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

March 13, 2019March 13, 2019Lindsay 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. Dem shutterstock_532208329 ocrats 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

March 4, 2019Theresa 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.

DOL Revises Field Operations Handbook to Clarify Interpretation of FLSA’s Dual Jobs Regulation

February 25, 2019February 25, 2019Daniel C. Deacon Leave a comment

The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) has officially curtailed another controversial interpretation of its dual jobs regulation that has plagued employers for more than decade – i.e. the 20% rule. This is welcome news for the hospitality industry and other employers who employ tipped employees, as the previous rule effectively forced employers to track and monitor the time that tipped employees spent on non-tipped tasks and “related duties.” Although the DOL issued an opinion letter rescinding its interpretation of the 20% rule in November 2018, the DOL’s recent revisions to its Field Operations Handbook has official dispelled lingering concerns about the DOL’s interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s dual jobs regulation and potential enforcement of the 20% rule.

The Tip Credit

Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), employers must pay employees a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Various state wage and hour laws impose higher minimum wage requirements, but employers covered Continue reading →

Court Ruling Further Clarifies ADA Website Accessibility Obligations

February 21, 2019Jordan B. Schwartz Leave a comment

Over the past several years, we have written extensively about employers’ obligations to make their websites accessible for individuals with visual, hearing and physical impairments. In the past, we have counseled employers who are considered a “place of public accommodation” (such as a hotel, restaurant, place of recreation, doctor’s office, etc.) to at the very least do some due diligence to determine whether their websites are accessible for disabled users, so that those individuals can use and navigate those websites and/or purchase goods sold on Website Accessibility Picture the websites. (For more information about the developing law on this issue, check out our prior posts here and here.) Now, for the first time, a U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled on this issue and has confirmed that so long as there is a “nexus” between a company’s website and a physical location (which is typically the case), a company must make its website accessible or risk significant legal exposure for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).

(As a reminder, although not the subject of this blog post, we have also written about a second consideration here regarding website accessibility that applies only to hotels and other places of lodging and currently is the subject of a tremendous amount of litigation. Specifically, the implementing regulations of Title III of the ADA require a hotel’s website to provide information regarding various accessibility features at its property, so that a mobility impaired individual can determine whether he or she can navigate the public areas and guestrooms at the property.).

Continue reading →

Have Faith: 4.9 Million Dollar Settlement Underscores Importance of Accommodating Religious Beliefs During Hiring Process

February 13, 2019Aaron Gelb Leave a comment

What happens when the religious beliefs of an applicant conflict with your grooming and appearance policy? What if the applicant is seeking a public-facing position in which they will be the first (and only) representative of your organization with whom most members of the public interact? shutterstock_EEOC While some employers may believe that “image is everything” when it comes to the appearance of their public-facing employees, a 4.9 million-dollar settlement of a religious discrimination lawsuit announced recently by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) serves as a stark reminder to employers that even your most straightforward policies may need to be modified in certain situations. As detailed in our June 7, 2018 blog post, the EEOC has been aggressively making good on the promise made in the agency’s Strategic Enforcement Plan for Fiscal Years 2017 – 2021 to focus on “class-based recruitment and hiring practices” that discriminate against people with disabilities by filing a series of lawsuits accusing employers of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by inquiring about prior medical histories, subjecting applicants to physical capacity tests and refusing to hire individuals who disclosed certain conditions. The agency’s Strategic Enforcement Plan similarly committed to rooting out religious barriers to employment. This is important because while many employers readily understand the need to reasonably accommodate disabled applicants and employees, it seems that some employers fail to grasp that they may also have to accommodate religious beliefs and practices of applicants and employees.

What the Law Requires

Title VII requires that employers, once informed that a religious accommodation is needed, accommodate an employee whose sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance conflicts with a work requirement, unless doing so would pose an undue hardship. If an employer’s dress and grooming policy conflicts with an employee’s known religious beliefs or practices, the EEOC expects Continue reading →

[Webinar] #MeToo Movement Update: Practical Strategies for Training, Investigations, and Discipline

February 11, 2019Theresa Green Leave a comment

shutterstock_me too On Wednesday, February 20, 2019, at 1 pm EST, join Kara M. Maciel and Lindsay A. DiSalvo of Conn Maciel Carey’s national Labor & Employment Practice Group for a complimentary webinar: #MeToo Movement Update: Practical Strategies for Training, Investigations, and Discipline.

In 2017, we saw the proliferation of the #MeToo Movement with a slew of high-profile allegations of sexual harassment and assault and tens of thousands of people, mostly women, voicing their own experiences on social media using the hashtag “MeToo”. Its momentum continued into 2018, with more people coming forward to make allegations of sexual assault and harassment and the Movement’s purpose becoming an even more prominent and influential topic of discourse. Its significance and impact has not slowed and its influence and impact is likely to be felt into 2019 and beyond. So, what does this mean for employers?

In the wake of the #MeToo Movement, the amount of sexual harassment claims filed with the EEOC increased by almost 14% in FY 2018 versus FY 2017. In addition, the EEOC filed 66 harassment lawsuits against employers in FY 2018, which is more than a 50% increase in EEOC suits challenging sexual harassment compared to FY 2017. Thus, it is more important than ever for employers to ensure they are effectively preventing and addressing sexual harassment in the work environment through their policies, training, and investigative procedures.

Participants will learn about the following:

The legal standards for sexual harassment and their nuances
Elements of an anti-harassment policy and complaint procedure
Elements of a sexual harassment training program
Best Practices for investigating complaints of sexual harassment
Recommendations for how to respond to sexually harassing conduct

Click here to register for this webinar.

Digital Threats Continue to Confront the Hospitality Industry

February 4, 2019Kara Maciel Leave a comment

shutterstock_217014265 Cybersecurity and digital threats were a hot topic at ALIS Law, a conference for hotel owners and operators, in Los Angeles last month. I had a pleasure of moderating a session on “threats in a digital world” with senior executives from national hotel management and ownership groups. In our session, we discussed what were some of the pressing and most concerning digital threats that kept the hospitality industry up at night. Here are some highlights and take-aways from the session:

Cybersecurity and hacks from foreign and domestic threats remain a top concern. Many hotels have been engaging in surveillance as one method of cyber protection. It was noted how much the investment in technology to prevent, address, and respond to cybersecurity issues has increased for both owners and operators. While owners may bear the cost on their profit & loss statement, and management companies are putting in policies, owners are adding property specific monitoring. It was discussed that one global hotel company, Hyatt Hotels, recently announced a bug bounty program whereby they will be paying ethical hackers to monitor their systems, including mobile applications, for potential risks and where credible risks or threats are found – the hackers will be compensated – which is a novel approach in the hospitality industry.

While cybersecurity threats have been a focus, one repeated concern is the threat of harm to a hotel’s reputation due to guests and third parties spreading false information on social media sites, such as LinkedIn, Yelp, and Trip Advisor. To address these concerns, hotel operators talk with their teams daily about the consequences of false information or a bad review and take steps to remove false reviews if possible. Others noted that removing a false review from a site like Trip Advisor can be challenging unless the company is able to prove that the review was posted for criminal reasons or demonstratively false.

One consequence of a cybersecurity hack beyond the disclosure of guest information is if a hacker was able to secure personal identifiable information of a hotel company’s investors and borrowers. If investors are concerned that a hotel company is not protecting their highly confidential and personal financial information, that would have a significant impact on the reputational harm to the company.

Some of the best practices that owner and operators have put into place is an incident response plan to respond to a threat. In doing so, a key question is who you need at the table to decide how to move forward (IT / GC / PR / Owner) and what elements do you need to put into place. In addition, implementing policies and procedures on the front end is critical. For example, from an accounting perspective, having controls in place that can protect where the money is going and where it is coming from and ensuring that there are multiple approvals before money is sent out electronically. Finally, training staff on the policies and procedures so that the right people are getting the right information. Managers need to judge and reward staff for compliance with the policies because while a company continue to monitor and audit, training is only effective if compliance is monitored. For example, one company reported conducting more secret shoppers to determine whether someone can drop a flash drive into a front desk computer to tap into the network.

Unfortunately, cybersecurity risks and threats are not going away anytime soon, but with planning and focus on this important issue, hotel owners and operators can get ahead of some of the threats and take control and strong action if a risk materializes.