D.C. Paid Family Leave Law Advances Towards Implementation

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.

 

Digital Threats Continue to Confront the Hospitality Industry

shutterstock_217014265Cybersecurity 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.

Going Through Withdrawal – Strategies for Minimizing Your Multiemployer Pension Withdrawal Liability, Protecting Your Assets and Saving Your Business

Join Conn Maciel Carey Labor & Employment Practice Group partner, Mark Trapp, on November 14, 2018 when he presents an interactive workshop to help unionized employers understand and analyze what is often the most critical challenge facing their business – multiemployer pension withdrawal liability.  Attendees will learn innovative and aggressive techniques and strategies to address this issue and proactively secure the future of their company. Increasing Money Graph

This workshop will also discuss the current legislative environment for multiemployer pension plans and issues, particularly the work of the Joint Select Committee on Solvency of Multiemployer Pension Plans, charged with preparing a report and recommended legislative language by November 30 to “significantly improve the solvency” of multiemployer pension plans and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Workshop attendees will:

  • Gain a broad understanding of the challenges facing employers who participate in a multiemployer pension plan

  • Discover strategies for assessing and minimizing their withdrawal liability risks through collective bargaining and business planning

  • Examine the status and possibility of legislative relief from the Joint Select Committee on Solvency of Multiemployer Pension Plans

Click here to register.

[Webinar] A Business Primer on Disability Access Laws: Preventive Tools and Defense Strategies

On Thursday, October 25, 2018, at 1 pm EDT, join Kara M. Maciel and Andrew J. Sommer of Conn Maciel Carey’s national Labor & Employment Practice Group for a complimentary webinar:  “A Business Primer on Disability Access Laws:  Preventive Tools and Defense Strategies

Businesses continue to be plagued by litigation under the Americans with Disabilities, Title III (ADA) over alleged access barriers.  Lawsuits against hotels and retailers, among other public accommodations, appear to be on the rise with a disproportionate share in California.

Disability Webinar

This webinar will provide an overview of ADA, Title III standards as they apply to construction existing before the enactment of the ADA in 1992 as well as to subsequent new construction and alterations.  The webinar will also address Continue reading

NLRB Seeks to Change Joint Employer Test by Rulemaking

By:  Mark Trapp

On September 14, 2018, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Notice”). In its Notice, the Board states its belief that the “rulemaking will foster predictability and consistency regarding determinations of joint-employer status in a variety of business relationships.” At base, the Notice is an attempt to return the Board to its pre-2015 standard, which the Obama-era NLRB overruled in the controversial Browning-Ferris decision issued that year.

If enacted, the rules would provide a stronger degree of clarity and predictability to business owners and tighten the standard for finding one business to be a joint employer of another employer’s employees. Moreover, by enacting the standard through rulemaking, rather than adjudication, the NLRB decreases the likelihood of the standard being overturned by a later Board. Continue reading

Hurricanes Headaches:  HR FAQs for Employers

It’s hurricane season again in the US! Be prepared!

The Employer Defense Report

Hurricane.jpgHurricane Florence is approaching the United States, and first and foremost, employers need to make sure their employees, customers, and guests are safe from the storm.

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…

View original post 1,400 more words

SCOTUS Approves Class Action Waivers in Employment Arbitration Agreements

By:  Kara Maciel and Dan Deacon

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that class/collective action waiver clauses in employment agreements that compel employees to settle disputes individually with a third-party arbitrator are enforceable.  In a landmark 5-4 ruling, the Justices in the majority rejected the National Labor Relations Board’s position and held that a class/collective action waiver in an arbitration agreement – which effectively prohibit employees from joining together in a class or collective action lawsuit to settle disputes – do not violate the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) or the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).

Background

Arbitration agreements – requiring employees to submit claims to an arbitrator instead of filing in court – are relatively common in the workplace.  Many employers favor arbitration because it tends to lower the cost of litigation and streamlines a resolution.

The legal issue that percolated through the federal Courts of Appeals over the past several years was whether a class/collective action waiver in an arbitration agreement is enforceable.  An arbitration agreement that includes a class/collective action waiver benefits an employer because it prevents employees from banning together to file costly class or collective actions and it forces employees to utilize the arbitration process rather than filing a lawsuit.  Thus, the only form of redress for an employee is a single action that must be worked out before a neutral, third-party arbitrator.

Over the past five years, the Courts of Appeals issued conflicting opinions on whether class action waivers are enforceable.   Notably, between 2013 and 2014, employers were provided favorable opinions from the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth, Second, and Eleventh Circuit which concluded that the NLRA does not invalidate class action waivers in arbitration agreements.  In contrast, in 2016, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and Seventh Circuit adopted the NLRB’s position that class and collective action waivers violate Section 7 of the NLRA.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court’s ruling brings finality to an issue that sparked years of debate and caused significant uncertainty for employers.  Oral arguments took place in October 2017 with the justices appearing split along ideological lines – except for Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch who did not speak at all during the session.  Interestingly, however, it was Justice Gorsuch who wrote the opinion – which was his first major opinion since joining the Court last spring.

As alluded to in our prior blog post, President Trump’s ability to fill Justice Scalia’s vacancy was ultimately a deciding factor in what appears to have been a partisan showdown.  Speaking for the conservative wing on the bench, Justice Gorsuch explained that the law is clear that Congress in enacting the FAA instructed federal courts to enforce arbitration as written, including those terms calling for individualized proceedings, and that the “decision does nothing to override” what Congress has done.  In a lengthy dissent, Justice Ginsburg criticized the majority for overturning 80 years of NLRB precedent.  Justice Ginsburg commented that the majority’s decision is “egregiously wrong” and expressed concerns that many employees with small claims, such as minimum wage and overtime violations, will be disinclined to pursue potential claims individually.

The expected fall-out and the future of this ruling now rests with Congress.  Congress certainly has the ability to revise the FAA and the NLRA through legislation.  Given the deep split amongst party lines, however, it is unlikely that Congress will act any time soon.

Take Aways for Employers 

In light of the Court’s decision, employers should immediately review their practices and policies governing employment agreements with arbitration clauses.  For those employers who do not require arbitration of disputes, now may be the time to reconsider whether to implement such an agreement with current employees.  For those employers who have arbitration agreements in place already, now is the time to ensure the agreement contains an enforceable class/collective action waiver, especially for wage and hour disputes.  Employers may want to evaluate whether to restrict class/collection actions for other types of disputes, such as discrimination or harassment cases.  Importantly, any arbitration agreement must be drafted with the company culture in mind.

In short, employers now have the ability to utilize a new forum to resolve legal disputes on an individual basis.  In some circumstances, especially for class/collection claims, an arbitration may be less expensive than lawsuits, take less time, and do not typically result in years of appeals.  Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision is welcome news for employers.  Employers can proactively mitigate litigation risk through carefully drafted employment agreements and more effectively manage legal disputes.