Tag Archives: employment

New York’s Paid Family Leave Law Provides Paid Leave to Families

Date
Posted by

On July 20, 2017, the New York Workers Compensation Board adopted the final regulation for implementation of the New York Paid Family Leave Law (NYPFLL). This is significant because the federal counterpart, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), does not obligate an employer to provide paid leave. In order to qualify to take paid leave in New York, an employee must be employed by a covered employer at the time they apply for the PFL. Additionally, if the employee works at least 20 or more hours per week, they become eligible after 26 weeks of employment. Alternatively, if an employee works less than 20 hours per week, they become eligible after 175 days worked.

An employee will be permitted to use paid leave if they are a new parent; have a serious health condition; or is called to active military duty. A serious health condition includes illness, injury, impairment, or mental condition.

An employee can apply for paid leave and once effective, the length of the maximum available leave varies based on the year. Each January 1 from now until 2021, the percentage of payment required to be paid to an employee for paid family leave will increase based on what the employee receives weekly. This January the PFL requires an employee to be given 8 weeks of paid leave at 50% of the employee’s weekly wage or the state average weekly wage, whichever is less. By 2021, the paid leave rate will increase to 12 weeks paid at 67% of the employee’s weekly wage or the state average weekly wage, whichever is less.

For more information on how on how an employee can claim Paid Family Leave and how an employer can prepare for the new regulation, call Gilbert Law Group at 631-630-0100.

Submitted by: Alexander Gilbert

DOL Abrogates Obama Administration’s Efforts to Decrease Misclassification of Independent Contractors and ‘Joint Employment’ Standards:

Date
Posted by

Earlier this month, the U.S. DOL (Department Of Labor) announced that it was revoking the standards set for by the Obama Administration for when a company is considered to be a “joint employer” of contract and franchise workers. The prior administration’s regulations were designed to protect against employers’ misclassification of employees as independent contractors.

 The particular guidance letters that were removed included the 2015 “administrator’s interpretation” regarding the classification of independent contractors and 2016 “administrator’s interpretation” relating to joint employment. The 2015 “administrator’s interpretation” regarding the classification of independent contractors stated that “ most workers are employees” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The 2016 joint employment “administrators interpretation” presented guidance on joint employment under the FLSA and included a distinction between “horizontal” and “vertical” joint employment. The two letters, which were implemented by the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) administrator, were met with much controversy as the purpose of the letters was to decrease the number of instances in which a worker was misclassified and increase the number of situations in which a business may be considered a joint employer of a worker.

The 2015 “administrator’s interpretation,” titled “Administrator Interpretation 2015-1” construed the definition of an “independent contractor” in a more narrow context than previously used. This particular letter provided that the DOL would shift its focus from whether the business “controls” the operations of the individual’s work to the “economic realities” of the individual’s job situation and whether the individual is financially dependent on the employer. This shift in focus was a substantial change from the “controls test” which resulted in more workers falling under the “employee” classification than “independent contractor” classification. The significance of this result, i.e., of more workers being classified as employees, was that these workers became eligible for overtime compensation and other benefits that come with being considered an employee rather than an independent contractor.

 The 2016 “administrative interpretation,” titled “Administrative Interpretation 2016-1” issued guidelines on how the WHD would deal with the question of which employer has obligations owed to the specific worker. With the implementation of this particular letter, the WHD was to evaluate working relationships through a “vertical” analysis of the employment relationship. Vertical joint employment is when a worker has an employment relationship with one worker such as a subcontractor, labor provider, staffing agency or other employer and the “economic realities” show that the person is financially dependent on another employer who is involved in the work. This form of vertical joint employment analysis lead to a substantial increase in the chances of an employer being liable to workers that they secured through a third party. This analysis was designed to decrease employee misclassification as an independent contractor, particularly where there is joint employer relationship.

On June 7, 2017, the U.S. Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta announced that these “administrator interpretation” letters regarding independent contractors and joint employment would be nullified. Acosta also stated in his announcement that “removal of administrative interpretations does not change the legal responsibilities of employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, as reflected in the department’s long-standing regulations and case law.”

 The removal of these liability expanding guidance letters were met with high praise across the labor community including the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). Chair of the NAHB and Texas-based builder Granger McDonald expressed his satisfaction with the removal stating “given that independent contractors and subtractors are critical to housing, we were very concerned about recent efforts attempting to limit their participation in the home building process. Withdrawing these documents will provide more certainty and clarity for home building firms and other small businesses who work closely with subcontractors and independent contractors.”

 The rollback of these guidance pieces should be encouraging to employers directly involved in work with independent contractors, leasing agencies, temp workers, and other potentially joint employment relationships. Additionally, the fact that Secretary Acosta wasted little time reversing these guidance pieces indicates that the reversal of other Obama-era enforcement strategies may be on the horizon. On the other hand, transient workers such as employees who gain employment by virtue of employment will see their protection from being misclassified as an independent contractor be vitiated by this change.

 Although the nonprofit worker advocacy group expressed its disappointment with the removal of these guidance letters, the removal has not done anything to alter the legal landscape regarding joint employment and independent contractor conflicts. In New York, the US Court of Appeals for the second circuit has ruled that joint employment should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on the totality of the circumstances. The Second Circuit has adopted two different tests for determining joint employer status, which depends on whether the court is looking at the employer’s formal or functional control over the employee.

 When determining the issue of whether the secondary employer exercises sufficient functional control over the relevant employees to be considered a joint employer, the Second Circuit applies a six part test which looks at: whether the employee at issue used the secondary employer’s premises and equipment, whether the primary employer had a business that may or did shift as a unit from one secondary employer to another, the extent to which the employees performed a job that was integral to the secondary employer’s production process, whether one subcontractor may pass responsibility under the contracts to another subcontractor without material changes, the degree to which the secondary employer or its agents supervised the employee’s work, and whether the employees worked exclusively or predominantly for the secondary employer. There are also other factors that may be considered when addressing this issue of functional control as long as those factors are pertinent to the court’s assessment of economic realities. The issue of joint employment is a mixed question of both law and fact that is properly decided by a jury.

 Another approach that may be used by courts in the Second Circuit is focusing the analysis on whether the secondary employer exercised sufficient formal control over the employees at issue. When using this type of analysis, courts in the Second Circuit apply a four-factor test that focuses on whether the secondary employer had the power to hire and fire the employees, supervise and control employee work schedules or conditions of employment, determine the rate and method of employment, and maintain employment records.

 Despite the removal of these particular guidance letters, these second circuit tests regarding joint employment issues that govern the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law remain in tact and unaffected by the recent removal of these guidance letters.

Contributed by Richard (R.J.) Cherpak

If you have questions regarding misclassification and/or New York Labor Law, call Gilbert Law Group today at (631) 630-0100.

Federal Court Affirms NLRB’s Change In Calculation For Job Search Expenses In Wrongful Termination Cases

Date
Posted by

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia Circuit just recently upheld the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) decision for a change in its method of calculation for how unlawfully discharged employees should be compensated by their former employers. The NLRB will now allow employees who were wrongfully discharged to seek out compensation for the costs they incurred while searching for a new job. This change can have a significant impact on wrongful termination cases.

The decision leading to this change involved grocery store chain King Soopers, a division of Kroger Co. The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the Service Employees International Union, and an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers local in Kansas all filed amicus briefs in favor of the proposed changes. The majority opinion was written by NLRB chairman Mark Gaston Peirce, NLRB member Kent Y. Hirozawa and NLRB member Lauren McFerran.

Previously, the NLRB had not awarded these job search costs to employees who claimed that they were unlawfully terminated as these expenses were only used to offset the interim earnings which limited the back pay to which an employee would be entitled to. As a result of this previously used policy, the compensation that a worker could be awarded was limited.

To illustrate the method historically used by the NLRB, say the plaintiff bringing suit has incurred $250 in expenses searching for a new job and has also lost $5,000 in gross earnings from his employer while failing to secure another job in the interim meaning that he has $0 in interim earnings. Under the traditional approach, the Board would award the plaintiff $5,000 in back pay which in reality would only result in the plaintiff recovering $4,750 once you subtract the $250 the plaintiff spent job searching. In this situation using the traditional approach, the plaintiff would not receive the $250 incurred in job search expenses because traditionally this amount was only awarded as an offset against interim earnings. Therefore, under the traditional approach, the only circumstance under which one could recover the expenses they incurred in job searching was if they were able to secure interim employment. Now, under this change in direction by the NLRB, the plaintiff will be able to be compensated for their job search expenses even if they are unable to secure interim employment.

Despite a strong showing of support for this change, NLRB member Phillip A. Miscimarra, who concurred in part and dissented in part, made some intriguing points in support of the traditional approach in his dissent. He felt that the traditional method of calculation was an effective method in most cases stating it “makes claimants whole in most cases, and the change adopted by my colleagues will result in greater than make-whole relief in other cases.” He continued to explain his worries regarding the change in approach stating “I do not discount the fact that parties and claimants experience substantial, often oppressive non-monetary consequences as the result of unfair labor practices, nonetheless, the [National Labor Relations Act] only permits the Board to award the relief that is remedial” not relief that compensates the plaintiff for everything they have lost. Additionally, he explained that the change in approach would open the door for “protracted board litigation” over job search expenses and that this newly adopted approach does not correlate with the method of calculation used by other statutes when calculating back pay.

Due to the impact of this decision, workers who are discharged and later ordered to be compensated with back pay will likely be awarded with greater amounts of money. However, it is still up in the air as to how much of an impact this change by the NLRB will truly have as David Rosenfeld, of Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld who also filed an amicus brief stated that job search expenses is a scarcely addressed topic in unfair labor practice cases. In an interview with Bloomberg BNA, Rosenfeld explained “people do find jobs, often they do find jobs that are the equivalent of what they lost, so there isn’t a lot of back pay.” In the majority opinion, the board wrote “Board proceedings have rarely involved litigation over search-for-work and interim employment expenses.”

If you have questions regarding a labor or employment issues, call Gilbert Law Group today at (631) 630-0100.

Contributed by: Richard (R.J.) Cherpak

Can an employer enforce a restrictive covenant, non-compete agreement or confidentiality provision against an employee who has been laid off?

Date
Posted by

Can an employer enforce a restrictive covenant when the employee was terminated involuntary and without cause? Restrictive covenants are frequently utilized by employers to prevent an employee no longer with the company from negatively impacting the company. Restrictive covenants come in various forms some examples of which include, but are not limited to, covenants not to compete or non-compete agreements, confidentiality provisions, and non-solicitation agreements.

Both New York statutory and case law remain unclear on this issue. In Post v. Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith which was decided in 1979, the Court of Appeals held that it would be unreasonable to enforce a restrictive agreement if the employee’s termination was involuntary. Therefore, the forfeiture of the accumulated pension benefits due to the employee’s breach of a non-compete agreement was not enforceable. Several courts have cited Post when denying the enforcement of restrictive covenants where an employee’s termination was involuntary.

Generally, New York Law is not very supportive of restrictive covenants. The rational is that it restricts an employee’s right to earn a living which is a person’s fundamental right. The fact is, however, that these types of agreements will be endured and are therefore enforceable, provided certain conditions are met. To determine whether a restrictive covenant is valid and enforceable, New York and the majority of jurisdictions use the reasonableness standard. The Court of Appeals used several factors to determine the circumstances under which a restrictive covenant is reasonable and therefore lawful. The Court considered, among other relevant factors, the legitimate interest of the employer versus whether there is an undue hardship on the employee.

            An exception to the reasonableness standard is the employee choice doctrine. The employee choice doctrine is based on the concept that where the employee’s termination is voluntary, he or she exercised discretion to accept the terms associated with his or her decision to separate from employment. Therefore, it is the employee’s choice to comply with the covenant and to receive the benefits or to violate the covenant and accordingly forfeit the benefits. In this context, the court must determine if the employee’s forfeiture of benefits is reasonable if there was an involuntary termination without cause. Furthermore, the New York Court of Appeals held that the employee choice doctrine is inapplicable where an employer deliberately creates an intolerable work environment that would effectively force a reasonable person to quit.

If you have further questions regarding covenants not to compete, confidentiality, or other restrictive covenants, call Gilbert Law Group at 631.630.0100.

 Contributed by Sakine Oezcan

Employers Be On Alert: Employment Retaliation Claims Are At an All-Time High

Date
Posted by

Employers be on alert: employment retaliation claims are at an all-time high.

The number of discrimination charges filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in the past year reached the lowest level since 2007, based on published statistics from the EEOC. Retaliation charges, on the other hand, are at their highest percentage ever of claims filed ever.

The EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan for fiscal years 2013-2016 lists retaliation issues as one of six areas of priority for the agency. The EEOC describes this priority as “targeting policies and practices which discourage or prohibit individuals from exercising their rights under the employment discrimination statutes or that impede EEOC’s enforcement efforts.”

The 2014 statistics, and the priority placed on EEOC retaliation enforcement, are a significant reminder that employers should take the necessary steps to minimize the chance of a retaliation claim even when the underlying discrimination claim is not meritorious. Employers should make sure to consult a knowledgeable employment attorney to ensure their employment policies are up to date. Where there is an active discrimination claim against an employer, there are many acts which if taken, could constitute retaliation. In such circumstances, is important that the that an employer seek counsel before taking action.