In the new issue of Take 5, our colleagues examine five employment, labor, and workforce management issues that will continue to be reviewed and remain top of mind for employers under the Trump administration:
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) protects individuals who are at least 40 years of age from discrimination in the workplace. As such, the outcome of disparate-impact claims under the ADEA hinges, ordinarily, on whether or not an employer’s facially neutral-policy has a disparate impact on employees who are 40 years of age or older. On January 10, 2017, the Third Circuit, in Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 2017 BL 6064 (3d Cir. 2017), issued a precedential ruling, holding that disparate impact claims under the ADEA are not limited to comparisons of the impact an employer’s policy has on employees over 40 with the impact to employees under 40. Rather, the Third Circuit found that claims premised on an allegation that an employer’s policy impacted workers over the age of 50 are cognizable under the ADEA even when the policy had no disparate impact when employees in their forties were considered.
The defendant employer in Karlo terminated approximately 100 employees through a series of reductions in force (“RIFs”). While the impact of the RIFs did not have a disparate impact when comparing employees under the age of 40 with those over the age of 40, the plaintiffs in Karlo, all 50 years of age or older, asserted an ADEA claim premised on the allegation that the RIFs had a disparate impact on employees who were 50 or older. Rejecting the defendant employer’s argument that the disparate impact claim failed because no evidence of disparity existed when the younger members of the protected category (employees between the age of 40 and 50) were considered with the employees over the age of 50, the Third Circuit opined that: “The ADEA prohibits disparate impact based on age, not forty-and-older identity,” and that “requiring the comparison group to include employees in their forties has no logical connection to that prohibition.”
The Third Circuit’s decision creates a split among the federal appeals courts on whether the ADEA permits disparate impact claims by subgroups of workers in the “40-and-over” protected category when the alleged bias disproportionately impacts older workers within that protected class. The ruling rejects the view of the Second Circuit (Lowe v. Commack Union Free Sch. Dist., 886 F.2d 1364 (2d Cir. 1989)), Sixth Circuit (Smith v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 924 F.2d 1059 (6th Cir. 1991)), and Eighth Circuit (E.E.O.C. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 191 F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 1999), that such claims are not allowed.
The Third Circuit correctly recognized that its decision “may very well require employers to be more vigilant about the effects of their employment practices.” The ruling that disparate impact claims may be asserted by subgroups within the protected category of employees over the age of 40 most definitely complicates employers’ ability to effectuate workforce reductions. Before approving a proposed RIF, retail employers concerned with avoiding potential disparate impact claims cannot simply satisfy themselves that employees over and under the age of 40 are treated fairly. Retail employers now need to check for age-based impacts across different strata of their employees over the age of 40.
Our colleagues Judah L. Rosenblatt, Jeffrey H. Ruzal, and Susan Gross Sholinsky, at Epstein Becker Green, have a post on the Hospitality Labor and Employment Law Blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the retail industry: “Where Federal Expectations Are Low Governor Cuomo Introduces Employee Protective Mandates in New York.”
Following is an excerpt:
Earlier this week New York Governor Andrew D. Cuomo (D) signed two executive orders and announced a series of legislative proposals specifically aimed at eliminating the wage gap in gender, among other workers and strengthening equal pay protection in New York State. The Governor’s actions are seen by many as an alternative to employer-focused federal policies anticipated once President-elect Donald J. Trump (R) takes office. …
According to the Governor’s Press Release, the Governor will seek to amend State law to hold the top 10 members of out-of-state limited liability companies (“LLC”) personally financially liable for unsatisfied judgments for unpaid wages. This law already exists with respect to in-state and out-of-state corporations, as well as in-state LLCs. The Governor is also seeking to empower the Labor Commissioner to pursue judgments against the top 10 owners of any corporations or domestic or foreign LLCs for wage liabilities on behalf of workers with unpaid wage claims. …
On December 9, 2016, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti signed ordinances no. 184652 and 184653, collectively referred to as the “Fair Chance Initiative.” These ordinances prohibit employers and City contractors (collectively “Employers”), respectively, from inquiring about job seekers’ criminal convictions until after a conditional offer of employment has been made. Both ordinances will go into effect on January 22, 2017 and will impact all employers in the City of Los Angeles and for every position which requires an employee to work at least an average of two hours per week within the City of Los Angeles and all City contractors and subcontractors, regardless of their location.
No Criminal Inquiry Until After Offer
Specifically, these ordinances prohibit Employers from inquiring about a job applicant’s criminal history, at any time or in any manner, unless and until a Conditional Offer of Employment has been made to the applicant. Following the Conditional Offer of Employment, Employers are permitted to request information regarding the applicant’s criminal history. However, Employers can only withdraw or cancel the conditional offer as a result of the applicant’s criminal history after engaging in the “Fair Chance Process.”
New “Fair Chance Process” Required
The “Fair Chance Process” requires Employers to prepare a written assessment highlighting the specific aspects of the applicant’s criminal history that pose an inherent conflict with the duties of the position sought by the applicant. Employers must provide the applicant with written notification of the proposed withdrawal of the conditional offer, a copy of the written assessment regarding the risks posed by the applicant’s criminal history, and any other relevant documentation. The applicant is then given an opportunity to provide the Employer a response to the written assessment, including any supporting documentation. Employers must wait at least 5 business days after the applicant is informed of the proposed withdrawal before taking any action, including filling the position for which the applicant applied.
New Posting and Recordkeeping Requirements
Additionally, Employers’ job postings must now include a notice stating that they will consider all qualified applicants regardless of their criminal histories, in compliance with these ordinances. Employers must also conspicuously post a notice regarding the “Fair Chance Initiative” in a location in the workplace visible to all job applicants; this notice must also be sent to each union or workers’ group with which the employers have any agreement that governs over employees. Further, Employers must retain all job application documents for three years. Penalties for violations of these ordinances may be assessed at up to $500 for the first violation, up to $1,000 for the second violation, and up to $2,000 for subsequent violations. The City may then, at its discretion, distribute a maximum of $500 from that penalty directly to the applicant. The penalty provision of the ordinances will not go into effect for employers in Los Angeles City until July 1, 2017. However, the penalty provision for City contractors is effective immediately.
Exceptions from these ordinances include: (1) employers who are required by law to seek a job applicant’s criminal history; (2) positions for which an applicant would be required to possess or use a firearm; (3) positions which, by law, cannot be held by an individual with a criminal history; and (4) employers who are prohibited, by law, from hiring persons with criminal convictions.
Employers with operations in the City of Los Angeles should:
- Remove questions regarding criminal history from job applications;
- Ensure future job postings include required equal employment notices;
- Defer inquiries regarding criminal history until making conditional job offers; and
- Ensure the Fair Chance Process is followed before denying employment based on criminal history.
The new episode of Employment Law This Week offers a year-end roundup of the biggest employment, workforce, and management issues in 2016:
- Impact of the Defend Trade Secrets Act
- States Called to Ban Non-Compete Agreements
- Paid Sick Leave Laws Expand
- Transgender Employment Law
- Uncertainty Over the DOL’s Overtime Rule and Salary Thresholds
- NLRB Addresses Joint Employment
- NLRB Rules on Union Organizing
Watch the episode below and read EBG’s Take 5 newsletter, “Top Five Employment, Labor & Workforce Management Issues of 2016.”
Our colleague Michael S. Kun, national Chairperson of the Wage and Hour practice group at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Wage & Hour Defense Blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the retail industry: “Stop! Texas Federal Court Enjoins New FLSA Overtime Rules.”
Following is an excerpt:
The injunction could leave employers in a state of limbo for weeks, months and perhaps longer as injunctions often do not resolve cases and, instead, lead to lengthy appeals. Here, though, the injunction could spell the quick death to the new rules should the Department choose not to appeal the decision in light of the impending Donald Trump presidency. We will continue to monitor this matter as it develops.
To the extent that employers have not already increased exempt employees’ salaries or converted them to non-exempt positions, the injunction will at the very least allow employers to postpone those changes. And, depending on the final resolution of this issue, it is possible they may never need to implement them.
The last-minute injunction puts some employers in a difficult position, though — those that already implemented changes in anticipation of the new rules or that informed employees that they will receive salary increases or will be converted to non-exempt status effective December 1, 2016. …
Our colleague Jeffrey H. Ruzal, Senior Counsel at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Wage & Hour Defense Blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the retail industry: “Decision Enjoining Federal Overtime Rule Changes Will Not Affect Proposed Increases Under New York State’s Overtime Laws.”
Following is an excerpt:
As we recently reported on our Wage & Hour Defense Blog, on November 22, 2016, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Texas issued a nationwide preliminary injunction enjoining the U.S. Department of Labor from implementing its new overtime exemption rule that would have more than doubled the current salary threshold for the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions and was scheduled to take effect on December 1, 2016. To the extent employers have not already increased exempt employees’ salaries or converted them to non-exempt positions, the injunction will, at the very least, appear to allow many employers to postpone those changes—but likely not in the case of employees who work in New York State.
On October 19, 2016, the New York State Department of Labor (“NYSDOL”) announced proposed amendments to the state’s minimum wage orders (“Proposed Amendments”) to increase the salary basis threshold for executive and administrative employees under the state’s wage and hour laws (New York does not impose a minimum salary threshold for exempt “professional” employees). The current salary threshold for the administrative and executive exemptions under New York law is $675 per week ($35,100 annually) throughout the state. The NYSDOL has proposed the following increases to New York’s salary threshold for the executive and administrative exemptions …
Do retail employers really need to tolerate employees who sleep on the job?? The plaintiff in Beaton v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City Transit, (S.D.N.Y. June 15, 2016), was an overnight Station Agent at a New York subway station who was terminated after he was found sleeping at his work station. While he admitted that it appeared that he was sleeping, plaintiff denied that he was actually sleeping. Rather, he informed his supervisor that he was drowsy due to the high dosage of anti-psychotic prescription medication that he took after he experienced severe schizophrenia symptoms at work that night. Despite informing his employer of his disability, and presenting medical corroboration that his medication caused drowsiness, plaintiff’s employment was terminated. Plaintiff initiated his lawsuit asserting that the termination of his employment was an act of disability discrimination in violation of the ADA and New York State Law.
Upon receipt of plaintiff’s Complaint, the defendant employer moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination because sleeping on the job prevented him from performing the essential functions of his job and rendered him not qualified for the position. The employer also argued that plaintiff could not raise an inference that his employment was terminated because of his disability given the fact that it appeared to the employer that he was sleeping, even if he was not. Surprisingly, the Court sided with the slumbering plaintiff, denying defendant’s motion and refusing to dismiss plaintiff’s Complaint. The Court considered the fact that plaintiff was a long-term employee who worked for the defendant for years without incident in concluding that he was qualified for the position. The Court also found that it was plausible that plaintiff’s employment was terminated because of his disability in light of the fact that plaintiff’s employment was terminated even though he informed his supervisor of his mental ailment and that drowsiness was a side-effect of his medication.
The result is largely attributable to the early stage of the proceeding. The Court forecast that the defendant “may very well have evidence of non-discriminatory reasons for the termination … but such evidentiary disputes are not appropriate at this stage of the case.” Thus, the Court’s decision hinged, as is expressly stated in the Opinion, on “the minimal threshold” that plaintiff faced in response to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. However, the Court’s refusal to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) evidences a desire by the Court to see some proof that the employer engaged in good faith in the interactive process before imposing discipline, especially where the employee presents appropriate medical information to support his claim of disability. This decision does not mean that retail employers must tolerate employees who sleep on the job. Indeed, Courts have repeatedly upheld discharges for sleeping on the job, and retail employers remain entitled to enforce their discipline process against employees found sleeping on the clock. However, retail employers are well-advised to not summarily dismiss dozing employees who offer some medical explanation for their mid-shift hibernation, but to consider the explanation offered by the employee before taking action.
When: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Where: New York Hilton Midtown, 1335 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019
Epstein Becker Green’s Annual Workforce Management Briefing will focus on the latest developments in labor and employment law, including:
- Latest Developments from the NLRB
- Attracting and Retaining a Diverse Workforce
- ADA Website Compliance
- Trade Secrets and Non-Competes
- Managing and Administering Leave Policies
- New Overtime Rules
- Workplace Violence and Active-Shooter Situations
- Recordings in the Workplace
- Instilling Corporate Ethics
This year, we welcome Marc Freedman and Jim Plunkett from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Marc and Jim will speak at the first plenary session on the latest developments in Washington, D.C., that impact employers nationwide.
We are also excited to have Dr. David Weil, Administrator of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division, serve as the guest speaker at the second plenary session. David will discuss the areas on which the Wage and Hour Division is focusing, including the new overtime rules.
In addition to workshop sessions led by attorneys at Epstein Becker Green – including some contributors to this blog! – we are also looking forward to hearing from our keynote speaker, Former New York City Police Commissioner William J. Bratton.
Retail employers dismayed by employees publicly airing workplace grievances in disparaging social media posts must think twice before taking disciplinary action. On August 18, 2016, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) confirmed the finding by Administrative Law Judge Susan A. Flynn that Chipotle’s social media policy forbidding employees from posting “incomplete” or “ inaccurate” information, or from making “disparaging, false, or misleading statements” on Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites violates Section 8(a)(1) of the National Relations Labor Act (“the Act”).
Chipotle discovered that an employee responded to a customer’s tweet thanking Chipotle for a free food offer, by tweeting back: “@ChipotleTweets, nothing is free, only cheap #labor. Crew members make only $8.50hr how much is that steak bowl really?” Then, attaching a news article describing how hourly workers at Chipotle were required to work on snow days while certain high-level employees were not, the employee tweeted his displeasure, specifically referencing Chipotle’s Communications Director: “Snow day for ‘top performers’ Chris Arnold?” Informed by his manager that Chipotle considered his tweets to be in violation of Chipotle’s social media policy, the employee removed them at Chipotle’s request. Then, several weeks later, Chipotle fired the employee after he circulated a petition about employees not receiving required breaks.
Finding the provision in Chipotle’s policy prohibiting employees from spreading “incomplete” or “inaccurate” information to be unlawful, Judge Flynn opined that: “An employer may not prohibit employee postings that are merely false or misleading. Rather, in order to lose the [NLRA]’s protection, more than a false or misleading statement by the employee is required; it must be shown that the employee had a malicious motive.” Judge Flynn also found the policy provision prohibiting “disparaging” statements to be unlawful, explaining that it “could easily encompass statements protected by Section 7 [of the NLRA]” including “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” Although Chipotle’s social media policy contained a disclaimer that the policy “does not restrict any activity that is protected by the National Relations Labor Act, whistleblower laws, or any other privacy rights,” Judge Flynn concluded that this “sentence does not serve to cure the unlawfulness of the foregoing provisions.”
The NLRB adopted Judge Flynn’s decision that Chipotle was wrong, not only for firing the employee, but for attempting to limit his commentary on social media by its unlawfully termed social media policy. While agreeing with Judge Flynn’s reasons for finding the social media policy unlawful, the NLRB disagreed with Judge Flynn’s finding that Chipotle violated the NLRA by asking the employee to delete the tweets. In particular, while Judge Flynn opined that the employee engaged in “concerted activity” even though he did not consult with other employees before posting his tweets because “concerted activities include individual activity where individual employees seek to initiate or to induce … group action,” the NLRB disagreed, asserting, with no true explanation, that it did not find the employee’s conduct to be concerted. Agreeing that Chipotle violated the NLRA by terminating the employee after he engaged in protected concerted activity by circulating a petition regarding the Company’s break policy, the NLRB required Chipotle to, among other things, post signs acknowledging that its social media policy was illegal, and to re-instate the employee with back pay.
The message from the NLRB to retail employers is that, barring malicious misstatements, speech concerning terms and conditions of employment is often protected activity, even for employees who want to criticize their employers on Twitter and other social media websites. To avoid Chipotle’s fate, ensure that your social media policies are up to date and provide for the increasing protections afforded to employee social media activity by the NLRB.