August 30, 2010

What Are Clothes? The Department of Labor Weighs in and It’s More Complicated Than You Think

Filed under: Genetic — Tags: , , — Jane @ 1:52 pm

The Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division recently issued Administrator’s Interpretation 2010-2 which addresses the issue of what’s considered “clothes” for determining compensable (paid) time under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).   I bet that you never thought this was an issue?  But then again all bets are off when dealing with the FLSA. The definition of “clothes” (i.e., does it include protective equipment?) has changed over the years, often depending upon which political party is in office.    The DOL’s new interpretation states that protective equipment (e.g., rubber gloves, boots,  arm guards, etc.) is not considered clothing and time spent putting it on and taking it off may be considered work time, even if under a collective bargaining agreement, or customary practices, changing clothes is not.  Note, however, that while changing clothes (in contrast to protective equipment) may not be compensable under some union contracts, subsequent activities, like walking and waiting, could be.

Bottom Line:   If your workplace requires that employees change clothes or use protective equipment, it’s a good time to review your policies and ensure that your people are being paid appropriately.   If this isn’t part of your workplace, be thankful….because yes, it is as messy as it sounds.   See the Administrator’s Interpretation No. 2010-2, on the DOL web site at:

http://www.dol.gov/whd/opinion/adminIntrprtn/FLSA/2010/FLSAAI2010

  • Share/Bookmark

August 11, 2010

DOL Expands Definition of “Son or Daughter” for FMLA and Includes Non-traditional Parents

Filed under: FMLA — Jane @ 3:01 pm

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), in Administrative Interpretation No. 2010-3, has expanded the definition of son/daughter for the purposes of childcare leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.  Under the FMLA, eligible employees are entitled to take up to 12 weeks of leave for the birth, adoption, or placement of a child or to care for a child with a “serious health condition.”   FMLA regulations state that “son or daughter” includes a “biological, adopted or foster child, stepchild, legal ward, or a child of a person standing “in loco parentis” (in place of a parent).   “In loco parentis” includes those with no biological or legal relationship with a child.   According to the Administrative Interpretation, an employee qualifies under the “in loco parentis” test if: 1) S/he provides day to day care for the child OR  2.) S/he is financially responsible for the child.  Additionally, an employee need only provide a statement, that day to day care or financial support is provided, to qualify for the leave.  The DOL’s Interpretation can be found at: 

http://www.dol.gov/whd/opinion/adminIntrprtn/FMLA/2010/FMLAAI2010_3.htm

The Interpretation expressly mentions same sex couples as qualifying for this leave.  It could also include grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles and other family members or friends. 

Note, however, that the FMLA still does not require leave for unmarried employees to care for their seriously ill partners.

  • Share/Bookmark

July 30, 2010

HR Fact Friday: Department of Labor to Conduct FMLA Study

Filed under: FMLA — Tags: , , , — Paul @ 12:09 pm

The Department of Labor next year will conduct a survey on how employees are using the Family and Medical Leave Act, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis announced Tuesday, July 20.

The survey, to be done by the department’s Wage and Hour Division, is intended to “provide insight into how families” use FMLA leave, as well as information on regulatory changes, among other things, the Labor Department said.

The Department of Labor has done several surveys on the FMLA since 1993, when the FMLA legislation was approved—the Clinton administration’s first major domestic initiative to pass Congress.

The most recent survey, released in 2007, estimated that 8 to 17.1 percent of employees took FMLA leave in 2005.

The FMLA gives employees the right to take up to 12 weeks of job-protected unpaid leave a year because of certain family situations, such as the birth or adoption of a child, to take care of a sick child, or to care for their own medical problems.  

Source: Workforce.com

  • Share/Bookmark

July 12, 2010

Around the States

Filed under: FMLA — Jane @ 1:48 pm

New Connecticut legislation has expanded the state’s “mini-COBRA law”.  Both large and small employers will be affected as the law extends the health continuation coverage from 18 months to 30 months.

Another new Connecticut law, effective October 1, 2010, entitles employees who are family violence victims to take leave from work.

The Connecticut Superior Court has ruled that both in-state and out-of-state employees are included in determining whether an organization must comply with the state FMLA [ Velez v. Mayfield].

Effective July 5, 2010, in accordance with a state indoor smoking ban, virtually all Wisconsin workplaces must be smoke free.  Wisconsin has become the latest state to address worker misclassification (i.e., incorrectly treating employees as independent contractors) with passage of SB 672 and Assembly Bill 929.  The new laws increase monitoring and penalties for such misclassifications.  The federal government and many states around the country are addressing the “independent contractor issue.”

Another new Wisconsin law (SB 585) prohibits discrimination against workers who decline to attend political or religious meetings held by their employers.

Nevada’s minimum wage is increasing on July 1, 2010.  Minimum wage for employers offering qualified health benefits to their employees will be $7.25 per hour (the current federal rate) and $8.25 for those not offering benefits.

  • Share/Bookmark

June 30, 2010

Supreme Court Decision Weakens Employers’ Positions

Filed under: Employment Law — Jane @ 8:51 am

The U.S. Supreme Court in Lewis v. Chicago, has made it more difficult for employers to defend disparate impact discrimination claims.    The Court ruled that employees or job applicants could challenge the application of an alleged discriminatory practice even if they hadn’t contested the initial adoption of that practice on a timely basis.

In the case, the City of Chicago had given a written test to 26,000 applicants for firefighter positions.  The City placed applicants in three categories:  “well-qualified,” “qualified” or “not qualified” and indicated that they’d hire from the “well-qualified” category.  Individuals in the “qualified” group were told that they’d be eligible for consideration but not likely to be hired unless the well-qualified group was used up.  African-American applicants were not well represented in the “well qualified” group and a class of them sued, claiming that the test adversely impacted African-Americans.   However, the plaintiffs did not file their case within the required 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act (the test).  So the question was:   must they file their case within 300 days of the test or within 300 days of the application of the practice (i.e., when hiring began to take place.)

A unanimous Supreme Court, ruled for the applicants, finding that in this instance a case must be filed within 300 days of the application of the process, in other words after each round of hiring.

The Court did not decide whether there was discrimination but only ruled on the issue of whether the case was filed timely.    You’ll remember that disparate impact can be found in a Title VII case if it can be shown that an otherwise neutral employment practice (e.g., testing applicants) has a disproportionate impact on a protected group (based on sex, race, religion, etc.)  and there is no showing that the disparity was justified by business necessity.  There is no need to show discriminatory intent in disparate impact cases.   In most states discrimination charges must be filed within 300 days, however some have a 180 day limit.

What does this mean for you?      It makes it more important than ever that you continually review your employment practices such as hiring, promotion, corrective action, termination, etc. and that your managers are well trained in the basics of employment law.

Otherwise you may be liable for unintentional discrimination that occurs well after a practice or policy is implemented.

  • Share/Bookmark

June 28, 2010

Interesting ADA Cases

Filed under: ADA & Disability,Legal Issues — Tags: — Jane @ 1:55 pm

1. Can an off duty, intoxicated police chief who causes a car accident, be disciplined even though he claims he’s protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act?

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Budde v. Kane County Forest Preserve, considered the issue.   Following the accident the police chief was terminated for failing to meet the standards of his position and being unable to drive a police car because of his suspended license.

The chief contended that the ADA was violated because his employer failed to accommodate his alcoholism and retaliated against him for requesting a reasonable accommodation.

Alcoholism can be a disability under the ADA and therefore entitle an employee (who isn’t intoxicated at work) to a reasonable accommodation to seek treatment.  The court ruled against the chief, finding that because of his conduct he couldn’t perform an essential job function (driving) and that police officers could be held to high standards of conduct.

(more…)

  • Share/Bookmark

June 25, 2010

HR Fact Friday: Sexual Harassment Claims by Men on Rise

Filed under: Employment Law,Harrasment — Paul @ 10:08 am

Although most sexual harassment claims involve male-on-female harassment, allegations of male-on-male harassment—and even female-on-male harassment—are on the rise. Employers should not only be aware of this trend, but also understand how to identify all forms of sexual harassment and adjust their harassment policies accordingly.

Since 1990, the percentage of sexual harassment claims filed by men has doubled to more than 16 percent, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This percentage has continued to rise even as the overall number of sexual harassment complaints has declined. From 2006 to 2009, sexual harassment claims filed by men jumped to 16.4 percent from 15.4 percent of all sexual harassment claims. Last year, the percentage of sexual harassment lawsuits filed by the EEOC filed on behalf of male plaintiffs reached 14 percent, marking an all-time high.

(more…)

  • Share/Bookmark

June 21, 2010

New Healthcare Law Requires New W-2 Reporting Requirements

Filed under: Employment Law — Tags: , — Jane @ 1:49 pm

Recent healthcare reform will bring a lot of changes.  One of those is the new requirement that employers report the cost of employer provided health coverage on W-2s.  This new rule applies beginning in 2011 so employers will need to be prepared for its implementation in late December.  Costs for various plans must be reported, including: medical and drug plans, executive checkups, Medicare supplemental policies, on-site clinics, and EAPs.  Dental and vision plans are also included unless they are “stand alone” plans.  Flexible spending plans are excluded.   More information regarding how to value these plans, whether such valuations must occur monthly (it seems they must), and other important details is forthcoming from the government.   So, stay tuned for more developments.  And, in the next few months when you have nothing to do (like that ever happens) start figuring out how you’ll handle this requirement.

  • Share/Bookmark

June 18, 2010

HR Fact Friday: Supreme Court Rules on Text Message Privacy Case

Filed under: Employment Law — Tags: , , , , — Paul @ 7:25 am

The Supreme Court overturned a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling concerning employer-provided communication devices and workers’ privacy rights. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employer, the city of Ontario, ruling that the search of the employee’s text messages was reasonable and not in violation of the employee’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Background of the case: Police sergeant Jeff Quon received a pager from his employer, the city of Ontario, California. The city’s contract with Arch Wireless Operating Co. contained a limit on the number of characters that could be texted on a monthly basis. If the city’s employees exceeded that limit, the city would be charged extra fees.

(more…)

  • Share/Bookmark

June 1, 2010

More Men Making Harassment Claims

Filed under: Employment Law — Tags: , — Jane @ 11:57 am

An increasing number of men are making sexual harassment claims.  According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), 16.4% of 2009 complaints were filed by men.

That’s up from 15.4% in 2006.  Groping, unwanted advances, vulgar talk, and sexually charged horseplay by other men have significantly contributed to the increase.

Most observers believe that the number of male harassment cases is seriously underreported, given the embarrassment men often feel about making sexual harassment claims.

Utah had the largest percentage of claims filed by men (32.2%), followed by West Virginia (27.3%), Michigan (26.6%) and Wyoming (24%).

  • Share/Bookmark
Older Posts »