On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, No. 18-525 (2019) – holding that the filing of an EEOC Charge is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule. What this means is Title VII’s charge-filing precondition – i.e. requiring employees to go through the EEOC’s administrative complaint process before filing a discrimination lawsuit – does not necessarily affect the adjudicatory authority of the courts to hear Title VII claims that were not properly raised before the EEOC. Ultimately, the onus is on employers to identify and raise potential issues regarding improper claims.
In 2010, the plaintiff – an employee of Fort Bend County, Texas – claimed that she was the victim of sexual harassment Continue reading
As we paused on Memorial Day to remember those who gave their lives in active military service, employers should not forget that employees who are currently serving in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard (collectively, the “uniformed services”) are afforded a broad range of rights and protections by the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”). USERRA is a federal law that protects civilian job rights and benefits for veterans and members of the Guard and Reserves. USERRA, like the Family and Medical Leave Act, includes both substantive job restoration rights—at the conclusion of one’s service—as well as non-discrimination and non-retaliation provisions. The job restoration rights provided by USERRA, however, impose heightened obligations on employers in an effort to ensure the returning service member is not disadvantaged when reentering the workforce because of his or her service. Many employers also do not realize that returning service members—those that return to the same employer from which they took leave to serve—may only be terminated for just cause for certain periods of time depending on the length of their service.
No discrimination or retaliation. Let’s start with the easy part. As you might expect, employers must not deny initial employment, reemployment, retention in employment, promotion or any benefit of employment to an individual on the basis of his or her military service. Additionally, an employer cannot retaliate against an individual by taking any adverse employment action against him or her because the individual has acted to enforce protections under USERRA, testified or otherwise Continue reading
On March 22, 2019, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) released its proposed rule to raise the annual salary threshold for a worker to qualify as exempt under its “white collar” regulations from $23,660.00 to $35,308.00. The public comment period closed yesterday, May 21, 2019, with almost 60,000 comments from the business and worker communities.
History of the Proposed Rule
The road to a final rule over the salary threshold has been long and bumpy for the DOL. In 2014, President Obama directed the DOL to “update and modernize” the existing Fair Labor Standards Act’s (“FLSA”) white collar exemptions. Two years later, the DOL released its final rule revising the regulations by doubling the salary threshold to $47,476.00.
The final rule dramatically increased the number of workers who would qualify for overtime pay, forcing every employer in the country to carefully assess how to handle the additional financial burden. Continue reading
In employment discrimination cases, employees often seek to prove their claims by presenting indirect evidence of discrimination. Employees will seek to present evidence that they were treated differently than similarly situated employees outside of their protected class. On March 21, 2019, the Eleventh Circuit adopted a new test for analyzing these “comparators” by issuing its decision in Lewis v. City of Union City, Ga.. In doing so, the Court rejected its previous standards for analyzing comparators. Before Lewis, courts in the Eleventh Circuit evaluated “similarly situated” comparators under either the “nearly identical” or “same or similar” standard, and sometimes even used both standards simultaneously. The fact that two standards had emerged, and at times, were even used together, without any clear guidance on their proper use, caused the Court to call the entire situation “a mess.” Accordingly, in an effort to clean up and clarify the proper standard for comparator evidence, a full panel of the Court took on Lewis so that it could address whether “similarly situated” should be interpreted as “same or similar,” “nearly identical,” or something else. Ultimately, the Court decided to depart from its previous standards, and went with something else. Now, in order to prove intentional discrimination by indirect evidence, a plaintiff must show that employees “similarly situated in all material aspects” received preferential treatment. The Court also reiterated that this burden remains with the plaintiff as part of plaintiff’s prima facie case. So, what was the case about, and what does it mean for employers?
After the announcement of a new policy requiring all police officers to carry Tasers and receive a five-second shock, Jacqueline Lewis, an African-American detective with the Union City Police Department in Union City, Georgia, was scheduled to receive such training. She had also been scheduled to receive pepper spray training. But, before receiving either of these, Ms. Lewis submitted a doctor’s note Continue reading
In December 2014, Congress passed and President Obama signed the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (“MPRA”). The objective of the MPRA was to shore up struggling multiemployer pension plans, many of which are severely underfunded and getting worse. Among other things, the MPRA provided employers an incentive to continue participation in “endangered” or “critical” status plans by mandating that any increases to the employer’s contribution rate after 2014 will not count against the employer for purposes of determining withdrawal liability.
Because the funded status of many of these plans is so low, this provision can mean significant savings for employers who withdraw from plans in critical or endangered status. The rehabilitation plans of typical critical status multiemployer plans have called for contribution rate increases anywhere from 4-8% or more annually so, in the five years since 2014, many employers have seen cumulative rate increases of from 20-25%, or more. But because Continue reading
Conn Maciel Carey LLP is excited to share that five of its attorneys based in Washington, DC have been recognized by Super Lawyers in 2019 in the fields of Labor & Employment and Workplace Safety Law. Super Lawyers is a research-driven and peer-influenced rating service featuring exceptional attorneys out of select legal practice areas. The attorneys selected are acknowledged for acquiring extraordinary professional achievement and peer recognition in their discrete areas of practice.
Eric J. Conn (Super Lawyer) is a founding partner of Conn Maciel Carey and Chair of the firm’s national OSHA • Workplace Safety Practice Group. His practice focuses exclusively on issues involving occupational safety and health law. Before launching his own OSHA Practice, Mr. Conn practiced for more than a decade alongside the former first General Counsel of the OSH Review Commission. Mr. Conn and his OSHA Team at Conn Maciel Carey develop safety and health regulatory strategies for employers across all industries.
Prior to founding Conn Maciel Carey, Mr. Conn was Head of an OSHA practice group that was honored as the “Occupational Health & Safety Law Firm of the Year” by Corporate INTL Magazine in its 2014 Global Awards. In 2013 and 2014, he was named a “Rising Star” by Washington, DC Super Lawyers, and as a Super Lawyer every year since. He has also been selected for inclusion in the Washington Post’s Top-Rated Lawyers list in Washington, DC.
Kara M. Maciel (Super Lawyer) is a founding partner of Conn Maciel Carey and Chair of the firm’s national Labor • Employment Practice Group. She focuses her practice on representing employers in all aspects of the employment relationship. Continue reading
On Monday, April 22, 2019, the United States Supreme Court granted petitions for certiorari for three cases that center on the question of whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) protects LGBT rights. Two of the cases, Altitude Express v. Zarda and Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, concern whether, under Title VII, sex discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of an employee’s sexual orientation. The third case, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOC, poses the question of whether the Title VII prohibition against sex discrimination prohibits gender identity discrimination. Due to the similarity of the issues, the Supreme Court has consolidated the Altitude Express and Bostock matters for briefing and oral argument. The Supreme Court’s ultimate decision in each of these three matters is significant because it will settle current Circuit splits, as well as disagreement among Agencies in the Federal government, on the scope of Title VII.
As discussed in a prior blog post, in Altitude Express, the Second Circuit joined the Seventh Circuit in finding that Title VII does protect employees from being discriminated against based on sexual orientation. Specifically, the Second Circuit held that the text of Title VII necessarily includes sexual orientation as “…the most natural reading of [Title VII]’s prohibition on discrimination ‘because of…sex’ is that it extends to sexual orientation discrimination because sex is necessarily a factor in sexual orientation.” The Seventh Circuit in Hively v. Tech Community College, similarly determined that a reading of Title VII in the current cultural and legal context includes sexual orientation in the scope of Title VII. Continue reading