Iowa Employment Law Blog : Iowa Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Patrick Smith : Bradshaw Fowler Proctor & Fairgrave Law Firm : Des Moines, Central IA Discrimination & Labor Law

The biggest news this week is the EEOC's release of the proposed regulations for the ADA Amendments Act of 2009.   This post from Jackson Lewis provides some of the highlights.   Note that these are proposed regulations.  There is a 60 day period during which the EEOC will receive comments.  After considering the comments, the EEOC will publish the final regulations and the date the regulations will become effective.   Stay tuned for more information and analysis.

Pop quiz: how many new federal employment laws have been passed by the 111th Congress in 2009 and signed into the law by the President?  Answer: one (the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act signed into law January 29, 2009). 

With all the buzz in the employment law community about the anticipated changes in 2009, some may be surprised by that answer. Employers should not rest on their laurels, however, because there are plenty of bills in the pipeline.   In this post, Dennis Westlind of World of Work blog identifies thirteen employment related bills that were introduced in 2009 and remain pending, including the Employee Free Choice Act (permitting union recognition by "card check", among other things;  Employment Non-Discrimination Act (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity); Paid Vacation Act (mandating employers with 50 or more employees to provide paid vacation), and Paycheck Fairness Act (providing for "enhanced enforcement" of equal pay requirements between male and female employees).

Unpaid internships illegal?  In this post, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban rails against the Federal Wage and Hour Regulations that make the traditional "foot in the door" experience unlawful.  

Is there a looming crisis with wage and hour litigation?  Dan Schwartz at Connecticut Employment Law Blog and Jon Hyman at Ohio Employer's Law Blog show that, despite the buzz about wage and hour suits, the actual number of federal labor cases filed in their jurisdictions has remained steady.    The real concern is that many of these cases are collective actions, which can result in substantial monetary liability.   In May 2009, local convenience store chain Casey's General Stores paid over $11 million to settle two wage and hour collective actions filed by 7,600 former management level employees and 76,000 non-management employees.

Finally, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, the federal government has the right to read even the personal e-mail of its employees.    Notes one commenter on the ABA Journal site: "At least somebody is reading the emails I send to federal government employees…."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This week we are trying out a new feature on our Blog.  A weekly round-up of important, interesting, practical, or funny employment law information and news posted in blogs or otherwise on the world wide web during the past week.  Please contact us with any information or feedback.  Here we go for the first edition:

The Des Moines Register reports that key information was withheld from the Iowa Civil Rights Commission in connection with its investigation of racial bias by Iowa Workforce Development.    The investigation is part of a class action lawsuit alleging the Agency engaged in a pattern of failing to hire black applicants over a number of year.

New ADA Regulations coming soon.   The Washington Labor & Employment Wire notes that the EEOC voted to publish a Notice of Proposed Rule making.  Once the proposed regulations are published, there is a 60 day period for comments from the public.   The EEOC press release on the subject is here.    The EEOC has also published a Q&A document concerning the proposed rule making.

 EFCA Report discusses the many high profile politicians that have addressed the AFL-CIO constitutional convention this week.  Senator Specter (D-Pa) discussed a revised EFCA that would eliminate the controversial "card-check" feature of the bill.  However, the revised EFCA would still contain the binding arbitration provision and enhanced penalties for unfair labor practices that business interests strongly oppose.   In addition, while it eliminated card check, the proposed compromise bill shortens dramatically the time period between a petition for election and the actual election, thus reducing the time an employer would have to mount a campaign opposing the union.

Most sexual harassment cases involve female employees complaining about males, but occasionally it is the other way around.  The EEOC announced it is pursuing claims against a South Carolina Time Share resort because of alleged sexual harassment by a female supervisor of a male subordinate.  

For another example of the impact of internet social media on workplace litigation, see this post at the Delaware Employment Law Blog.

Ross Runkel's LawMemo Employment Law Blog contains a link to a 79 page report issued by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce concerning what changes to expect the Obama NLRB. 

Finally, in light of the recent  public outbursts, tantrums, or otherwise offensive remarks Serena Williams, Rep. Joe Wilson (R., S.C.), rapper Kayne West, and other public figures, Work Matters Blog contains a thoughtful post about the art of the apology and how it can contribute to more civil behavior both in and out of the workplace. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

John Irving, former general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, published a thoughtful opinion piece last week entitled "Don't Employer's Deserve Free Speech?" .  The article addresses  an important, but less well publicized, aspect of the proposed Employee Free Choice Act.  That is, stiff penalties and liquidated damages for employers found guilty of unfair labor practices.   

Mr. Irving is concerned about the fine and often vague line between an employer's expression of an opinion or argument opposing a union, which is permitted under the law, and the threat of reprisal or promise of benefit, which is not protected.   Whether or not a particular statement, for example--"unions cause people to lose jobs"-- is a protected statement of opinion or an unlawful threat, may depend upon who is sitting on the National Labor Relations Board at the time the case is decided.   The problem with the proposed EFCA, according to Irving, is that the penalties for being wrong have dramatically increased.  Section 4 of the proposed law, entitled "Strengthening Enforcement", permits fines up to $20,000 for each violation, permits the recovery of liquidated damages, and makes it easier for the General Counsel to obtain an injunction ordering an employer to cease and desist making certain statements.   Small employers in particular may be silent rather than run the risk of punitive fines.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As we enter the traditional "dog days" of summer, the world of labor and employment law remains active.  Here are are some highlights of important and interesting news this week:

1.   Furloughs

Although there is some indication the recession is easing, many employers remain concerned about the economy.    Pay reductions and temporary furloughs provide a means by which employers can manage payroll expense while still retaining valued employees.   As we discussed in this post a couple of months ago, however, it is important to plan ahead and understand how the wage and hour laws impact your ability to use furloughs with certain types of employees.  To help employers comply with the wage and hours laws as they relate to furloughs, the Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division recently issued a memo containing many of the frequently asked questions posed to the Division.  The memo is available on the DOL website, or can be accessed here.

Employers are urged to access the DOL memo or consult with counsel before implementing any kind of furlough program, particularly if it involves exempt employees.

(Hat tip: Florida Employment and Immigration Law Blog)

2.  Other Wage and Hour Issues in the News

Speaking of wage and hour problems, the convenience store chain QuikTrip, which has a substantial presence in Iowa, recently agreed to pay 3,800 employees approximately $750,000 in back pay.   A Department of Labor Investigation revealed that the employees had not been paid an overtime premium that was due on certain performance related bonuses.  QuikTrip blamed a computer glitch for the error.  Details of the story can be found here.  

Lesson: it might be wise to audit payroll systems from time to time to ensure your employee records and payroll systems are up to date and accurate.

3.  Proposed EFCA Compromise Is Still Bad News for Employers

As a means of garnering the support of some reluctant Senators, promoters of EFCA have proposed removing the "card check" provision in law the law that would have permitted union certification without a secret ballot election.   For a discussion of the current state of EFCA, including the recently proposed compromise, see Justin Wilson's post here.  However, even in its compromise form, EFCA is still a bad deal.   Even though union interests may be willing to give up on card check, at least for now, they still are demanding the opportunity to hold an election in a shorter period of time after a petition is filed with the National Labor Relations Board than is currently available.   That means employers will have less time to provide information to their employees in response to a union campaign.  Moreover, the binding arbitration requirements of EFCA remain in the compromise legislation, which will provide an incentive for union negotiators not to compromise during the early phases of a negotiations, with the expectation an arbitrator will grant more union demands than would have been granted as part of a good faith negotiating.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Between a busy trial schedule and the other distractions of summer, we have been a little delinquent in keeping you up to date during the past couple of weeks.  We apologize for the inactivity on the blog, as there have been many developments in the employment law world since our last posting at the end of June.   The following is a brief summary of four of the more interesting and important current events:

1.  Ricci v. DeStefano. 

The Supreme Court issued its opinion on June 29.   This is a significant case dealing with the sensitive and controversial issue of reverse discrimination.   The case is notable not only for the subject matter, but because Sonia Sotomayor, whose Senate confirmation hearings are now underway, was one of the judges on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals who decided the case below.  

The case was about firefighers in New Haven, Connecticut who applied to be on the promotion list for captain and lieutenant positions.   A candidate's rank on the list was determined by process that included written and oral exams.    After the testing process, only white and Hispanic candidates qualified for a promotion to captain, and only white candidates for lieutenant.   The City's Civil Service Board refused to certify the test results because it would result in no black candidates being eligible for promotion. 

The Ricci case presents a clash between two types of discrimination, disparate treatment and disparate impact.  Disparate treatment is intentional discrimination based upon race or some other legally protected classification.  Disparate impact, on the other hand, is not necessarily intentional discrimination, but occurs when job criteria that are neutral on their face have an adverse impact on certain groups.   In this case, the black firefighters contended the testing process was discriminatory because it resulted in no black candidates qualifying for the promotions list.     The City's defense in the lawsuit brought by the white firefighters was that it could not certify the list because if it did, it would be subject to disparate impact liability.   In other words, the City did not believe it could promote only white candidates because it would be sued by the non-white candidates who did not qualify for promotion.

The Supreme Court held it was unlawful for the City to refuse to certify the results of the promotional exam based solely upon the relative racial make-up of the candidates who qualified versus those who did not qualify.  The Court sympathzed with the City's position that it would be liable for disparate impact discrimination if the test results had been certified.  However, Justice Kennedy, writing for a 5-4 majority, held that, at least in this case, such concerns did not justify denying promotions to candiates who had the highest scores because no black candidates were in that group.   

Is is ever permissible to make an employment decision based upon an employee's race because of the fear of disparate impact liability to persons of another race?  The Court concluded such a decision would be permissible only if there is a  "strong basis in evidence" it would be subject to disparate impact liability.  In the Ricci case, the Court concluded, the evidence showed the City had taken great care to ensure its testing process was free from discriminatory impact and reasonably related to the jobs for which it tested.  Therefore, there was insufficient basis for the City to conclude its tests had an unlawful disparate impact.

For detailed discussion, analysis, and contrasting arguments on the Ricci case, I recommend the following posts:  First, for a local flavor, Connecticut Employment Law Blog provides a good summary of the lessons to be learned from the case.   Employee rights attorney Ellen Simon opines at Employee Rights Post that the Ricci decision was not only wrongly decided, but is bad for both employers and employees.  Finally, for an analysis without the rhetoric, try SCOTUSblog.

2.   Employers and Social Networking

Facebook, Linked In, and other social networking sites have exploded in popularity in recent years.  Are employers entitled to make employment decisions based upon information an employee posts on the internet outside of work time?  Should an employer allow or even encourage employees to use the social networking on the internet? 

For a detailed analysis of some of the issues surrounding social networking, I recommend the following:

• In "The Voice", a weekly publication of the Defense Research Institute, attorney Helen Adams writes about the employment implications of "Doocing", a new slang word to describe terminations based upon an employee's activities on the internet. 
• The Delaware Employment Law Blog discusses reasons employers should have a policy covering social networking sites.   
•   The National Law Journal reports that some management side lawyers have warned about the use of Linked In to make recommendations of employees, for fear it will be used against the employee in the event  of a termination.
• Locally, The Des Moines Register reported on the case of a police officer who was asked to resign because of photographs she posted on Myspace. 

Suffice it to say that social networking is not going away any time soon, and employers would be well advised to develop practices and policies for dealing with its impact on the workplace. 

3.  Al Franken Certified as the Winner of the Senate Race in Minnesota

This is imporant because Mr. Franken becomes the 60th Democratic Senator, giving the party a filibuster proof majority.   The Senate thus constituted is in a better position to pass EFCA, or the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act."  EFCA would have a substantial impact on labor law in the United States and present many challenges for employers.  I recommend the the blog at Laborpains.org to keep track of the latest developments on EFCA and other labor union matters.

4.  WARN Act

The WSJ Law Blog notes that litigation relating to layoffs is heating up, particularly under the heretofore seldom utilized WARN Act.  WARN requires employers under certain circumstances to provide at least 60 days notice of plant shutdowns or significant layoffs.   A violation means the employer has to pay wages to the laid off employees for the sixty period, plus other potential penalties.   However, the fact that the downturn occurred so swiftly and is protracted  may provide a defense to a WARN Act claims.

Stay Cool!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A recent post at Human Resources Executive Online, entitled "Warnings from the Top".  provides an excellent overview of some of the new challenges employers have been presented since the beginning of 2009.   "Like it or not" say the authors, changes are coming, and employers better be prepared.

According to several attorneys the authors interviewed, some of the most pressing new laws and regulations relate to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Employee Free Choice Act being debated in Congress, and Amendments to the ADA.    These new laws mean it is time to train--about labor relations issues, what managers can and cannot say about unions; about safety, and about reasonable accommodation.   Now is also a good time to conduct an audit of your company's human resources practices, especially wage and hour compliance issues and compensation practices.  

Iowa employers are not immune from these changes.  Indeed, as discussed in a prior post on Iowa Employment Law Blog, compensation fairness issues may be even more urgent in Iowa because the the State has enacted its own version of the Lilly Ledbetter Act.

We will continue to keep you posted on developments in these important areas of the law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link