted pending the outcome of Gloucester County School Bd. v. G.G., a case scheduled for hearing before the Supreme Court. However, on March 6 the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of Justice’s and Education’s withdrawal of guidance on February 22.  The California court has continued the stay in the Robinson v. Dignity Health case based on the pending bankruptcy of the plaintiff and scheduled the next hearing for May 19.

The Supreme Court’s action suggests that courts across the country may be taking a “kick the can down the road” approach on the Section 1557 rule as the Trump Administration has promised to repeal and replace ACA, or alternatively that the Court prefers to review the case only when the Court is back to full strength. Currently, the HHS rule’s provisions relating to gender identity and termination of pregnancy remain enjoined nationally.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss how the Section 1557 rule affects you or your business, please contact Patrick W. McGovern, Esq. at 973-535-7129 or pmcgovern@nullgenovaburns.com, Gina M. Schneider, Esq. at 973-535-7134 or gmschneider@nullgenovaburns.com or Ryann M. Aaron, Esq. at 973-387-7812 or raaron@nullgenovaburns.com.

Virginia Federal Judge Upholds Trump Immigration Executive Order Signalling Possible Split in Circuits

On March 24 President Trump’s revised immigration ban which took effect March 16, 2017 (March Order) was found to be enforceable for the first time. U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga in Alexandria, Va., denied an emergency request for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to suspend enforcement of the March Order. Judge Trenga diverged from his counterparts in Hawaii and Maryland who granted temporary restraints against the March Order. On March 15 U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson in Honolulu issued a TRO pending further order of the Court and blocked core provisions of the March Order on the basis that the Order is an unconstitutional establishment of religion and inflicts immediate harm on Hawaii’s economy, education and tourism; this order is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Specifically, Judge Watson blocked the 90-day ban on entry of foreign nationals from the six Muslim-majority countries (Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Yemen and Somalia) and the 120-day ban on U.S. entry by all refugees. The next day U.S. District Court Judge Theodore D. Chuang in Greenbelt, Maryland issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the part of the March Order that suspended the issuance of visas to citizens of the six banned countries; Judge Chuang’s decision is on appeal to the Fourth Circuit which will hear arguments on May 8. Judge Chuang and Judge Watson both found that the March Order was intended to discriminate against Muslims. On March 29, Judge Watson converted the TRO into a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking provisions of the March Order indefinitely.

The Virginia lawsuit was brought by Linda Sarsour, national co-chair of the Women’s March on Washington and a Muslim activist. Ms. Sarsour relied on Trump’s public remarks and argued that the “long and unbroken stream of anti-Muslim statements made by both candidate Trump and President Trump, as well as his close advisors, which, taken together, makes clear that [Trump’s January and March Orders] are nothing more than subterfuges for religious discrimination against Muslims.” In deciding not to enjoin the March Order, Judge Trenga reasoned that the March Order was “explicitly revised in response to judicial decisions that identified problematic aspects of EO-1 [Trump’s January Order]…” and cited that part of the March Order that “expressly excludes from the suspensions categories of aliens that have prompted judicial concerns and which clarifies or refines the approach to certain other issues or categories of affected aliens.” Judge Trenga found no violation of the Establishment Clause on the grounds that the March Order “clearly has a stated secular purpose: the ‘protect[ion of United States] citizens from terrorist attacks, including those committed by foreign nationals.’” Judge Trenga also concluded that the substantive revisions reflected in the March Order precluded findings that the predominant purpose of the March Order is religious discrimination against Muslims and that the March Order is a pretext for this purpose. Judge Trenga wrote that to proceed otherwise required his “extending [the] Establishment Clause jurisprudence to national security judgments in an unprecedented way.”

Judge Trenga’s March 24 decision is not immediately appealable; Sansour’s court challenge will proceed and the Administration must answer the complaint. If Judge Trenga dismisses the complaint, an appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is expected and may then be consolidated with the pending appeal of Judge Chuang’s preliminary injunction. Given the increased likelihood of a split in the Circuits, the March Order may ultimately be reviewed by a fully constituted Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Judge Watson’s national injunction remains in effect and the attorneys general for California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon have joined Washington in filing another complaint challenging both the January and the March Orders.

If you would like to discuss how the March Executive Order or these court decisions affect your employees and your business, please contact Patrick W. McGovern, Esq., Partner in the Firm’s Immigration Law Practice at 973-535-7129 or at pmcgovern@nullgenovaburns.com.

Trump Blinks and Signs Revised Executive Order; States React Immediately

On March 6 President Trump signed a second Executive Order revoking his January Order and replacing it with Executive Order (“March Order”) effective March 16, 2017 that is intended to overcome court challenge. The March Order suspends for 90 days entry into the U.S. of nationals of six countries, but carves out limited exceptions for certain categories of affected aliens. After issuing the March Order, the Justice Department immediately asked the federal court in Seattle to halt Washington’s and Minnesota’s legal challenge from proceeding against the January Order and notified the Court notice that the Government plans instead to enforce the provisions of the March Order.  However, for the moment the Seattle lawsuit remains pending.

Under the March Order, entry by nationals of six countries -Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen- is suspended through June 14, 2017. The suspension of entry into the U.S. will apply only to foreign nationals from the six countries who 1) are outside the U.S. as of March 16, 2017, and 2) did not hold a valid visa as of 5 p.m. EST on January 27, 2017 and 3) do not have a valid visa as of March 16, 2017. The suspension of entry into the U.S. will not apply to U.S. permanent residents, any foreign national who is admitted to or paroled into the U.S. on or after March 16, 2017, any foreign national who has a document other than a visa valid on March 16, 2017 that permits the individual to travel in the U.S., any dual national of one of the six countries if the individual is traveling using a passport from the non-designated country, any foreign national traveling on a diplomatic visa, NATO visa, C-2 visa for travel to the U.N. or a G-1, 2, 3 or 4 visa, any foreign national granted asylum, and any refugee already permitted to be in the U.S. No immigrant or nonimmigrant visas issued before March 16, 2017 is being revoked by the March Order and any individual whose visa was revoked as a result of the January Order is entitled to a travel document permitting travel to and entry into the U.S.

Although the March Order does not list Iraq as a banned country, decisions about issuance of visas or granting entry to any Iraqi national will be subject to additional scrutiny to determine if the alien has connections to ISIS or other terrorist organizations, or otherwise poses a threat to national security or public safety.

The March Order also suspends all refugee travel into the U.S. under USRAP and suspends decisions on all refugee status applications through July 16, 2017. The January Order banned all Syrian refugees’ admission into the U.S. indefinitely. The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security retain the ability to jointly determine a refugee’s admission into the U.S. on a case-by-case basis so long as admission is in the national interest and poses no threat to national security and welfare. Finally, for fiscal year 2017 entry by refugees in excess of 50,000 is suspended until the President determines additional entries are in the country’s interest.

The first state to challenge the March Order was Hawaii which sued in Honolulu federal court claiming that the March Order results in an unconstitutional establishment of religion and inflicts immediate harm on Hawaii’s economy, education and tourism. U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson will hear Hawaii’s request for a temporary restraining order on March 15. New York’s Attorney General announced that New York will join Washington and Minnesota in the pending federal case in Seattle. Other states are expected to follow New York’s and Hawaii’s example.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss how the March Executive Order affects your employees and your business, please contact Patrick W. McGovern, Esq., Partner in the Firm’s Immigration Law Practice at 973-535-7129 or at pmcgovern@nullgenovaburns.com.

Union Fund Uses NY False Claims Act to Blow Whistle on Prevailing Wage Violator and Recover $33,750

In the first reported case of its kind in New York, in February a union fund received a five-figure settlement payment from a Harlem-based general contractor that worked on a New York City affordable housing project after the fund blew the whistle on the contractor’s failure to pay prevailing wages. The fund filed a whistleblower complaint under the N.Y. False Claims Act, which allows a whistleblower to file a qui tam lawsuit if it knows of and reports violations of the Act. The Act makes liable entities that knowingly present to the state or local government false or fraudulent claims for payment or avoid their obligations to pay the state or a local government. State of New York v. A. Aleem Construction, Inc.

A whistleblower that files a successful claim under the Act can recover 15 to 25 percent of any recovery if the State intervenes in the matter and converts the qui tam action into an attorney general enforcement action. If no State intervention, the whistleblower can recover between 25 and 30 percent of the total recovery. New York is among 29 states, including New Jersey, plus D.C. that offer an incentive payment or “bounty” to persons who blow the whistle on prevailing wage violators. A whistleblower who plans or initiates the violation that is the basis of the action can recover but in a reduced amount.

The union fund’s whistleblower complaint caused the State to investigate and determine that the general contractor violated prevailing wage laws by failing to pay laborers working on the project the required prevailing wages and benefits and failing to maintain proper payroll records. Under the settlement, the general contractor agreed to pay $225,000 to resolve the Action, $33,750 of which, or 15%, was paid to the fund.

The bounty paid to the union fund for reporting to the State violations of prevailing wage laws serves as another wake-up call to the employer community that claims for violations of prevailing wage laws can come from various sources including even the unions and their funds that negotiate and benefit from the wages and benefits, and the added incentive of a bounty in exchange for blowing the whistle is likely to encourage more unions and their funds to follow suit. In addition, on February 21 the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals’ dismissal of a 2011 suit brought under the federal False Claims Act by two former Wells Fargo employees who sought damages on behalf of taxpayers for fraud occurring during their employment with the bank. The Court vacated the dismissal of the lawsuit and in the process endorsed broader support for whistleblower claims at the federal level. Bishop v. Wells Fargo & Co. The federal False Claims Act provides similar encouragement, not limited to employees, to blow the whistle on violators of the Davis-Bacon Act.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss how these state and federal whistleblower protections apply to your employees and your business, please contact Patrick W. McGovern, Esq., Partner in the Firm’s Wage and Hour Compliance Practice Group and  at 973-535-7129 or at pmcgovern@nullgenovaburns.com.

9th Circuit Refuses to Stay Nationwide Injunction Against Enforcement of Trump Immigration Order While Government Appeals

On February 9, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court’s Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting nationwide enforcement of key portions of the immigration Executive Order issued on January 27. A unanimous three-judge panel, consisting of two Democratic appointees and one Republican appointee, in a per curiam opinion, ruled that “the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay.” As a result, the TRO stands and aliens from the seven listed countries (Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Yemen), including those with immigrant and non-immigrant visas, may continue normal processes for entry into the U.S. and refugees from the seven countries, including Syria, may resume their proceedings to relocate to the U.S. State of Washington v. Trump, (February 9, 2017).

Washington State and Minnesota argued that the Executive Order violated the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it disfavored Muslims and that the TRO merely returned the nation temporarily to the status quo in effect for many years. The Government submitted no evidence to rebut the States’ arguments. The Government, the judges observed, was hard pressed to point to a single recent example of an entrant from one of the seven listed countries who was arrested for terrorist activities. Regarding the argument that the Executive Order violates the Establishment Clause, the court withheld judgment for the time being, pending a decision on the merits, explaining, “The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions.”

The Ninth Circuit decision to maintain the nationwide TRO of the Trump immigration Order is immediately appealable to the Supreme Court. The President’s immediate tweet — “See You In Court, The Security Of Our Nation Is At Stake!” – anticipates that the Supreme Court will ultimately review the constitutionality of the Executive Order.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss how the Executive Order affects your employees and your business, please contact  Patrick W. McGovern, Esq., Partner in the Firm’s Immigration Law Practice at 973-535-7129 or at pmcgovern@nullgenovaburns.com.

Key 2017 Legal Changes that Employers and Federal Contractors Must Know About

Ready or not, 2017 is upon us and with it come many regulatory changes and important deadlines for employers and individuals. Make sure your New Year’s resolutions include compliance with the following changes and deadlines pertinent to employers and federal contractors.

Affordable Care Act

Employer Reporting. In November, the IRS extended the deadline for employers to meet their ACA reporting requirements. Employers required to furnish employees with Forms 1095 now have until March 2, 2017 to do so. The deadline to submit the Forms to the IRS remains February 28, 2017 for paper returns or March 31, 2017 for electronically-filed returns.

Marketplace Insurance. The deadline for individuals to obtain marketplace insurance coverage beginning January 1, 2017 expired on December 15, 2016. Individuals who want to enroll in marketplace insurance coverage for the balance of 2017 must do so by January 31, 2017. After the January 31 deadline, individuals may enroll in marketplace coverage only if they qualify for a Special Enrollment Period.

Required Contribution Percentages. For tax years and plan years beginning on and after January 1, 2017, the IRS increased to 9.69% of employee household income the maximum cost of coverage the employer can charge the employee for purposes of the employer mandate penalty. The IRS also increased to 8.16% of the employee’s household income the maximum cost of coverage the employer can charge the employee for purposes of determining whether the employee is eligible for an affordability exemption from the individual mandate.

IRS 2017 Contribution Limits for Retirement Plans and IRAs

The following are the IRS contribution limits for 2017:

  • 401(k) and 403(b) employee contribution limit: $18,000.
  • 401(k) and 403(b) catch-up contribution limit: $6,000.
  • IRA employee contribution limit: $5,500.
  • IRA employee catch-up contribution limit: $1,000.
  • 401(a)(17) compensation limit: $270,000.

Benefit Plan Changes

In May, the HHS Office of Civil Rights issued final rules implementing Section 1557 of ACA. Health programs must comply with these nondiscrimination rules effective January 1, 2017. Additionally, in May, the EEOC issued rules implementing Title I of the ADA and Title II of GINA as they relate to employer wellness programs. Employers must conform their wellness programs with these rules effective January 1, 2017. Plan sponsors that made material modifications to their benefit plans in the past plan year must provide participants with a Summary of Material Modifications within 210 days after the end of the plan year of the modification. For plan years ending on December 31, 2016, the SMM must be provided by July 30, 2017.

New York Minimum Wage and Overtime Salary Exemption Increase

Effective December 31, 2016, the N.Y. minimum wage and salary threshold exemption for time-and-a-half overtime pay increase based on the employer’s size and region as follows:

Minimum Wage Increase

  • New York City: Large Employer (11 or more employees): $11.00 per hour.
  • New York City: Small Employer (10 or fewer employees): $10.50 per hour.
  • Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester Counties: $10.00 per hour.
  • Remainder of New York: $9.70 per hour.

Overtime Salary Exemption Increase

  • New York City: Large Employer (11 or more employees): $825.00 per week.
  • New York City: Small Employer (10 or fewer employees): $787.50 per week.
  • Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester Counties: $750.00 per week.
  • Remainder of New York: $727.50 per week.

New Jersey Minimum Wage Increase

Effective January 1, 2017, the New Jersey minimum wage increases to $8.44 per hour.

EEO-1 Report

During 2017, no federal contractor or subcontractor is required to file an EEO-1 Report with the EEOC or DOL Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. The next filing date is March 31, 2018. For the March 31, 2018 filing and all future filings, EEOC and DOL will not accept paper filings. All filings must be done online. Finally, the snapshot pay period for the EEO-1 Report due on March 31, 2018 will be from October 1 to December 31, 2017 instead of July 1 to September 30.

Pay Transparency

Beginning January 1, 2017, pursuant to E.O. 13673 and the DOL Final Rule, a federal contractor or subcontractor must furnish a wage statement to each individual performing work under the federal contract if the individual is subject to the wage requirements of the FLSA, the Davis Bacon Act or the Service Contract Act. The wage statement must be provided each pay period and must include 1) the number of straight time hours worked; 2) the number of overtime hours worked; 3) the rate of pay; 4) gross pay; and 5) itemized additions to or deductions from gross pay. The federal contractor or subcontractor must inform an overtime-exempt individual in writing of the exempt status. For individuals treated as independent contractors, the federal contractor or subcontractor must provide a written notice that the individual is classified as an independent contractor.

Paid Sick Leave

Beginning January 1, 2017, pursuant to E.O. 13706 and the DOL Final Rule, a federal contractor or subcontractor must provide an employee with at least 56 hours per year of paid sick leave or permit an employee to accrue not less than one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked under a covered federal contract.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss how these changes and dates affect you or your business, please contact Patrick W. McGovern, Esq. at 973-535-7129 or pmcgovern@nullgenovaburns.com, or Nicole L. Leitner, Esq. at 973-387-7897 or nleitner@nullgenovaburns.com.

Court Blocks Rule Requiring Federal Contractors to Disclose Labor Law Violations, But Okays Pay Transparency Rule

On October 24, 2016 the federal district court in Beaumont, Texas enjoined implementation of President Obama’s Executive Order 13673 and the enforcement of FAR Council regulations and U.S. DOL guidance requiring disclosures of labor law violations, which were scheduled to take effect on October 25, 2016.  The court found that the requirement to report labor law violations exceeded the Executive Branch’s authority and violated free speech and due process rights of federal contractors and subcontractors.  The court also halted the ban on pre-dispute arbitration agreements covering Title VII claims and tort claims relating to sex harassment.  However, on January 1, 2017 the Order’s pay transparency rules will take effect, requiring federal contractors to furnish wage statements each pay period stating hours worked, overtime hours worked, rate of pay and any additions and/or deductions from pay.

In August 2016 the FAR Council and the DOL issued a Final Rule and Guidance on E.O. 13673 titled Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces.  The Final Rule requires federal contractors and subcontractors that solicit a contract with the Federal Government estimated to exceed $500,000 to disclose all violations of 14 federal labor laws committed during a look-back period, including FLSA, OSHA, FMLA, ADA, ADEA, Title VII and the NLRA.  The Federal Government will consider these labor law violations and decide whether they are too serious, repeated, willful or pervasive to award or extend a contract.

Because this injunction is only preliminary and partial and an appeal or amended rule is likely, federal contractors and subcontractors cannot ignore E.O. 13673, the Final Rule or DOL Guidance.  If the injunction is dissolved, then contractors and subcontractors will be faced with disclosure duties covering a look-back period of one year that will gradually increase to three years.  In addition, no disclosures will be required in the six months following the Rule’s effective date for prospective contractors, and one year for prospective subcontractors.  This phase-in disclosure process is in response to the DOL’s recognition that contractors and subcontractors were not previously required to track and report federal labor law violations and need time to familiarize themselves with the Final Rule, set up protocols and create or modify internal databases to track covered labor law decisions, including administrative merits determinations, arbitral awards or decisions, and civil judgments.

As discussed above, the court did not enjoin the Executive Order’s pay transparency requirements taking effect January 1, 2017.  In addition, the DOL requires every federal contractor and subcontractor covered by E.O. 11246 to provide notice to applicants and employees that the employer will not discriminate based on questions, discussions, or disclosures about pay.  The contractor must post the Pay Transparency Nondiscrimination Provision either electronically or in conspicuous places available to the employee or applicant at the employer’s premises and include it in existing employee handbooks and manuals.  Sample DOL language is available at https://www.dol.gov/ofccp/PayTransparencyNondiscrimination.html.

On a somewhat related issue, the DOL issued its Final Rule implementing President Obama’s E.O. 13706, which mandates paid sick leave for employees of federal contractors.  Beginning January 1, 2017 the DOL will require a covered federal contractor to provide an employee with at least 56 hours per year of paid sick leave, or alternatively the contractor must permit an employee to accrue not less than one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked under a covered federal contract.  An employee may use the paid sick leave for a physical or mental illness, injury or medical condition, obtaining diagnosis, care or preventive care, caring for the employee’s child, parent, spouse, domestic partner, or to seek counseling, relocation, assistance from a victim services organization or legal action for domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking.  If a labor agreement signed before September 30, 2016 applies to an employee’s work performed under a covered contract and provides the employee with fewer than 56 hours of paid sick time each year (or fewer than seven days, if the agreement refers to days rather than hours), the contractor must provide the difference between 56 hours and the amount provided under the existing agreement.  However, if a labor agreement signed before September 30, 2016 already provides for at least 56 hours per year of paid sick leave, the other requirements of the Executive Order and Final Rule, such as recordkeeping, notice and timing of pay, will not apply to the contractor until either the agreement terminates or January 1, 2020, whichever is sooner.

For assistance in complying with the Executive Orders, Final Rules or DOL Guidance on labor law violation disclosures, pay transparency or paid sick leave, please contact Patrick W. McGovern, Esq. at 973-535-7129 or pmcgovern@nullgenovaburns.com, or Nicole L. Leitner, Esq. at 973-387-7897 or nleitner@nullgenovaburns.com.

Third Circuit Deals Blow to Jersey City Ordinance Requiring PLAs on Privately Funded Projects in Exchange for Tax Abatements

Jersey City’s Municipal Code offers real estate developers generous tax exemptions that are designed to spur the City’s economic growth, but the tax incentives have strings attached. Specifically, to receive a tax exemption, even on a privately funded project, the developer must agree to use the City-approved project labor agreement (“PLA”), which is a pre-hire agreement that favors unionized contractors and subcontractors. On September 12, 2016, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated claims against Jersey City that its tax exemption ordinance mandating PLAs is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and violates the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Now the case returns to the District Court for a determination whether Jersey City’s PLA requirement is unlawful. The Court was careful to explain that its ruling has nothing to do with public construction projects, and is limited to the City’s attempted regulation of privately funded projects. Associated Builders and Contractors v. City of Jersey City, No. 15-3166 (3rd Cir. Sept. 12, 2016).

By imposing the PLA requirement on privately funded projects that sought tax abatements, the Third Circuit found that Jersey City “require[d] that an employer negotiate with a labor union and that all employees be represented by that labor union as part of the negotiations— even if the developers, contractors, and subcontractors do not ordinarily employ unionized labor and the employees are not union members.” In addition, the City’s standard PLA requires that employers and unions agree not to strike or lock-out during construction, and agree to sponsor or participate in apprenticeship programs.

The Court of Appeals found that the three laws allegedly violated by Jersey City’s ordinance — the NLRA, ERISA and the Commerce Clause — “share the same threshold requirement before their constraints are triggered: that the allegedly unlawful act by the state or local government be regulatory in nature,” as opposed to action by a market participant. The Court determined that Jersey City is not a market participant because the City “is not selling or providing any goods or services with respect to Tax Abated Projects, nor acting as an investor, owner, or financier with respect to those projects.” Invoking Supreme Court precedent, the Court rejected the City’s claim that offering tax abatements gives the City a proprietary interest in the project. The Court found that the City acted instead as a market regulator and since the ordinance strips employers and employees of the economic weapons of strikes and lockouts, and relates to employee benefit plans, the City’s ordinance may indeed be preempted by the NLRA and by ERISA. Finally, by enacting “regulatory measures designed to benefit in-state economic interests by burdening out of state competitors,” the ordinance arguably violates the dormant Commerce Clause.

Absent a request for rehearing or a petition for rehearing en banc, this case will return to the District Court for a determination whether the PLA requirements in the City’s tax exemption ordinance are enforceable. The larger questions are whether PLAs now in place on privately funded projects in Jersey City will remain in effect and, if not, whether this affects developers’ tax exemptions. Also an open question is whether the Third Circuit’s decision affects similar tax exemption ordinances in other municipalities that impose PLA requirements. Questions relating to this important decision and the path forward for developers in Jersey City and elsewhere in the state may be directed to any partner in our firm’s Labor Law Practice Group – James McGovern III, Patrick McGovern, Douglas Solomon, and John Vreeland.