Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

On December 8, 2011 the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (the “OFCCP”) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register that would revise the regulations implementing Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, including setting hiring goals for individuals with disabilities.

The U.S. Department of Justice has moved to intervene to defend the constitutionality of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“Act”) against a consumer reporting agency accused of violating § 605 of the Act.

On November 23, 2010, Shamara T. King filed suit against General Information Services, Inc. (“GIS”) in Pennsylvania federal court claiming violations of the Act.  (See, King v. General Information Services., No. 2:10-CV-06850 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 23, 2010).  Specifically, King claims that when she applied for a job with the United States Postal Service, GIS performed a background check that included details about a car theft arrest that occurred more than seven years prior to the requested background check.  According to § 605(a)(5) of the Act, consumer reporting agencies cannot provide adverse information, except for criminal convictions, “which antedates the report by more than seven years.”

Federal contractors have numerous non-discrimination and affirmative action obligations under Executive Order 11246, the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act ("VEVRAA") and the Rehabilitation Act, including the preparation of annual written affirmative action plans. These obligations are enforced by the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs ("OFCCP"), which is currently headed by Patricia A. Shiu.  Since Shiu was appointed director in August of 2009, the OFCCP has been extremely active, increasing contractors' affirmative ...

The EEOC recently voted to move forward on new regulations that will likely make it easier for older workers to bring disparate impact claims, and harder for employers to defend against such claims.  The EEOC is taking the position that employers have to prove their choices are reasonable when adopting policies that might adversely affect older workers, and the rules provide several guidelines for consideration.  In light of the new regulations, employers should revisit the factors used in making hiring, promotion, and termination decisions and take steps to minimize the use of subjective criteria and procedures.  Employers should also consider the likelihood that litigation costs may increase as more cases may survive summary judgment, and consult with legal counsel to determine whether additional precautions must be put into place to proactively address potential disparate impact issues.

This afternoon, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") passed a resolution to amend several of its regulations that govern pre-election litigation procedures that will invariably pave the way for quicker elections in representation cases.  The resolution, which was proposed by Board Chairman Mark Pearce, authorizes the Board to issue a final rule that would make a number of procedural changes to its pre-election procedure, including the following:

Employers need to prepare themselves for the very real possibility of immediate and significant changes in the union election process which could result in shortening the time in which elections will be conducted.  In August, we wrote about the numerous changes to the procedures governing union elections proposed by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) as part of its rulemaking process.  These proposed changes, which most prominently include reducing the amount of pre-election litigation and shortening the time between the filing of a petition and the election, with elections being held as early as 10 days after a petition is filed, are significant.  If adopted, these changes would both alter the landscape of secret ballot elections and place employers at a severe disadvantage by giving them much less time to respond to organizing campaigns.

Imagine the following scenario…  Twenty years ago, your Company was the employer at issue in a key Supreme Court of Virginia non-compete agreement case.  Your Company prevailed, with the Supreme Court holding that the Company’s standard non-compete agreement is enforceable under Virginia law.  Relying on that victory, your Company continues using identical non-compete language and believes that it is on firm footing in doing so; after all, the Supreme Court of Virginia - the final arbiter of the meaning of Virginia law - has ruled that your non-compete is enforceable.

CONTINUE ...

Thirty-four percent of adults in the United States presently qualify as obese under standards adopted by the Center for Disease Control.  Morbid obesity (defined as having a body weight more than 100% over the norm) and obesity caused by a psychological disorder are "disabilities" as defined by the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), according to the EEOC.  Lawsuits involving morbid obesity are on the rise and come in many shapes and sizes.  The most common involves a “substantially limiting” health condition such as diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension.  Others involve employers who assume an obese employee would pose a direct threat to the health and safety of him or herself or other employees if he or she were to carry out the essential functions of the job.

A little known law that permits the disabled to be paid sub-minimum wage is currently under attack. To foster employment opportunities for disabled workers in the mainstream workforce, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)  has contained, since its passage, a relatively unknown provision under Section 14(e) that allows employers to pay disabled workers sub-minimum wages as long as the wages are commensurate with the disabled worker’s productivity. The prerequisites to paying sub-minimum wage to the disabled are stringent and include:

• Preparing a job description for the employee that identifies duties and responsibilities, skills required, and specifies the days and hours of work;
• Identifying the prevailing wage for the position compiled internally or, if necessary, from similar businesses in the area;
• Determining the productivity level of the disabled employee compared to non-disabled workers (e.g., through time/motion studies); and
• Submitting the information on an application to the Secretary of Labor for a special wage permit allowing for the payment of sub-minimum wages.

On October 9, 2011, California Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 459, legislation that creates new and significant civil penalties for employers that misclassify employees as independent contractors. The newly enacted Section 226.8 of the California Labor Code authorizes civil penalties under two circumstances: (1) “Willful misclassification of an individual as an independent contractor;” and (2) “Charging an individual who has been willfully misclassified as an independent contractor a fee, or making any deductions from compensation, for any purpose . . . .” In either case, the “person or employer” responsible for the violation “shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) and not more than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for each violation, in addition to any other penalties or fines permitted by law.” Moreover, if there is a determination that a person or employer has engaged in “a pattern or practice” of violations, “the person or employer shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and not more than twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for each violation.”