Join Conn Maciel Carey for an In-Person OSHA and Labor & Employment Briefing in Chicago on Tuesday, Sept. 25, 2018, and stay for a reception to celebrate the launch of our Chicago Office.
This complimentary program will feature panel discussions with representatives from EEOC, NLRB, and OSHA addressing key policy trends and regulatory developments. They will be joined by senior corporate counsel from multinational corporations and Conn Maciel Carey’s own Labor & Employment and OSHA specialist attorneys. There will also be moderated breakout roundtable sessions covering issues of concern to various industry segments.
1:00 PM – Registration and Networking
1:30 PM – OSHA Panel
- Angie Loftus (OSHA Area Director – Chicago North Area Office)
- Nick Walters (Former OSHA Regional Administrator – Region 5) Continue reading
As we reported back in 2017, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) had promulgated a proposed rulemaking to rescind its controversial 2016 “Persuader” Rule. Less than a year later, the Persuader Rule has been officially rescinded as of Tuesday, July 17, 2018. In a news release announcing the rescission, Nathan Mehrens of the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary stated, “By rescinding this Rule, the Department stands up for the right of Americans to ask a question of their attorney without mandated disclosure to the government.” This statement addresses one of the most significant sources of conflict over this Rule, both during and after its promulgation, and clearly identifies an important outcome of the DOL’s decision to withdraw it entirely.
By: Mark M. Trapp
On December 14, 2017, two days before the term of then-NLRB Chairman Philip A. Miscimarra expired, the existing Republican majority-Board issued its decision in The Boeing Company, 365 NLRB No. 154 (December 14, 2017). As readers of this blog learned not long after, the Boeing case illustrated “the profound difference in the way the Board under new General Counsel Peter B. Robb intends to evaluate employer rules and workplace policies versus the perhaps overzealous and less employer-friendly approach of the Obama-era Board.”
This statement has been borne out in Robb’s recent issuance of Memorandum GC 18-04, Guidance on Handbook Rules Post-Boeing. As Robb notes in the new memorandum, Continue reading
By: Aaron Gelb
Hiring practices, by their nature, have the potential to impact large groups of individuals. Employers using certain screening tools such as pre-employment tests and medical questionnaires may thus find themselves having to defend their policies and procedures in litigation brought by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Last year, the EEOC announced in its Strategic Enforcement Plan (“SEP”) for Fiscal Years 2017 – 2021 that it will continue to focus on “class-based recruitment and hiring practices that discriminate against racial, ethnic, and religious groups, older workers, women, and people with disabilities.” Since issuing the SEP, the agency has filed a number of lawsuits across the country against employers accused of creating barriers to employment for individuals with disabilities. These cases serve as important reminders that even the most well-intentioned employers should take a close look at the tools they are using to screen applicants for the various positions they are attempting to fill or run the risk of squaring off against the EEOC.
Two recently filed lawsuits highlight the perils associated with pre-employment drug testing and/or asking applicants about their prescription drug usage.
In EEOC v. M.G. Oil Co. d/b/a Happy Jack’s Casino, 4:16-cv-04131-KES (D. S.D.), the agency accused the defendant of discriminating against an applicant for a cashier position by revoking her conditional employment offer after learning she received a non-negative drug screen result. M.G. Oil promptly filed a third-party complaint seeking indemnity and contribution from TestPoint Paramedical, LLC, the company which administered the drug test. M.G. Oil accused TestPoint of failing to send the test results to a medical review officer to determine if there was a valid reason for the non-negative result. M.G. Oil’s gamble failed as the court dismissed the claims against TestPoint, leaving M.G. Oil to explain why it refused to reconsider its decision to revoke the applicant’s offer after she explained the non-negative drug test result was due to her lawful use of a prescription pain killer she took for back pain. The EEOC also accused M.G. Oil of violating the ADA by requiring all employees to report both prescription and non-prescription medications they are taking. Eventually, the Company entered a consent decree settling the lawsuit, agreeing to pay $45,000 and adopt company-wide policies to prevent future hiring issues under the ADA. The company also agreed to only require employees to report prescription and non-prescription medications that may affect their performance. Continue reading
On Monday, we reviewed some of the rulemaking initiatives identified by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) in the Trump Administration’s Spring 2018 Unified Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Agenda). In this post, we take a look at some highlights from the Agenda for the Department of Labor (“DOL”) – particularly the Wage and Hour Division – and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).
Initiatives from the Department of Labor
The Spring 2018 Agenda also included many rulemaking initiatives from the DOL. One item of note is the DOL’s intent to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to “clarify, update, and define” the requirements for “regular rate of pay” under Section 7(e)(2) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The FLSA requires that employees who work more than 40 hours in a work week be paid overtime at a rate of time and a half their regular rate of pay. The FLSA explains that the regular rate of pay often includes more than just the employee’s hourly rate where the employee receives other types of compensation, such as bonuses or commissions. But it is not always clear exactly which types of compensation must be factored into determining the regular rate of pay and how it should be calculated. The DOL has set a proposed deadline of September 2018 to issue its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Continue reading
On Wednesday, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs released the Trump Administration’s Unified Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Agenda). This Agenda lays out the short-term and long-term regulatory and, pursuant to the Trump Administration’s focus on rolling back regulation, deregulatory priorities for all the different Federal Government Agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), Department of Labor (“DOL”), and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Specifically, the Agenda identifies and briefly explains the rulemaking activities in which each Agency plans to engage over the remainder of 2018 and into the next year. Below, we have highlighted the major initiatives the NLRB has taken and intends to undertake as outlined in this Agenda. We will address highlights from the Agenda for the DOL and EEOC in Part Two of this post.
NLRB’s Intent to Establish Joint-Employer Standard
One of the initiatives that came as a surprise to many when it appeared in the Spring 2018 Agenda is a rulemaking to establish a standard to assess joint-employer status. This rulemaking has been initiated by the NLRB and is currently on the Long-term Actions list. Although agencies usually include items on the Long-term Actions list that they do not plan to act on within the next year, the press release issued by the NLRB in conjunction with the Spring 2018 Agenda indicates an intent to move on this rulemaking promptly. In the press release, Chairman John F. Ring states, “In my view, notice-and-comment rulemaking offers the best vehicle to fully consider all views on what the [joint-employer] standard ought to be. I am committed to working with my colleagues to issue a proposed rule as soon as possible…” (emphasis added). The press release also reveals that certain members of the NLRB – Chairman Ring and Members Emanuel and Kaplan – have already begun the internal process required to consider rulemaking on the standard. Continue reading
By: Aaron Gelb
Last fall, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin) handed down two decisions restricting the amount of leave employers must offer as an accommodation. (Severson v. Heartland Woodcraft, Inc. and Golden v. IHA). Management-side employment lawyers celebrated. Employers breathed a sigh of relief. The Seventh Circuit had finally given employers some much-needed certainty; a bright line, if you will. Relying on these decisions, employers in the Seventh Circuit saw little risk rejecting requests for leave extending beyond 4 weeks. Many employers, though, adopted a wait-and-see approach. The US Supreme Court might take up the issue and reverse the Seventh Circuit. To the surprise of many, the Supreme Court declined in April 2018 to weigh in on the issue. Severson (and Golden) thus remain the law of the land—in the Seventh Circuit. While these decisions are significant, employers must remain diligent when dealing with employees temporarily unable to do their jobs.
Leave as a Reasonable Accommodation
The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has long held that an employer must offer leave as a reasonable accommodation. Typically, the EEOC recommends that employers first explore whether a modification of the workplace, duties or policies will enable the employee to continue doing their job. If no such accommodation is available, the EEOC expects employers to offer a leave of absence for a definite amount of time so the employee can return to her position at the end of the leave. When neither option is feasible, the EEOC maintains the employer should reassign the disabled employee to a vacant position for which she is qualified. Continue reading