In a 2-1 ruling on February 4, 2019, the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeals expanded requirements for reporting time pay by ruling that a California employer would owe reporting time pay if it requires an employee to call in to confirm a scheduled on-call shift, even when the employee does not actually report for work.

Like many retailers, Tilly’s, Inc. scheduled its retail employees for both regular and on-call shifts.   For on-call shifts, Tilly’s required employees to call exactly two hours before the start of the shift to confirm whether they were to report for work or not. If the on-call shift was scheduled on or before 10:00 a.m., employees had to call the night before at 9:00 p.m. Tilly’s instructed employees to consider on-call shifts “a definite thing” until they were told not to report. If employees called late, failed to call, or refused to work on-call shifts, they were subject to formal discipline, which could include termination. Employees were not compensated for on-call shifts unless they were required to physically report for work.

Skylar Ward, a former Tilly’s retail employee, brought a putative class action, alleging that Tilly’s failed to provide reporting time pay for on-call shifts pursuant to California’s Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order No. 7. Specifically, Wage Order No. 7 requires payment of reporting time pay ranging from two to four hours’ wages if (a) an employee is required to “report for work and does report,” but is not put to work or works less than half of his or her usual or scheduled day’s work, or (b) an employee is required to report for work a second time in a workday, but works less than two hours in the second reporting. The phrase, “report for work,” is not defined in Wage Order No. 7, and for the past 75 years no further definition was needed; California employers provided reporting time pay only when an employee actually did physically “report for work.” As such, the trial court agreed with Tilly’s and dismissed the case, on the basis that merely calling in to confirm a shift, without physically reporting, does not constitute “report[ing] for work” to trigger reporting time pay. Ward appealed. (Ward v. Tilly’s Inc., No. B280151, 2019 WL 421743 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2019).)

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order, ruling that Tilly’s alleged failure to provide reporting time pay to employees who called in to confirm on-call shifts would violate Wage Order No. 7. The Court emphasized that Tilly’s on-call policies in particular, which required employees to call exactly two hours prior to the start of the on-call shift and imposed strict discipline for failing to timely call, yielded an imbalanced benefit to Tilly’s at the expense of the extensive burdens placed on its employees. For example, Tilly’s on-call shifts prevented its employees from taking other jobs, pursuing an education, caring for loved ones, committing to social plans, or otherwise enjoying off-duty recreational time simply because they had to be available to confirm an on-call shift, for which they may not even be called in (or compensated).

The Court first reasoned that the phrase “report for work” is ambiguous enough that the Court needed to consider the legislative history of the Wage Orders. The Court then cited the Wage Orders’ purpose of protecting employees and broadly interpreted the phrase, “report for work,” to include more than just physical presence in the workplace. Assuming that the IWC had been presented with the issue of telephonic call-in requirements when the Wage Orders were created, the Court concluded that the IWC would have deemed that Tilly’s on-call practices triggered reporting time pay because they “have much in common with the specific abuse the IWC sought to combat by enacting a reporting time pay requirement.”

The Court also appealed to the California Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.5th 257, 263, to emphasize the notion that off-duty time is not truly off-duty “if an employer limits the kinds of activities employees can engage in during off-duty time.” While the facts in Augustus and Ward are distinguishable, these rulings suggest a trend by California courts in treating any time that employees remain ready or on-call as compensable regardless of whether they are physically called on to work.

Although the holding in Ward concluded that Tilly’s fact-specific, on-call policies triggered reporting time pay, it is still unclear how this particular holding will apply to on-call policies and procedures in other factual circumstances. For example, the Court did not allude to an acceptable timeframe in which employees can call in to avoid reporting time pay requirements, nor did the Court address retroactive application of its holding. Also, the ruling may be extended beyond the retail industry to those industries and occupations covered by other Wage Orders containing the same language and requirements for reporting time pay, such as the manufacturing, personal services, housekeeping, and transportation industries, and agricultural and household occupations. As a result, California employers in each of these industries and occupations should carefully consider the result in Ward and be mindful of the legal trend to treat on-call time as compensable. Employers should promptly assess their scheduling and on-call policies in comparison to those in Ward to ensure proper compensation and compliance.

As we covered last year, the United States Supreme Court held in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis that employment contracts can legally bar employees from collective arbitration (and require instead individualized proceedings). The Supreme Court found that a provision forbidding collective arbitration violated neither the Federal Arbitration Act nor the National Labor Relations Act. This decision was a win for employers, as it continued the Supreme Court’s recent trend of enforcing agreements to arbitrate and enabled employers to specify that employees must each arbitrate their claims individually, rather than all together as a group.

Since then, as you might expect, employee arbitration agreements have become a hot topic for many employers. They’ve been a hot topic in the Supreme Court as well; in two different rulings issued in January 2019 (New Prime Inc. v. Oliviera and Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc.) the Court continued to shed light on the Federal Arbitration Act’s transportation worker exemption and to what extent parties may delegate decisions of whether a claim must be arbitrated or litigated in court to an arbitrator.

All of this activity related to arbitration provides a good opportunity to consider whether requiring your employees to arbitrate employment disputes is the right decision for your business. And, if so, what should you do to make sure your agreements with your employees are enforceable?

We’ll discuss the first topic – whether you should or should not require employees to arbitrate employment claims – in this Part 1, and we’ll cover the second issue in Part 2 (a “coming soon” blog post).

To start, what are some of the reasons you might want to require employees to arbitrate – rather than litigate in court – their employment-related disputes? Arbitration can be cheaper and faster, because discovery is much more limited than what is provided for disputes litigated in court. Pre-hearing motions are also more limited in arbitration as compared to in court; generally, a matter in arbitration will proceed much faster to a hearing on the merits.  Because of this, and due to the fact that private arbitrators generally do not have as much on their dockets, arbitrators can usually set a hearing date and reach a decision resolving the merits of a dispute faster than a court can.  Further, some employers find that having an arbitrator resolve disputes, rather than a jury, can provide more predictable results.  Unlike in court, where the parties have no input on which judge is assigned to hear their case and are subject to the opinions of a jury of their “peers,” there is no jury in arbitration and the parties have a say in which arbitrator will resolve the dispute. And although arbitration is not automatically confidential, it can be much more private than resolving a dispute in court because, for example, there are no public filings.

But arbitration isn’t for everyone or every situation. It can cause morale problems with employees, who are sometimes very concerned to find out that their employer is asking them to give up their right to a jury trial over a dispute that they may consider hugely important to them and their future career. Additionally, arbitration offers limited opportunities for appeal. While that can be a good thing if the arbitrator decides in your business’s favor, it is a double-edged sword if he or she does not. Arbitrators also tend to have a bit more room to fashion remedies that “split the baby,” giving the employee at least some measure of victory, which is less common in court.  Further, because of the limited discovery and ability to file pre-hearing motions, employers may not be able to learn about facts that help them evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their case, so matters will generally either proceed directly to a hearing on the merits or settle without any opportunity to narrow an employee’s claims through motions practice (or have them dismissed altogether, which happens in a considerable percentage of employment lawsuits). Finally, some states place limitations or requirements on arbitration agreements, ranging from the relatively minor (such as requiring that employees specifically initial an arbitration provision in an agreement) to much more substantive (barring arbitration of certain claims, such as for sexual harassment, outright). Meeting these requirements can become complicated, particularly for employers who operate in multiple states. Although the Federal Arbitration Act generally preempts state law requirements that act as a bar to arbitration, this isn’t always a clear-cut determination and can force parties to engage in motions practice in court to determine whether the agreement is valid or if the dispute can be heard by an arbitrator at all – before ever even reaching the merits of a claim.

There are many practical and legal considerations involved in deciding whether to require that employees arbitrate employment-related disputes as opposed to resolving them in court. This is not a decision to be made lightly or without advice of legal counsel.  If you do decide to proceed in that direction, then you have to make sure your agreements to arbitrate are enforceable.  And that’s no easy trick either. Stay tuned for some thoughts on that topic and some additional issues to consider in Part 2.  In the meantime, consider reaching out to your favorite Troutman Sanders labor and employment attorney for guidance about whether arbitration is right for you and your workplace.

Do you monitor your employees using technology?  Would you consider making them wear wristbands or other devices capturing their every move?

This spring, news spread that Amazon had been granted two patents for a new wristband that appeared to be designed to do just that for its warehouse and fulfillment staff.  The patents indicated that the wristbands would track workers’ hand movements as orders were filled and provide “haptic” feedback through vibrations to guide workers to the correct items and shelves.  Although the company later released a statement indicating that the devices were intended only to be used as a hands-free, more efficient version of the handheld scanning devices commonly used by warehouse staff, the technology raised concerns among commentators that information gleaned from the devices would instead be used to monitor workers’ every move and inefficiency – even bathroom breaks.  Amazon isn’t alone.  A small technology company in Wisconsin, for instance, recently offered employees an opportunity to have microchips implanted under their skin as a replacement for RFID badge swipes at protected doorways and in the company cafeteria—and the majority of employees unhesitatingly agreed.

The above examples may seem far-fetched in the average workplace, but employers have always sought to monitor and improve their employees’ productivity, work habits, and communications.  Today, it’s not uncommon for employers to surveil their employees through technology in a variety of ways as a matter of course, including by using GPS tracking on employer-owned vehicles, recording telephone conversations with customers, scanning emails sent from employer-owned devices, or reviewing job applicants’ social media profiles.  But is it always a good idea?

Generally, employees have little expectation of privacy while on company grounds or using company equipment, including company computers or vehicles, so often, monitoring (with proper notice, as required) is not especially problematic.  Plus, technology has great benefits for employers, including in improving productivity and efficiency.  But it’s worth a few moments to consider how technology’s role in society and growing presence in the workplace implicates employee privacy concerns, and what the consequences can be for going too far.

So that you are prepared before the next big tech development hits your office, here are a few things to consider when weighing how your company should approach and balance surveillance and employee privacy concerns:

  • Consider the types of information and technology you intend to use. Different requirements may be applicable to certain types of information (social media sites versus credit reports from background checks, for example), and some states and local governments have begun proposing and passing legislation affecting surveillance of private electronic information that may apply, in some cases, to private employers.
  • Think about the implications of having and storing electronic data about your workers. What happens (and what are the practical and legal risks) if this data is accessed without authorization (and how should you respond if it is), and will you have a policy for responding to third-party requests for this type of information?
  • Finally, stay faithful to your workplace’s culture. While some monitoring can be a great tool to increase efficiency, too much (especially without prior notice and proper explanations) can foster distrust among employees.

This is a constantly evolving area of the law, and best practices can and should be tailored to your individual workplace. For more information and tips on recent legal developments in this area, reach out to your favorite Troutman Sanders employment attorney.

The National Labor Relations Board is signaling yet another change to the joint employer test in its recent issuance of a new proposed rule.  The Board has waffled back and forth on this important issue recently, creating a lot of uncertainty for employers.  Here’s an explanation of what has been going on and what is likely to come.

Remind Me: What’s Been Going On?

Many of you will remember the Board’s 2015 decision in Browning-Ferris Industries.  That decision rocked the labor world because it held that two or more companies are joint employers of the same employees if they “share or co-determine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment.”  Our earlier coverage of that decision is here.

That new standard was a significant departure from the Board’s earlier, well-established precedent which held that a company must exert direct and immediate control over hiring, firing, discipline, supervision, and direction to be a joint employer.  Under Browning-Ferris, indirect control or a reserved—even if unexercised—right to control was sufficient.  The Board also expanded the “essential terms” to include scheduling, seniority, overtime, assigning work, and determining the manner and method of work performance.

Employers and management-side labor lawyers were obviously not happy with the Browning-Ferris decision, while employee and union-side folks were pleased.  Luckily, however, the decision had a relatively short (initial) lifespan.

The Board overturned Browning-Ferris in December 2017 in its Hy-Brand Contractors Ltd. decision.  That case adopted a test more closely resembling the pre-Browning-Ferris joint employer test, requiring proof that:  (1) a putative joint employer actually exercised control rather than merely had a (an unexercised) right to do so; (2) the control is direct and immediate (as opposed to indirect); and (3) the joint employer will not result from “limited and routine” control.

It looked like we’d gone back to the old standard and would have some stability on this issue.  But then some drama emerged at the Board.

Just a couple of months after the Hy-brand opinion’s publication, the Board’s Inspector General reported that new Board member William Emanuel should not have participated in the Hy-Brand decision because his former law firm represented one of the two alleged joint employers in the Browning-Ferris case.  Based on the report, the other four members of the Board then unanimously vacated Hy-Brand, effectively reinstating the Browning-Ferris standard.

And now there’s a new development.

What’s Happening Now?

On September 13, 2018, the Board released a draft rule to re-define the joint employer test.  Under the proposed rule, a company would only be considered a joint employer if it:  “possesses and exercises substantial, direct and immediate control over the essential terms and conditions of employment and has done so in a manner that is not limited and routine.”  Further, “[i]ndirect influence and contractual reservations of authority” will not establish a joint employer relationship under the proposed new rule.

The proposed new rule requires a 60-day public comment period. The Board will then consider the public comments prior to publishing a final version of the rule, which we probably won’t see until early- to mid-2019.

So, to recap (and to make sure we’re all on the same page): Browning-Ferris’s broad test is still in place for joint employer liability under current Board law.  It will remain that way – until it is either reversed (again) by another decision or a final rule is published by the Board setting a new standard.  Employers, therefore, need to continue to use caution when evaluating the extent to which their contractual relationships or actions might be interpreted as giving them indirect control over another company’s employees.  And, of course, keep paying attention here for the latest updates!

On September 7, 2018, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics announced the most recent employment numbers for the United States.  As of August, total payroll employment had increased by 201,000, and the unemployment rate remained at 3.9%.  The positive trend has also impacted an often-overlooked category of potential employees:  disabled adults of prime working age.

Employment for this group has been steadily rising in recent years.  For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on June 21 of this year that 18.7 % of disabled adults of prime working age (25-54) were employed in 2017 (compared with 65.7% of those without a disability).  The news overall was good; the employment-population ratios for both persons with and without disabilities had increased from 2016 to 2017.

Highlights from the 2017 data included:

  • Nearly half of all persons with a disability were age 65 and over, three times larger than the share of those with no disability.
  • Across all age groups, the ratio of persons employed continued to be much lower for persons with a disability than for those with no disability.
  • In 2017, 32 percent of workers with a disability were employed part-time, compared with 17 percent for those with no disability.

Other reports have noted that people with disabilities tend to be employed at higher rates in regions with tighter labor markets where a larger share of the overall working-age population is employed and tend to have higher employment rates as their educational levels increase.

Although there is still plenty of room to improve, this increase in employment of disabled adults is part of a growing trend.  As one economist wrote recently, after many years (including during the 2001 and 2008 recessions) of relatively rapid increase in the number of Americans citing disability as a reason not to work, this number has begun to steadily fall for the past four years.  And, the news is good for the market as a whole; some economists have opined that the labor market’s ability to show this type of change and growth indicates that there is still room for employment numbers to continue to improve even further for everyone.  If that’s true, and the market continues to grow, it appears likely that more working-age adults with disabilities will seek employment, increasing the pool of applicants available to employers across the country.  Prudent employers should pay attention and take advantage of the increased opportunity to widen and diversify their workforce.  While there can be challenges in hiring workers with disabilities, many employers report that disabled workers are among their most loyal and hardworking, and have a much lower rate of turnover than non-disabled employees.  In a tight labor market, those factors have real value.

For the past several years, folks in the HR space have had to pay special attention to the language in their handbooks and employment policies out of fear of violating rules established by a series of decisions from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Those decisions established a tough standard for evaluating facially neutral employment policies that complied with their interpretations of labor law. Combined with an aggressive NLRB enforcement strategy, employers have understandably been on edge with respect to their workplace rules and policies.

Under that standard, the NLRB found that employers violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by maintaining workplace rules that did not explicitly prohibit protected activities, were not adopted in response to such activities, and were not applied to restrict such activities, if the rules would be “reasonably construed” by an employee to prohibit the exercise of his or her NLRA right to engage in “protected, concerted activity.”

On December 14, 2017, however, the NLRB replaced that standard with a new one. In The Boeing Company, 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017), the NLRB established a new test for workplace rules and policies:  when evaluating a facially neutral policy, rule or handbook provision that, when reasonably interpreted, would potentially interfere with the exercise of NLRA rights, the NLRB will evaluate two things: (i) the nature and extent of the potential impact on NLRA rights, and (ii) legitimate justifications associated with the rule.

This standard is much more favorable to employers. Many policies which would have violated the previous standard will now be considered appropriate and lawful.

Additionally, the NLRB also announced three categories of rules will be delineated to provide greater clarity and certainty to employees, employers, and unions:

  • Category 1: This will include rules that the NLRB designates as lawful to maintain, either because (i) the rule, when reasonably interpreted, does not prohibit or interfere with the exercise of NLRA rights; or (ii) the potential adverse impact on protected rights is outweighed by justifications associated with the rule. (An example of a Category 1 rules is the no-camera requirement maintained by Boeing in the case.)
  • Category 2: This will include rules that warrant individualized scrutiny in each case as to whether the rule would prohibit or interfere with NLRA rights, and if so, whether any adverse impact on NLRA-protected conduct is outweighed by legitimate justifications.
  • Category 3: This will include rules that the NLRB will designate as unlawful to maintain because they would prohibit or limit NLRA-protected conduct, and the adverse impact on NLRA rights is not outweighed by justifications associated with the rule.

In the Boeing case, the NLRB concluded that Boeing lawfully maintained a no-camera rule that prohibited employees from using camera-enabled devices to capture images or video without a valid business need and an approved camera permit.  The NLRB explained that the rule potentially affected the exercise of NLRA rights, but that the impact was comparatively slight and outweighed by important justifications, including national security concerns.

Overall, while employer policies and rules must still be evaluated to ensure compliance with the NLRA, such policies and rules will now be judged under much less stringent standards than they have been for the past several years, which is very good news indeed for employers.

With the holidays now over and everyone settling back into our regular work routines, some predictions on labor and employment law developments for 2018 might be helpful. Overall, federal agencies are expected to continue last year’s trend of taking more employer-friendly positions under the current Administration. In addition to that general theme, however, here are five specific “predictions” for what employers will likely see in 2018.  

Prediction 1: We’ll Get (A Lot of) New Opinion Letters from the Department of Labor.

For years the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Opinion Letters were a helpful source of information for employers as they answered questions received from members of the community (primarily on wage and hour issues). For example, if an employer or other entity had a question about how a particular wage and hour regulation applied to its employees and an answer wasn’t clear from the case law or administrative decisions, the employer could send in its question and DOL officials would issue an Opinion Letter offering guidance.

While the Opinion Letters functioned as the DOL’s official, written opinion on how a specific law applied to a given situation, they weren’t binding authority on the DOL or any courts. But they were certainly helpful for employers when there was no other guidance (or differing opinions) available on a sticky issue. Courts also found the letters helpful and they were (and still are) cited to support reasoning offered in judicial decisions.

In 2010, however, the DOL stopped issuing Opinion Letters. Instead it started issuing more general “Administrator Interpretations” which were intended to provide general interpretations of certain laws applied to a specific type of employee or industry. Notably, the DOL only issued 11 Administrator Interpretations between 2010 and 2016. Opinion Letters were issued with much greater frequency, sometimes with dozens being issued in a single year.

Now, however, the DOL has reinstated the issuance of Opinion Letters. “Reinstating opinion letters will benefit employees and employers as they provide a means by which both can develop a clearer understanding of the Fair Labor Standards Act and other statutes,” said Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta. The DOL “is committed to helping employers and employees clearly understand their labor responsibilities so employers can concentrate on doing what they do best: growing their businesses and creating jobs.”

So, it seems probable that the DOL will issue many Opinion Letters in 2018 on a variety of topics.  To date, the DOL has already issued 17 Opinion Letters in 2018 on the FLSA. The Department’s Opinion Letters can be found at https://www.dol.gov/whd/opinion/flsa.htm. Keep an eye on the site for plenty more this year.

Prediction 2: We’ll See A(nother) New Overtime Rule.  

According to the DOL’s regulatory agenda (which you can see here), a new overtime rule will likely be issued this coming October. Based on comments from Labor Secretary Acosta, it seems like a good bet that the new rule will raise the exempt salary threshold for white-collar workers above the current $23,660 minimum annual salary threshold, though almost certainly not as high as was proposed under the Obama Administration’s ill-fated 2016 rule (which more than doubled the annual minimum to $47,476).

In addition to raising the minimum exempt annual salary level, the new rule may again contain a provision allowing for automatic adjustments so that the numbers keep pace with inflation (as the 2016 rule did as well). Inclusion of such a provision is far from certain, however, because there is some debate as to whether the DOL has the authority to implement such a feature under the language of the FLSA. Assuming such a provision is included, this could cause some problems for employers as it may require them to implement pay raises at times that do not coincide with employers’ fiscal years or follow performance evaluations.

Employers should begin planning now for a possible increase to the minimum exempt salary level. Speculation is that the new threshold will be in the $30,000 to $35,000 range. Planning and considering options and impacts now could be smart business strategy.

The beginning of the new year often brings fresh resolve, brightened attitudes, and a renewed sense of hope for the coming year.  Savvy employers harness those emotions in their workforce and engage their employees to reach new goals and achievements.  But behind the scenes, employers also need to be aware of new laws and regulations that must be implemented to keep things on track.

One of the best ways to capture critical updates is to conduct an annual review of your company handbook and employment practices.  Many states and localities have adopted regulations that require certain procedures and information be included in a company handbook.  Employers should review those updates for each location where employees work, paying special attention to the following:

  • Minimum Wage: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and Washington have all implemented an increase of the minimum wage for 2018.
  • Ban the Box: California and other states have also prohibited questions regarding an applicant’s criminal history from being included on an application for employment.  While employers may still check an applicant’s or employee’s criminal background, these laws specify when it may be done and what may be considered.
  • Equal Pay and Salary History: Joining Massachusetts, Delaware, California and other states and some cities (Philadelphia, for one) have recently enacted various statutes to prohibit questions regarding an applicant’s salary history on an employment application.  While confirmation of prior salary may be done in certain circumstances, basing an employee’s salary on prior compensation is generally prohibited by these laws.  Recruiting managers and their teams need to be trained to avoid such inquiries unless and until the point in the process where they may lawfully ask about prior salary.
  • Anti-Harassment Policies and Training: Ensure that your non-harassment policy is compliant with applicable federal, state and local laws by including at least two methods to report complaints and checking to be sure that your policy covers all forms of potential harassment and discrimination against protected classes.  Employers should also check their training records to be sure that trainings are being conducted with appropriate frequency and that all required persons have timely completed them.
  • Update Labor Law Postings: Many of the new laws enacted for 2018 require updated labor law postings.  California and New York both have new poster requirements, as do cities including New York City and San Francisco.  Employers should consult with counsel regarding these new requirements and be sure that their postings are up to date.  A government agency conducting an on-site inspection of a workplace will look for updated posters, and out-of-date posters can lead to fines under some laws, or at least signal that an employer does not focus on compliant employment practices.
  • New Mileage Rate: As of January 1, 2018, the IRS mileage reimbursement rate for the use of a car for business travel has been raised to 54.5 cents per mile.

With up-to-date policies and practices in place, employers can focus on building great teams and achieving business success in the new year.

For those who missed it while getting an early start to their Labor Day weekend, late last week a federal judge closed the door on regulations that would have significantly changed overtime exemptions after previously leaving that door ajar.

Most employers became very familiar — and concerned — with the proposed regulations over the past two years. The regulations would have increased the minimum salaries required for executive, administrative and professional employees to remain exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). We wrote about the regulations and their effects in detail here. They were set to become effective December 1, 2016, and would have more than doubled those salary minimums from $455 per week, or $23,660 annually, to $913 a week, or $47,476 annually. The regulations would also have increased the salary threshold for the “highly compensated employee” exemption from $100,000 to $134,000. However, a lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Texas and the judge who was assigned the case granted an emergency, nation-wide injunction in November of last year which preliminarily (and temporarily) prohibited the Department of Labor from implementing the new rules.

On Thursday of last week, that same court entered a final judgment against implementing the higher salary thresholds. In doing so, the court found Congress intended that both the salary levels and the duties of executive, administrative and professional employees be considered in determining whether they are exempt from overtime requirements of the FLSA. The court concluded that the high minimum salaries proposed by the regulations placed too much emphasis on only one factor and effectively eliminated consideration of what duties are performed by those employees. The ruling can be found here.

For all practical purposes, the court’s ruling means that the door is now shut on those higher salary thresholds. The Department of Labor has even stated in filings that it no longer seeks to increase the salary minimums to the levels called for by the regulations it fought to implement last year. Rather, the DOL seeks now only to clarify with the courts whether it has any legal authority to increase those minimums at all. When that clarification comes, the DOL may well again implement increases, though not like the ones just struck down.

Employers should keep their eyes open for requests for information and comments from the DOL in anticipation of possible increases to minimum salary thresholds in the near future. Fortunately, those increases will likely be substantially smaller than those which would have been implemented late last year. In addition, many employers, having already prepared their workforces and compensation schemes to allow for the possibility of higher minimum salaries, will likely have less cause for concern with the smaller increases to come.

Earlier this month, a widely-recognized Fortune 50 company reached a $1.7 million agreement with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to resolve nearly a decade of litigation over the company’s nation-wide policy of discharging workers who do not return from medical leave after 12 months.

While this settlement still requires approval by a federal judge, the litigation itself (and the size and scope of the settlement, which also includes changes to the company’s policy, notice-posting, record-keeping, reporting, and other requirements) should be instructive for employers dealing with a common issue: what to do with employees who are granted a medical leave but cannot return to duty at the end of a set time period.

Continue Reading Could The EEOC Sue Over Your “Maximum Leave” Policy?