Employment Training, Practices and Procedures

Our colleagues , at Epstein Becker Green, have a post on the Hospitality Employment and Labor blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the retail industry: “Ninth Circuit’s Decision Holds That Salary History Is Not a Defense to Equal Pay Claims.”

Following is an excerpt:

The federal Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) mandates equal pay for equal work regardless of sex.  Employers that pay men and women different wages for the same work are strictly liable for violations of the EPA unless they can show that one or more of four exceptions apply to explain the wage disparity. The four statutory exceptions are seniority, merit, the quantity or quality of the employee’s work, or “any other factor other than sex.”  The Ninth Circuit recently took up the question of the meaning of the fourth, catchall exception – “any factor other than sex” – in order to consider whether an employer may rely, in whole or in part, on an employee’s prior salary as a basis for explaining a pay differential in Aileen Rizo v. Jim Yovino. …

Read the full post here.

On March 21, 2018, Washington Governor Jay Inslee signed bill SB 5996 (the “Law”), which prohibits employers from requiring as a condition of employment that employees sign a nondisclosure agreement preventing them from discussing workplace sexual harassment or sexual assault. The Law goes into effect on June 7, 2018.

In addition to sexual offenses in the workplace, the Law covers such incidents that occur at work-related events “coordinated by or through the employer,” or between employees, or between an employer and an employee off the employment premises. The new Law also prevents employers from retaliating against employees who disclose workplace sexual harassment or sexual assault.

Notably, however, the Law does not prohibit an employer from including confidentiality provisions in a settlement agreement with an employee regarding sexual harassment allegations. Further, the Law provides exceptions for human resources, supervisory, and managerial staff who are expected to maintain confidentiality as part of their jobs. It also excludes employees who participate in an “open and ongoing” sexual harassment investigation and are requested to maintain confidentiality during that investigation.

Under the Law, “sexual harassment” is defined broadly to mean unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, sexually motivated physical contact, or other verbal or physical conduct or communication of a sexual nature if submission to that conduct or communication is, among other things, used as a factor in decisions affecting that individual’s employment or creates a hostile environment. “Sexual assault” is similarly defined as any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient.

Employers in other states should be aware that the kind of nondisclosure agreements banned by the new Washington law also may be unlawful under federal labor laws protecting concerted activity (i.e., with at least one other employee) for the employees’ mutual aid or protection.

State Commission to Develop Model Policies and Best Practices

Also on March 21, 2018, Governor Inslee signed bill SB 6471, which directs the Washington State Human Rights Commission to create a “work group” to develop model policies and best practices for employers and employees to keep workplaces safe from sexual harassment. The bill requires the agency to adopt the model policies and best practices developed by the work group and to post them on the agency’s website by January 1, 2019.

Our colleague at Epstein Becker Green has a post on the Wage and Hour Defense blog that will be of interest to our readers in the retail industry: “Federal Court Concludes That 7-Eleven Franchisees Are Not Employees of 7-Eleven.

Following is an excerpt:

In November 2017, four convenience store franchisees brought suit in federal court against 7-Eleven, Inc., alleging that they and all other franchisees were employees of 7-Eleven. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, entitled Haitayan, et al. v. 7-Eleven, Inc., case no. CV 17-7454-JFW (JPRx).

In alleging that they were 7-Eleven’s employees, the franchisees brought claims for violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the California Labor Code, alleging overtime and expense reimbursement violations. The trial court granted judgment in 7-Eleven’s favor, concluding that 7-Eleven was not the four franchisees’ employer under California law or federal law. …

Read the full post here.

Featured on Employment Law This Week:  The Ninth Circuit held that certain auto service advisors were not exempt because their position is not specifically listed in the FLSA auto dealership exemption.

The 9th relied on the principle that such exemptions should be interpreted narrowly. In a 5-4 decision last week, the Supreme Court found no “textual indication” in the FLSA for narrow construction. Applying a “fair interpretation” standard instead, the Court ruled that the exemption applies to service advisors because of the nature of the work.

Watch the segment below and read our recent post.

Featured as our top story on Employment Law This Week: Me too At Work – Sexual misconduct in the C-Suite leads to shareholder lawsuits.

Last month on Employment Law This Week, you heard that sexual misconduct allegations would start impacting shareholder value and reputation. Well, now we’ve got a case study in Wynn Resorts. After the Wall Street Journal uncovered multiple sexual misconduct allegations against Casino mogul Steve Wynn, the company’s stock fell nearly 20%. Wynn resigned a week later, but the company’s troubles were far from over. The company’s  stock has lost $3 billion in value. The first shareholder lawsuit was filed the day Wynn resigned, and to date three suits by shareholders claim that Wynn and the Board breached their fiduciary duties to the company and its shareholders. Bill Milani, from Epstein Becker Green, has more.

Watch the segment below and read our recent post.

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and first daughter Ivanka Trump have teamed up to develop a paid parental leave program in the United States.  While the plan is in its infancy, Senator Rubio reportedly envisions a plan similar to a proposal from the Independent Women’s Forum, calling for a parental leave program funded by new parents’ future Social Security benefits.  Under that proposal, parents could receive up to 12 weeks of benefits to take paid leave at any time in the first year of their new child’s life in exchange for what the Independent Women’s Forum hopes would be six weeks of Social Security benefits in the future.

The Rubio-Ivanka proposal is not without criticism.  Some conservative commentators say the plan would unfairly burden Social Security’s limited resources.  Further, because the Rubio-Ivanka plan would be available regardless of the size of a new parent’s employer, the leave would not be protected under the FMLA if the parent’s employer does not have 50 or more employees within a 75 mile radius.  Liberal critics believe that the proposal will negatively affect women, who generally receive less Social Security benefits than men for reasons of gender-related pay inequity.

While paid family leave is a concept with bipartisan support, proponents disagree about how to fund such a program.  The president’s recent budget plan, which calls for six weeks of family leave paid for by unemployment insurance, appears to be at odds with the Ivanka-Rubio idea.   The Democrat-sponsored Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act (the FAMILY Act) would provide up to 12 weeks of income through a payroll tax on employers and employees.  Employers should continue to monitor discussions and developments in this rapidly changing area.

Retail employers with international operations and who have executives who engage in cross-border travel may particularly wish to read and take note of Daniel Levy’s post, “It’s a Brave New World: Protecting Trade Secrets When Traveling Abroad with Electronic Devices.”

Following is an excerpt:

Consider the following scenario: your organization holds an annual meeting with all Research & Development employees for the purpose of having an open discussion between thought leaders and R&D regarding product-development capabilities. This year’s meeting is scheduled outside the United States and next year’s will be within the U.S. with all non-U.S. R&D employees traveling into the U.S. to attend. For each meeting, your employees may be subject to a search of their electronic devices, including any laptop that may contain your company’s trade secrets. Pursuant to a new directive issued in January 2018 by the U.S. Custom and Border Protection (“CBP”), the electronic devices of all individuals, including U.S. citizens and U.S. residents, may be subject to search upon entry into (or leaving) the U.S. by the CBP. …

Read the full post here.

On December 20, 2017, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie signed a bi-partisan bill that effectively makes asking about expunged criminal records off-limits during the initial employment application process.

The law, an amendment to the New Jersey Opportunity to Compete Act (“OTCA”), generally referred to as the “Ban the Box” law, applies to employers with 15 or more employees over 20 calendar weeks who do business, employ persons, or take applications for employment within New Jersey. The OTCA generally prohibits employers from making any oral or written inquiry about an applicant’s criminal background during the initial employment application process.

The amendment, which became effective with signing, goes farther. Now, covered employers are barred from seeking information about the current and expunged criminal records of applicants during the early stages of the employment application process. In addition to barring employers from making oral or written inquiries, the amendment also bars employers from doing online searches for an applicant’s criminal record or expunged criminal record.

In New Jersey, individuals who have been convicted of a prior criminal offense up to and including certain felony offenses may apply to the New Jersey Superior Court to have their record expunged. An individual who was convicted for an indictable offense may present an expungement application after 6 years from the date of his or her most recent conviction, payment of fine, satisfactory completion of probation or parole, or release from incarceration. For disorderly persons offenses and petty disorderly persons offenses an individual may present the expungement application after the expiration of a period of 5 years from the date of his or her most recent conviction, payment of fine, satisfactory completion of probation or release from incarceration. The waiting period to expunge juvenile record is decreased from 5 to 3 years.

Employers may ask about criminal records and any expungements after the initial employment application process. Currently, NJ law does not prohibit employers from refusing to hire an individual because of his or her criminal history. However, under the amendment, employers may not refuse to hire an applicant because of a criminal record that has been expunged or erased through executive pardon, unless the refusal is consistent with other applicable laws, rules and regulations.

As 2017 comes to a close, recent headlines have underscored the importance of compliance and training. In this Take 5, we review major workforce management issues in 2017, and their impact, and offer critical actions that employers should consider to minimize exposure:

  1. Addressing Workplace Sexual Harassment in the Wake of #MeToo
  2. A Busy 2017 Sets the Stage for Further Wage-Hour Developments
  3. Your “Top Ten” Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities
  4. 2017: The Year of the Comprehensive Paid Leave Laws
  5. Efforts Continue to Strengthen Equal Pay Laws in 2017

Read the full Take 5 online or download the PDF.

Employers in New York City are required to provide their employees with reasonable accommodations related to childbirth and pregnancy. The New York City Commission on Human Rights has published a new factsheet and notice. The notice should be provided to all employees upon hire, and posted in the workplace to provide employees with notice of their rights under the NYC Human Rights Law.

The notice and factsheet outline employers’ responsibilities with respect to pregnant employees, and recommend that employers work with employees to implement accommodations that recognize employee contributions to the workplace and help keep them in the workplace for as long as possible. The notice and factsheet also provide employees with examples of reasonable accommodations, such as breaks to rest or use the bathroom while at work, and time and space to express breast milk at work.