Appellate Court Expands Rice Notice Requirements

Following the February 8, 2017 Appellate Division decision in Kean Federation of Teachers v. Morell, public bodies must review their processes for issuing Rice notices and making available meeting minutes to the public.

In its decision, the Appellate Division expanded the application of the Rice notice requirements to include all situations in which the public body intends to take action on an agenda item which will affect an employee’s “employment appointment, termination of employment, terms and conditions of employment, evaluation of the performance of, promotion or [discipline]” of its employees. This requirement attaches to all agenda items, regardless of whether the public body intends to hold a discussion about the matter.  The Court reasoned that presenting a Rice notice for all employees on a particular agenda allows the public body to have “flexibility to discuss matters in executive session when necessary and affords the affected employees the opportunity” to request a public discussion.

In the same decision, the Court also evaluated the timeframe required for a public body to release its meeting minutes so that it meets the OMPA’s requirement of making them “promptly available”.  At issue was a set of minutes from the September 15, 2014 meeting, which took 94 days to release.  A second set, from the December 6, 2014 meeting took 58 days to release.  Although the Court did not expressly define a timeline to comply with making minutes “promptly available,” it suggested that a reasonable timeframe for release is within 30-45 days.  Even without a clear rule, the Court makes it clear that a 2 or 3 month delay is not justifiable, and mandates public bodies to “adopt a protocol that makes the availability of its meeting minutes a priority.”

The Court’s clear directive to the parties is applicable to all public bodies effective immediately.  Public bodies should review their protocols to ensure that Rice notices be issued in advance of taking action on agenda items involving employment matters.  Public bodies must also review its processes to ensure an efficient method of producing required meeting minutes (including those which are subject to redaction) relatively soon after receipt of a request.

For additional guidance regarding compliance with the Court’s mandate, please contact Jennifer Roselle at 973-646-3324 or jroselle@nullgevnoaburns.com. Ms. Roselle is Counsel in the Firm’s Labor Law and Education Law Practice Groups.

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.

Uber Scores Victory Compelling Arbitration in Wage & Hour Misclassification Suit

Just a few days after being in the news and facing consumer boycotts for allegedly seeking to profit as a result of a taxi boycott of JFK International Airport related to President Trump’s immigration Executive Order, Uber received good news when it received a pro-employer legal ruling in a suit brought against the company by its New Jersey drivers.

In a published opinion filed on January 30, 2017, Hon. Freda L. Wolfson, U.S.D.J. of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held that a proposed class of Uber drivers must arbitrate their claims that Uber misclassified them as independent contractors, failed to pay overtime compensation, and required drivers to pay business expenses purportedly incurred for Uber’s benefit.  In Singh v. Uber Technologies Inc., No. 16-03044 (D.N.J. January 30, 2017), the District Court made two significant findings that are favorable to employers: (1) employment agreements incorporating so-called “clickwrap” or hyperlinked agreements by reference are enforceable—whether or not the employee actually reviews the agreement—so long as the employer provides reasonable notice that the terms and conditions of that agreement apply; and (2) Uber’s agreement with its drivers is not considered a contract involving “transportation employees,” and therefore is not subject to the exemption provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which the court construed narrowly.

In Singh, plaintiff registered with the Uber App (the “App”) in order to become a driver with Uber’s “uberX” platform. Registration required him to electronically accept an Agreement provided by Uber’s technology service provider Raiser, LLC (the “Raiser Agreement”).  When plaintiff logged onto the App, he was able to review the Raiser Agreement by clicking a hyperlink to the Raiser Agreement within the App.  To advance within the App past the hyperlink and actively use the App, plaintiff had to twice confirm that he reviewed and accepted the Raiser Agreement by clicking “YES I AGREE.”

The first page of the Raiser Agreement also contained a paragraph, written in large bold and capital text, indicating that a voluntary arbitration agreement was contained therein.  The arbitration provision required Uber drivers—if they do not opt out within a 30-day period—to individually arbitrate all disputes arising out of, or relating to, the Raiser Agreement, or their relationship with Uber, including disputes alleging breach of contract, wage and hour, and compensation claims on an individual and class or collective basis.  Importantly, the Raiser Agreement’s 30-day opt out provision noted that the arbitration provision was not mandatory, and should the driver choose to opt out of arbitration, Uber would not retaliate against him or her.  Plaintiff was also permitted to spend as much time as he found necessary in reviewing the Raiser Agreement on his smartphone or other electronic devices before accepting it.

Following the filing of litigation by plaintiff, Uber moved to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration.  In his opposition, the plaintiff first asserted that because Uber only provided a hyperlink, or “access” to the Raiser Agreement, as opposed to providing the document itself, he should not be bound to the Raiser Agreement’s arbitration provision.  In rejecting this argument, the District Court noted that for hyperlinked agreements to bind parties, they must provide “reasonably conspicuous notice of the existence of” the terms of the agreement, citing favorably to ADP, LLC v. Lynch, No. 16-01111 (D.N.J. June 30, 2016), a decision that our firm helped to achieve on behalf of a long-time client.  The District Court determined that since the plaintiff was required to review and agree to the hyperlinked Raiser Agreement before utilizing the App, and the link was prominently displayed, he was provided with sufficient notice of the terms and conditions and therefore manifested intent to be bound by the agreement.

The District Court also held that the parties’ agreement is subject to the FAA, granting the court authority to compel arbitration. Plaintiff argued that his employment with Uber fell within the exemption contained in Section 1 of the FAA, which excludes from the FAA’s ambit contracts involving “transportation employees.”  However, the court noted even if plaintiff was an Uber employee (as opposed to an independent contractor, as Uber argued), Section 1 of the FAA only excludes “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.”  The court found that although the Third Circuit has yet rule on the issue, virtually every other Circuit Court having considered the issue found that the exclusion is to be narrowly construed as only applying “to those employees who are actually engaged in the movement of goods, as opposed to the transportation of people, in interstate commerce.”  Coupled with Congress’s intent to only exclude contracts involving certain categories of workers in this way from the application of the FAA, the District Court held that plaintiff’s job was “too far attenuated from the types of employees to whom the FAA’s exclusion is intended to apply.”

Finally, the District Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that the Raiser Agreement violated Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).  While noting that it is an open question whether “an employee may enter into an arbitration agreement requiring the resolution of labor disputes on an individual basis” (indeed, the Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to review this exact issue), the court found it did not need to reach this issue because Uber did not “restrain, or coerce” the plaintiff into being bound by the arbitration agreement contained within the Raiser Agreement because it was optional.

The court’s decision in Singh shows that if crafted correctly, employers are permitted to execute agreements with their employees in more contemporary fashion, and with dispute resolution provisions that are fair and efficient for all parties.

For questions about Singh v. Uber Techs. Inc. and its implications on your company’s arbitration agreements, please contact 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 you up-to-date on the latest news and legal developments effecting your workforce.

EEOC Releases 2016 Enforcement Data: Charges Increase, Downward Trend in Litigation & Monetary Recovery, LGBT Charges Highlighted

Each year, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) releases data detailing the charges of workplace discrimination it receives, the number of enforcement suits filed and resolved, and any areas of targeted investigations and compliance initiatives from the prior year.  On January 18, 2017, the EEOC released its Fiscal Year 2016 Enforcement and Litigation Data summarizing its findings.

Rising Number of Discrimination Charges – According to the EEOC, in 2016 it received 91,503 charges of discrimination, making 2016 the second consecutive year that the agency has seen an increase in the number of charges.  2016 also marks the third consecutive year in which retaliation was the most frequently filed charge.  Below is a chart summarizing the EEOC’s breakdown of the categories of charges filed in 2016 along with a comparison to those charges filed in New Jersey and New York:

  National New Jersey New York
Retaliation:  

42,018 (45.9%)

 

731 (1.7% of total Retaliation charges in US)  

1,604 (3.8% of total Retaliation charges in US)

 

Race:  

32,309 (35.3%)

 

624 (1.9% of total Race charges in US)  

1,084 (3.4% of total Race charges in US)

 

Disability:  

28,073 (30,7%)

 

583 (2.1% of total Disability charges in US)  

1,061 (3.8% of total Disability charges in US)

 

Sex:  

26,934 (29.4%)

 

500 (1.9% of total Sex charges in US)  

1,202 (29% of total Sex charges in US)

 

Age:  

20,857 (22.8%)

 

437 (2.1% of total Age charges in US)  

865 (4.1% of total Age charges in US)

 

National

Origin:

9,840 (10.8%)

 

254 (2.6% of total National Origin charges in US)  

601 (6.1% of total National Origin charges in US)

 

Religion:  

3,825 (4.2%)

 

104 (2.7% of total Religion charges in US)  

180 (4.7% of total Religion charges in US)

 

Color:  

3,102 (3.4%)

 

42 (1.4% of total Color charges in US)  

208 (6.7% of total Color charges in US)

 

Equal Pay:  

1,075 (1.2%)

 

Info not available Info not available
Genetic

Information:

 

238 (.3%) Info not available Info not available

Steady Increase in Charges Filed by LGBT Individuals – For the first time, the EEOC included details in its year end summary about sex discrimination charges filed specifically by members of the LGBT community.  In fiscal year 2016, it settled 1,650 of such charges, recovering $4.4 million.  This accounts for roughly 40% of the 4,000 sex discrimination charges filed by LGBT individuals since fiscal year 2013, which indicates a notable, steady rise in the number of charges filed by members of the LGBT community.  Also trending are the issues involving transgendered employees’ restroom rights.  In July 2015, the EEOC ruled that denying an employee equal access to a common restroom corresponding to the employee’s gender identity constitutes sex discrimination violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as does conditioning an employee’s such right on proof that the employee underwent a medical procedure, and/or restricting a transgendered employee to a single-user restroom.

Overall Decrease in Monetary Awards – The EEOC recovered a total of over $482 million in fiscal year 2016, down from the $525 million in 2015, broken down as follows:

  • $347.9 million for private-sector, state, and local government employees through mediation, conciliation, and settlements;
  • $52.2 million through litigations; and
  • $82 million for federal employees.

Downward Trend in Litigation – Over 76% of cases that were referred to mediation in 2016 were resolved successfully, though conciliation had a lower success rate of only 44%.  Litigation by the EEOC is experiencing a downward trend, with only 165 active cases on the EEOC’s docket at the end of 2016, as opposed to the 218 that existed at the end of 2015.  In addition, the EEOC filed only 86 lawsuits alleging discrimination in 2016, down from its 142 filed in 2015 and 133 in 2014.

New Online Charge Status System – The EEOC launched digital services allowing employers and charging parties to receive and file documents electronically, check the status of charges online, and communicate electronically with the EEOC.  These services are intended to streamline the charge process and reduce the number of paper submissions and phone inquiries, easing administrative burdens on the EEOC.  These changes may make it easier not only for the agency to handle more charges and resolve them more quickly, but for complainants to file them.

New ADA Regulations on Employer-Sponsored Wellness Plans – The EEOC issued regulations and interpretive guidance advising that employers may provide limited financial and other incentives in exchange for an employee answering disability-related questions or undergoing medical exams as part of a wellness program.

Employers should review the EEOC’s 2016 charge and enforcement data in order to remain vigilant when responding to complaints of harassment and/or discrimination in the workplace.  The EEOC’s statistics also reinforces the need for employers to train managers, supervisors, and employees on those policies.

For more information on the EEOC’s year-end summary, the EEOC’s strategy for future enforcement of federal employment discrimination statutes, or ways to ensure that your company is in compliance with the EEOC’s mandates, 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.

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.

Third Circuit Allows “Subgroup” Disparate-Impact Claims to Proceed Under The ADEA

Employers are well aware of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), which protects individuals over the age of forty, as well as its disparate-impact provision, which makes it unlawful for an employer to adopt a facially-neutral policy that adversely affects an individual employee’s status “because of such individual’s age.” However, in a precedential opinion filed on January 10, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the ADEA allows plaintiffs to proceed with a disparate-impact claim whereby only a “subgroup” or segment of employees over the age of forty are alleged to have been disfavored relative to younger employees.

In Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, No. 15-3435, the defendant-employer underwent several reductions in force (“RIFs”) to offset disappointing sales during the height of the recession. Several employees who were terminated in one particular RIF, all of whom were over fifty years old, brought a putative ADEA collective action against the employer asserting, among other things, a disparate-impact claim. The district court thereafter decertified the plaintiffs’ collective action, which was “to be comprised of employees terminated by the RIF who were at least fifty years old at the time.” Additionally, the district court granted the defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment as to the disparate-impact claim, holding that plaintiffs’ “fifty-and-older” disparate-impact claim was not permitted under the ADEA.

On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to the disparate-impact claim. The court noted that disparate-impact claims may proceed under the ADEA “when a plaintiff offers evidence that a specific, facially neutral employment practice caused a significantly disproportionate adverse impact based on age.” In Karlo, the plaintiff alleged that the specific RIF disproportionately impacted only a portion of the forty-and-older employee population: employees older than fifty. The Third Circuit found that this claim was cognizable, holding that plaintiffs may demonstrate the impact of facially-neutral policy “with various forms of evidence, including forty-and-older comparisons, subgroup comparisons, or more sophisticated statistical modeling, so long as that evidence meets the usual standards for admissibility.”

The court heavily relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in O’Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., which held that the ADEA “does not ban discrimination against employees because they are aged 40 or older; it bans discrimination against employees because of their age, but limits the protected class to those who are 40 or older.” Thus, the court held that ADEA claims by subgroups of those aged forty or older are cognizable because “evidence that a policy disfavors employees” of such a subgroup “is probative of the relevant statutory question: whether the policy creates a disparate impact ‘because of such individual[‘s] age” under the plain language of the ADEA. The court found that it is “utterly irrelevant” whether the employer’s policy benefits younger members of those employees over forty, so long as an employee can show that his or her subgroup was adversely affected.

Following Karlo, employers should review their policies to confirm that they are in compliance with the ADEA and do not unintentionally discriminate against employees who are in “subgroups” over forty years old. For more information on the implications of the Karlo decision, 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.

New York State Launches Aggressive Campaign to Enforce The New Minimum Wage Law

On December 31, 2016, the new minimum wage law in New York State took effect.  New York’s minimum wage law is among the most complicated in the country. The minimum wage will gradually increase to $15.00 in the coming years, with annual increases to take effect on December 31st. However, how quickly the minimum wage reaches $15.00 depends on where your company is located, the type of business you are in, and whether you are a small or a large employer. For example, the minimum wage in NYC will increase as follows:

New York City 10 or fewer employees 11 or more employees
December 31, 2016 $10.50 $11.00
December 31, 2017 $12.00 $13.00
December 31, 2018 $13.50 $15.00
December 31, 2019 $15.00

For Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester counties, the increments began December 31, 2016 and will conclude on December 31, 2021, with the following increases annually on December 31 no matter the size of the workforce: $10.00, $11.00, $12.00, $13.00, $14.00 and $15.00.  For the rest of New York State, the increments began December 31, 2016 and will conclude on December 31, 2020, with the following increases annually on December 31 no matter the size of the workforce: $9.70, $10.40, $11.10, $11.80, $12.50 and $15.00.

There is a special carve out for fast food companies.  By December 31, 2018, fast food companies in NYC will reach the $15.00 and by July 1, 2021 the rest of NY State’s fast food companies will reach $15.00.

The New York Department of Labor (NYDOL) plans to aggressively enforce the new law and has created a 200-investigator unit to ensure employers are appropriately increasing employee pay to at least the minimum wage. The newly formed State Minimum Wage Enforcement and Outreach Unit’s mission is to inform workers of the new minimum wage law and to ensure they are properly paid.  The State has also established a hotline for workers to report violations of the new minimum wage law. Hotline calls will initiate a NYDOL compliance audit.  If violations are found, a company is subject to a $3.00 fine for each hour the company failed to pay the required minimum wage to an employee plus back wages and liquidated damages.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss the new NYS minimum wage law and its effect on your business, please contact John Vreeland, Esq., Chair of the Wage & Hour Compliance Practice Group and a Partner in the Labor Law Practice Group at (973) 535-7118 or jvreeland@nullgenovaburns.com, or Nicole L. Leitner, Esq., a member of the Wage & Hour Compliance and Labor Law Practice Groups at (973) 387-7897 or nleitner@nullgenovaburns.com.

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.

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.

New York City Passes Trailblazing Freelancer Wage Theft Protection Law

On November 16, 2016, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio signed into law the “Freelance Isn’t Free” Act (“the Act”).  The Act generally grants freelancers the right to a written contract, timely payment and to be free from retaliation. The Act also bars wage theft against contractors and imposes substantial penalties on businesses that fail to comply with these and other requirements surrounding the independent contractor relationship. The Act, the first of its kind in the United States, will take effect on May 15, 2017.

Covered persons – Under the Act, freelancers include individuals and organizations made up of no more than one person, who are hired as independent contractors to provide services in exchange for monetary compensation.  Excluded from the Act are most sales representatives, lawyers and doctors.

The Act’s Requirements

  1. Written Contract – The Act requires a written contract for freelance work that is valued at $800 or more (either alone or aggregated with all service contracts between the same parties over the preceding 120 days). The written contract must include the names and addresses of the hiring party and freelancer, an itemization of services to be performed with corresponding values, and the date of payment or a method of determining said date.
  2. Timely Payment – In addition, the Act requires that the agreed-upon compensation be paid to the freelancer on or before the payment date specified in the written contract. If the contract does not specify a payment date or a method by which the payment date can be determined, the freelancer is to be paid no later than 30 days after completing the services.  Notably, once a freelancer has started performing the services, the employer cannot condition timely payment on the freelancer accepting an amount of compensation that is less than that stated in the contract.
  3. No Retaliation – Finally, the Act has an anti-retaliation clause that prohibits discrimination, threats, intimation, discipline, harassment and denying future work opportunities to freelancers. Employers are also protected from penalizing a freelancer for, or acting in way that would likely deter a freelancer from, exercising his rights under the Act.

Remedies & Exposure

Freelancers whose rights have been violated under the Act may file a complaint with the Office of Labor Standards within 2 years of the alleged violation.  Aggrieved freelancers also have the option to file a civil action.  For claims based on the failure to provide a written contract, the civil action must be filed within 2 years of the alleged violation.  For claims arising out of non-payment, late payment, or retaliation, the civil action must be filed within 6 years.

Failure to enter into a written contract alone subjects an employer to payment of the freelancer’s attorneys’ fees, a statutory damages award of $250, and, if found to have also violated the timely payment and/or anti-retaliation provisions, damages could equal the value of the underlying contract.  Non-payment or late payment alone exposes the employer to double damages, injunctive relief and other damages.  Retaliation alone subjects the employer to damages equal to the value of the underlying contract.

In addition, New York City Corporation Counsel may institute an action against repeat offenders of the Act.  Employers who are found to frequently violate the Act are subject to up to $25,000.00 in civil penalties.

No Waiver – Freelancers cannot waive their rights under the Act.  The Act expressly provides that any contract provisions purporting to waive rights under the Act are void as against public policy.

Potential Impact

The purpose of the Act is to make employers accountable for paying freelancers.  The concept is respectable in theory.  Testimony was given to the New York City Council suggesting that over 70% of freelance workers reported non-payment or late payment of wages and that freelancers were being denied an average of $6,000 of owed compensation per year.

However, the Act’s practical effect may pose significant problems.  First, unlike other wage and hour laws, employers cannot avoid or diminish liability by demonstrating that they acted in good faith.  For example, employers can avoid paying liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act if they demonstrate good faith and reasonable grounds for their non-payment of wages or other unlawful conduct. Second, the Act does not require freelancers to provide invoices for completed work.  Accordingly, companies who operate on the basis of invoicing by contractors are at an elevated risk, even if they intend to pay a freelance worker for contracted services.

What To Do

Although the Act does not go into effect until May of 2017 and it will not have retroactive effect, there are certain steps that New York City companies hiring independent contractors should take to ensure they are in compliance with the Act by that time.  First, ensure that service contracts for freelancer work valued at $800 or more are in writing and that they specify the work to be done, attach a value to each itemized service, and provide for the rate, method and date of payment.  Companies who operate on the basis of invoicing by contractors may consider imposing additional requirements on the freelancer, such as the submission of invoices, although it has yet to be seen whether a clause conditioning payment upon the submission of an invoice would be enforceable under the Act.  New York City businesses that use independent contractors should also review and update their independent contractor agreements as appropriate, or speak with counsel about preparing such an agreement, to align their payment practices with the Act.

For more information on the Act and how the new 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 Practices Group, at dmastellone@nullgenovaburns.com, or 973-533-0777.