NLRB Final Rule Expands Joint Employer Definition

November 14, 2023Kara Maciel Leave a comment

On October 26, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued its Final Rule (Final Rule) for determining joint-employer status under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Final Rule expands the scope of when an entity can be deemed a joint employer to when it “possesses the authority to control (whether directly, indirectly, or both), or to exercise the power to control (whether directly, indirectly, or both), one or more of the employee’s essential terms and conditions of employment.” Joint employers may have a duty to bargain with unions and may be exposed to what would otherwise be unlawful secondary union activity (e.g., picketing during labor disputes) as well as unfair labor practice liability, both jointly and individually. This change significantly increases potential liability for any entity that contracts with contractors, temporary workers, vendors, franchisees, and others. The rule goes into effect on December 26, 2023.

The new rule repeals and replaces the current rule, promulgated in 2020 by the Trump-era Board. The 2020 rule requires an entity to “possess and exercise such substantial direct and immediate control over one or more essential terms or conditions of their employment” to be deemed a joint employer, and only considers evidence of indirect and reserved control to the extent that such control “supplements and reinforces” evidence of direct and immediate control.

The new rule largely marks a return to Continue reading →

NLRB Returns to its Prior “Ambush” Election Rules

September 11, 2023Kara Maciel Leave a comment

By Kara Maciel and Samuel Rose

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has issued its 2023 Rule related to union representation elections. Representation petitions can be filed by employees, unions, or employers and ask the NLRB to conduct an election to determine whether employees wish to be represented by a union in collective bargaining.

The 2023 Rule reverses many of the provisions in the NLRB’s 2019 Rule which extended the timeline that the parties had to conduct an election. The 2019 Rule gave rise to extensive litigation resulting in the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. striking down significant portions of the rule. The NLRB had already rescinded the struck down provisions of the 2019 Rule, but the 2023 Rule makes additional changes, essentially returning the election process to the 2014 Rule. The NLRB says that the 2023 Rule “will meaningfully reduce the time it takes to get from petition to election in contested elections and will expedite the resolution of any post-election litigation.”

The 2023 Rule includes numerous differences from the 2019 Rule, including: Continue reading →

OSHA Expands Its Investigative Authority Under the Whistleblower Protection Program through U and T Visa Certifications

May 4, 2023May 4, 2023Kara Maciel Leave a comment

By Kara Maciel, Eric J. Conn, and Darius Rohani-Shukla

OSHA has unveiled another tool that will enhance its ability to investigate potential workplace safety violations affecting vulnerable workers who are victims of criminal activity, including sex and labor trafficking. Effective March 30, 2023, OSHA can now issue an important certification used to support two nonimmigrant visas, the U and T visas, that grant individuals immigration status when working with officials during criminal investigations and proceedings. Immigration,Document.,3d,Illustration Both the U visa and T visa were created in 2000 as part of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act and are intended to provide undocumented workers or workers whose immigration status depends on their employer with the opportunity to report qualifying criminal activity (QCA) without jeopardizing their immigration status and/or risking retaliation by their employer. Now, OSHA can provide support to the visa applications of workers who bring forward credible allegations of a violation of a law that OSHA enforces, in situations where OSHA has detected specific QCA.

OSHA does not have the authority to issue U and T visas themselves. Rather, these visas are issued by Continue reading →

Conn Maciel Carey Submits Comments to the FTC Urging it to Revise the Proposed Rule Banning Non-Compete Clauses

April 20, 2023Kara Maciel Leave a comment

On April 19, 2023, Conn Maciel Carey LLP’s Labor & Employment partners, Kara Maciel and Jordan Schwartz, submitted public comments on behalf of a diverse coalition of employers urging the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to revise its Proposed Rule banning non-competition clauses. While we believe that the FTC does not have legal authority to promulgate the Proposed Rule in its current form, the coalition’s comments focused on three problematic portions of the Proposed Rule and proposed the FTC revise it in three primary respects: Continue reading →

Join CMC’s Coalition to Combat the FTC’s Ban of Noncompete Agreements

January 20, 2023Kara Maciel Leave a comment

Earlier this month, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for its proposed rule that would essentially prohibit employers from entering into noncompete agreements with any employee, as well as with independent contractors, interns, volunteers, and other types of workers. The proposed rule would require employers to withdraw any existing noncompete agreements and inform employees that noncompete agreements no longer apply. The proposed rule would also make it unlawful for an employer to enter into a noncompete agreement with an employee, to attempt to enter into such an agreement with an employee, or to suggest that an employee is bound by a noncompete agreement when the employee is not.

While the FTC may justify this proposed rule as necessary to allow workers to move freely without restrictions, we believe that this rule, if passed, would severely compromise a company’s ability protect its trade secrets and other confidential information, and could negate a company’s significant investment in valuable investments in its employees, including employee training. Indeed, there are countless reasons why a narrowly tailored noncompete agreement is a necessary tool that has been, and should continue to be, in an employer’s arsenal to protect its significant investment in its employees and the information to which they are privy.

The rule is currently open for comment. To that end, Conn Maciel Carey LLP is organizing a new fee-based coalition of employers and trade groups to advocate for the most reasonable FTC rule possible, with the goal of helping to shape any rule that the FTC ultimately promulgates in such a way that the rule is palatable to employers. We would be honored to partner with your organization in this endeavor. Continue reading →

FTC Moves to Ban the Use of Noncompete Agreements by All Employers

January 12, 2023January 11, 2023Kara Maciel Leave a comment

By Kara M. Maciel and Samuel S. Rose

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for its proposed rule that would essentially prohibit employers from entering into noncompete agreements with any employee, independent contractors, interns, volunteers, and other types of workers. The FTC’s self-described mission is “protecting the public from deceptive or unfair business practices and from unfair methods of competition through law enforcement, advocacy, research, and education.” This proposed rule is the latest example of the FTC, under the direction of Chair Lina Khan, attempting to control corporate power and influence. Since Khan took over control of the agency in June 2021, the FTC has challenged the Microsoft-Activision merger, worked with the Justice Department to force Epic Games Inc., developer of the popular video game Fortnite, to agree to massive privacy law violation penalties, and filed a lawsuit to block Meta from buying a virtual reality start-up.

Generally, noncompete agreements prevent an employee from joining a competitor or starting a competitive business for a specified period of time. Often, noncompete agreements are limited to a geographic area. Many states regulate noncompete agreements in a variety of ways, including through income levels and notice requirements, but this new federal rule would supersede any state or local law that expressly allows for such restrictions.

The FTC estimates that approximately 30 million people are bound by noncompete agreements. Continue reading →

Recap of Year Two of the Biden Administration [Webinar Recording]

December 14, 2022December 13, 2022Kara Maciel Leave a comment

On Wednesday, December 7, 2022, Kara M. Maciel and Aaron R. Gelb presented a webinar regarding a Recap of Year Two of the Biden Administration.

As we approach the midway point of the Biden Administration, we will take stock of the lay of the land at Biden’s DOL, reviewing the initiatives the Department and its agencies have focused on in Year 2 and evaluating how they have fared in driving change at DOL, EEOC, NLRB, and OSHA. We will also assess those agencies’ rulemaking, policymaking, and enforcement efforts; make predictions about what employers can expect from the Biden Administration’s DOL in the second half of President Biden’s presidential term; and assess the impact of the mid-term elections.

Participants in this webinar learned about: Continue reading →

NLRB Memo Addresses Electronic Monitoring and Algorithmic Tools’ Effects on Employee Section 7 Rights

November 3, 2022November 4, 2022Kara Maciel Leave a comment

By: Kara Maciel and Darius Rohani-Shukla

On October 31, 2022, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo sent a memo to all regional directors, officers-in-charge, and resident officers communicating her concerns over electronic monitoring and algorithmic management. The memo highlighted concerns that employers might be able to use those tools to impair or negate employees’ ability to exercise their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”).

Technological advancements have enabled employers to surveil and analyze employees in increasingly intrusive ways. For example, employers can record workers’ conversations, track their movements with wearable devices, and monitor employees’ computers with keyloggers and software. Employers can also use algorithms to: identify disengaged employees at risk of leaving their employment; suggest career paths for current employees; assist employers through the performance management process; assess personality, aptitude, skills, and perceived “cultural fit;” and even monitor employee efficiency.

The Board has previously recognized that some employer surveilling practices are unlawful. In instances where employees are engaging in protected concerted activity and public union activity – the Board has acknowledged that photographing employees engaging in protected concerted activities is intimidating. An employer’s capacity to surveil its employees is analyzed by balancing its justification for the surveillance versus the apparent risk of interfering with or deterring employee activity.

Surveillance Technologies and Algorithmic Tools impact employees’ rights under Section 7 and Section 8(a)(1) of the Act:

Section 7 of the Act guarantees employees “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,” as well as the right “to refrain from any or all such activities.”
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer “to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7” of the Act.

Employer can violate Section 8(a)(1) through the following activities:

Instituting new monitoring technologies in response to activity protected by Section 7;
Utilizing technologies already in place to discover that activity, including by reviewing security-camera footage or employees’ social-media accounts;
Creating the impression that it is doing such things; or
Disciplining employees who concertedly protest workplace surveillance or the pace of work set by algorithmic management.

Electronic Surveillance in the Workplace

Continue reading →

Hurricane Headaches: HR Tips for Employers

September 29, 2022Kara Maciel Leave a comment

By: Kara M. Maciel

As hurricane season begins, and Hurricane Ian being the first to make landfall in the Southeastern United States, employers need to make sure their employees, customers, and guests are safe from the storms.

Natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes and tornadoes have posed unique human resource (HR) challenges from wage-hour to FMLA leave and the WARN Act. The best protection is to have a plan in place in advance to ensure your employees are paid and well taken care of during a difficult time.

Although no one can ever be fully prepared for such natural disasters, it is important to be aware of the federal and state laws that address these situations. Our guidance can be used by employers in navigating through the legal and business implications created by events such as hurricanes. In addition, the information may be applicable to other crises and disasters, such as fires, flu epidemics and workplace violence.

Frequently Asked Questions

If a work site is closed because of the weather or cannot reopen because of damage and/or loss of utilities, am I required to pay affected employees? Continue reading →

After the Supreme Court’s Ruling in Dobbs, Employers Explore Options in Providing Travel-for-Care Benefits

July 14, 2022July 14, 2022Kara Maciel Leave a comment

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, et. al., employers across the country have faced uncertainty in how to navigate the various federal and state laws regarding health-related services for their employees. This is particularly challenging for employers in states that have laws that provide for criminal liability. The Dobbs decision may impact how employers modify their employee benefit plans or create new plans to cover the cost of travel and lodging for medical care, including abortion, that require travel out of state.

Texas’ bounty law is likely the most novel and we have received many questions on whether a company could face criminal liability under that statute for providing benefits to travel of state. Texas Senate Bill 8 prohibits physicians from performing or inducing abortions if the physician detected a fetal heartbeat or failed to perform a test to detect a fetal heartbeat. Notably, this law authorized a private civil right of action – allowing any individual in the state of Texas to bring a civil action against any person [which while undefined in the Bill, in other contexts in the Texas code, does include corporations] who:

(1) performs or induces an abortion in violation of this subchapter;

(2) knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion through insurance or otherwise, if the abortion is performed or induced in violation of this subchapter, regardless of whether the person knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in violation of this subchapter; or

(3) intends to engage in the conduct described in subdivision (1) or (2).

See TX SB8 Sec. 171.208

If a company wanted to offer coverage for procuring abortions in other states through its health benefit plans, there are several legal considerations that the company should be aware of. First, under TX SB8 Sec. 171.208 (2), it is unlawful for any individual to aid or abet an individual in procuring an abortion. The Texas statute specifically prohibits “abortion[s] of unborn child[ren] with detectable fetal heartbeat[s]” and outlaws the conduct of physicians that “knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman if the physical detected a fetal heartbeat.” The statute itself defines a physician as “an individual licensed to practice medicine in this state.” So, the violations referenced in the statute arguably are limited only to those abortions conducted contrary to the statute by Texas physicians. If an organization’s health plan allows, as a benefit, costs to be recovered for traveling to procure an abortion in another state – then that would not be an action that would incur civil liability by a Texas physician. The statute legislates that abortions performed by Texas physicians are unlawful; it does not refer to travel to other states, and no court has yet opined on the scope of the statute in that context. But, even if a lawsuit was brought under that theory, the company could raise the general presumption against extraterritorial application of state law.