Conn Maciel Carey Opens Columbus, Ohio Office

Theresa Green Leave a comment

Conn Maciel Carey LLP announced today the opening of its Columbus, Ohio office. It is the firm’s sixth office nationally and the second location in the Midwest. The new office represents another important step in the firm’s continued growth in the region, together with the opening of its Chicago office last year.

Columbus is a growing Midwest hub and is centrally located to many of the nation’s current and historic industrial centers. With an expanded Midwest presence, Conn Maciel Carey attorneys now provide enhanced services to its national clients operating in the Midwest.

shutterstock_columbus color.jpg

“We are excited about our expanding Midwest presence” said Managing Partner Bryan Carey. “The Columbus office will allow the firm to build upon the success of our 2018 launch of our Chicago office, offering clients operating in the central U.S. greater proximity to our attorneys, resources, and counsel.”

Nicholas W. Scala, a partner with the firm, will lead the Columbus office. Mr. Scala joined the Firm in 2016, founding the firm’s MSHA Practice Group, which he chairs. His practice services the mining industry, managing all interaction with, and contest of enforcement by, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) for companies operating in the coal, aggregates, industrial minerals, and cement industries. He also CMC Headshot (2017)supports the firm’s national OSHA Practice Group, representing general industry and construction companies in connection with inspections and enforcement actions by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Mr. Scala works with state mining associations in Ohio and Illinois and represents clients throughout the Midwest and Ohio River Valley regions. He was named a Super Lawyer Rising Star in Washington, D.C. in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

“The Columbus market offers a fantastic opportunity for not only our MSHA Practice, but for OSHA and Labor and Employment, as well,” said Scala. “Working with attorneys spanning the firm’s existing offices and groups, we will build upon the firm’s experience and proven client service, bringing additional value to the Midwest. Specific to our firm’s Workplace Safety Practice Group, Columbus is centrally located to several of the most active mining regions in the country, as well as a historically active area for regulatory enforcement over the construction and general industry sectors. It’s a growing and dynamic market that I am eager to grow the firm in.”

The Columbus office will expand Conn Maciel Carey’s national Labor and Employment and OSHA practice groups. The Labor and Employment Practice Group, led by founding partner Kara M. Maciel, provides employment defense in both state and federal courts, labor-management relations, as well as day-to-day counseling on a vast array of employment matters. The OSHA Practice Group, led by founding partner Eric J. Conn, represents a wide-range of clients across the country in all aspects of their interaction with OSHA and state OSH programs.

In addition to its Midwest offices, the boutique law firm, which was founded in 2014, has offices in Washington D.C.; Chicago, Illinois; Atlanta, Georgia; Los Angeles, California; and San Francisco, California.

Here is a link to a press release issued by the Firm about these exciting developments.

[Webinar] Guide to Responding to 11(c) Safety Retaliation Complaints and Notices of Alleged Hazards / Employee Safety Complaints

Theresa Green Leave a comment

On Tuesday, April 16, 2019, at 1 pm EST, join Kate M. McMahon of Conn Maciel Carey’s national OSHA • Workplace Safety Group and Lindsay A. DiSalvo of Conn Maciel Carey’s national Labor & Employment Practice Group for a complimentary webinar: Guide to Responding to 11(c) Safety Retaliation Complaints and Notices of Alleged Hazards / Employee Safety Complaints.

shutterstock_complaint

When OSHA receives a complaint related to employee safety and health or a severe injury report, OSHA often gives the employer an opportunity to respond before it takes the more extreme action of opening an inspection.  In addition, when OSHA receives an allegation of retaliation, it must provide the employer a chance to explain why the action of which it is accused was legitimate or did not occur as alleged.  These responses are an opportunity for the employer to provide sufficient information to avoid a full-blown OSHA inspection or becoming enmeshed in the litigation of a retaliation claim.  A strong and thorough response could resolve OSHA’s concerns and resolve the retaliation complaint in a favorable manner for the employer.  However, these responses could also create a written record of admissions to which OSHA can hold the employer accountable, and any supporting documentation may be closely scrutinized and potentially used to create liability.  Thus, employers must be strategic about the information they share at this early stage and should ensure there is a procedure in place for managing and developing these responses.

​Participants will learn about the following:​

  • The types of complaints and incidents that lead OSHA to request information from the employer;

  • Specific prohibitions of Section 11(c) (OSHA’s anti-retaliation law) and how retaliation complaints are evaluated;

  • Strategies employers can use to effectively respond to Section 11(c) complaints, Notices of Alleged Hazards, and RRI requests; and

  • Proactive measures employers can take to avoid employee complaints.

This program is valid for 1.00 PDC for the SHRM-CP or SHRM-SCP. 

Click here to register for this webinar.

Good Faith Goes a Long Way: The Benefits of Fully Engaging in the Interactive Process Mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act

Aaron Gelb Leave a comment

On Monday, March 25, 2019, I had the privilege to co-present on reasonable accommodations and the interactive process under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) at the HR in Hospitality Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada. One of the issues Picture1covered during our presentation involved the fact that the ADA does not require that employers provide the specific accommodation requested by an employee as long as the employer offers a reasonable accommodation to the employee who made the request.  While employers can use their business judgment when deciding how best to reasonably accommodate an employee, a settlement recently announced by the EEOC underscores that many employers would be well-advised to develop internal procedures or guidelines to help ensure that those involved in the accommodation process understand what is expected of them and the company when responding to accommodation requests.   According to a lawsuit filed by EEOC in Minnesota, a Bath and Body Works store failed to reasonably accommodation a sales associate with type-1 diabetes suffering retinopathy who asked that a larger monitor screen be placed at the cash register.  Instead, a store manager purchased what the EEOC described as “a cheap, hand-held magnifying glass” to be used by the sales associate when working the register.

Under a consent decree settling the suit (EEOC v. Bath and Body Works), Bath and Body Works agreed to pay Continue reading →

N.J. Court Opens Door for Employees to File Disability Discrimination Claims for Adverse Employment Actions Related to Medical Marijuana Use

Daniel C. Deacon Leave a comment

Several states have taken steps toward legalizing marijuana in some form.  However, these laws differ in many respects and raise interesting questions for employers, especially as they relate to off-duty conduct.

While some states such as Arizona, Delaware, and Minnesota provide specific statutory protections for employees that have a valid prescription for medical marijuana, there has been an increase in litigation under state disability discrimination laws for failure to accommodate an employee’s use of marijuana to treat a disability. The lingering question remains whether an employer’s decision to take an adverse action against an employee for using medical marijuana outside the workplace is protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) or a state’s disability Continue reading →

D.C. Paid Family Leave Law Advances Towards Implementation

Kara Maciel Leave a comment

D.C. is moving forward with proposed final regulations to implement its Paid Family Leave law, the Universal Paid Leave Amendment Act of 2016, effective April 7, 2017 (D.C. Official Code 32-541.02(b)(2)).  The Rules are intended to create a regulatory framework for employers to register, opt-in, and opt-out for D.C.’s Paid Family Leave program.

As discussed in a prior blog post, all D.C. employers need to begin to prepare for the implementation of the program because starting July 1, 2019, the District will begin to collect quarterly taxes to fund the Paid Family Leave benefit, in the amount of .62 percent of the wages of its covered employees, based on wages beginning April 1, 2019.  The payroll tax will apply even if employers already provide paid leave benefits to its workers.

Annotation 2019-03-25 155526

Our firm has received several questions about the new rules, and below are some frequently asked questions about the Paid Family Leave law:

  1. Does the law apply to all employers in D.C.?

Yes.  Any sized employer doing business in D.C. is covered by this law, including small businesses, non-profit organizations, and self-employed individuals who opt into the program.

  1. I have employees who work in D.C. and other states outside of D.C., which employees are covered by this law?

Any employee who spends more than 50% of their work time in D.C. will be covered, and the employer must count their wages as subject to the payroll tax.

  1. Do wages include tips, commissions and other types of pay?

Wages will have the same meaning as provided for in D.C.’s unemployment compensation act, so all income will be counted as wages.

  1. Is there a minimum number of hours an employee must work before they are eligible for paid leave?

An employee is eligible for paid leave benefits as soon as they are hired, regardless of the number of hours worked for the employer, subject to a one week waiting period before benefits are paid.

  1. How much of paid leave is an employee entitled?

Starting on July 1, 2020, employees are entitled to paid leave benefits in the amount of eight (8) weeks for parental leave, six (6) weeks for those taking care of sick family members; and two (2) weeks for medical leave.  An employee can receive benefits under any one or a combination of paid leave provided under the Act.  However, employees are only entitled to receive payment for a maximum of 8 workweeks in a 52-workweek period, regardless of the number of qualifying leave events that occurred during that period.

For example, if an employee receives parental leave following the birth of twins, the employee is only entitled to 8 weeks of paid leave, not 16.  Also, if an employee receives 4 weeks of paid medical leave to care for a sick family member, and then takes parental leave a few months later, the employee is only entitled to an additional 4 weeks of paid leave within the 52-workweek period.

  1. Are there notice and record-keeping requirements?

Yes, employers are required to provide employees a notice (1) at the time of hiring; (2) annually; and (3) at the time the employer is aware that the leave is needed.  The notice must explain the employees’ right to paid leave benefits under the Act and the terms under which such leave may be used; that retaliation for requesting, applying for, or using paid leave benefits is prohibited; that an employee who works for an employer with under 20 employees shall not be entitled to job protection if he or she decides to take paid leave pursuant to the Act; and that the covered employee has a right to file a complaint and the complaint procedures established by the Mayor for filing a complaint.

Covered employers are also required to develop and maintain records pertaining to their obligations under the Act for no less then three years.

An employer that violates the notice requirement may be subject to a $100 civil penalty for each covered employee to whom individual notice is not delivered and $100 for each day that the covered employer fails to post notice in a conspicuous place.

  1. How does the Paid Family Leave law interact with the DCFMLA and existing employer paid leave policies?

The DC Family Medical Leave Act (DCFMLA), which provides for 16 weeks of unpaid leave, remains unchanged under the Act.  Therefore, employees are still eligible to take unpaid leave under DCFMLA.  When paid leave taken pursuant to the Act also qualifies for leave under the DCFMLA, the paid leave taken under the Act will run concurrently with, not in addition to, leave taken under other acts such as DCFMLA.  Nothing in the act provides job protection to any eligible individual beyond that to which an individual is entitled to under DCFMLA.

Eligible employers are not prohibited from providing individuals with leave benefits in addition to those provided under the Act but employers are still required to provide the paid leave benefits under the Act.  The provision of supplemental or greater paid leave benefits does not exempt the covered employer from providing or prevent an eligible employee from receiving benefits under the Act.

 

If your company employs workers in the District of Columbia, you should begin preparing for the tax collection now.  If you have any questions about this new law, contact one of our labor & employment attorneys in D.C.

 

Pay Equity and EEO-1 Reporting Remain a Priority of Federal Regulators

Lindsay A. DiSalvo Leave a comment

Pay inequity, particularly compensation disparity based on sex, has become a very prominent political issue in the last decade and it looks like some additional changes could be on the horizon at the federal level.  Demshutterstock_532208329ocrats expressed that pay equity would be a priority in their labor agenda during the 2018 Congressional election cycle and, in February 2019, a proposal intended to further promote fair pay practices was reintroduced in Congress.   In addition, just last week, a federal judge lifted the stay on the changes to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) EEO-1 Report.  The revised EEO-1 report would require certain employers to provide pay data by sex, race, and ethnicity to the EEOC, allowing it to more easily detect and track impermissible pay differentials.  Though at very different stages in their respective lawmaking processes, the proposed law and final regulation are very clearly intended to address pay inequality and provide additional enforcement tools.

Stay Lifted on EEO-1 Report

In August 2017, ahead of the 2018 submission deadline, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) stayed collection of pay data based on race, ethnicity, and sex to allow it to review the regulation related to the lack of public opportunity to comment on the format of submission of the additional data and burden estimates related to the specific data file format provided.  However, on March 4, 2019, a Washington, D.C. federal judge ordered the stay be lifted because she determined that OMB’s decision was arbitrary and capricious – citing unexplained inconsistencies based on its prior approval of the rule and failure to adequately support its decision.  Continue reading →

[Webinar] Withdrawal Liability & Pensions

Theresa Green Leave a comment

On Wednesday, March 13, 2019, at 1 pm EST, join Mark M. Trapp of Conn Maciel Carey’s national Labor & Employment Practice Group for a complimentary webinar: Withdrawal Liability & Pensions.

This webinar will address the significant challenges faced by companies participating in multiemployer plans. Specifically, it will help unionized employers understand and analyze what is often the most critical challenge facing their business – multiemployer pension withdrawal liability.shutterstock_pension

Participants will learn about the following:

  • Specific strategies to analyze and potentially minimize withdrawal liability

  • The latest developments in litigating withdrawal liability assessments, including the proper interest rate and the calculation of the credit for a prior partial withdrawal

  • Recently-proposed regulations by the PBGC that could have a huge impact on the amount employers pay for withdrawal liability

This program is valid for 1.00 PDC for the SHRM-CP or SHRM-SCP.

Click here to register for this webinar.